Draygo.9473

not exactly true (same amount part). When you kill a player there is a chance for you to get an item drop that gives you WXP, this item drop can be from 250 bonus WXP to 2,500 bonus WXP. They used to not be auto consumed like they are now. This bonus wxp is not changed by any wxp buff (celebration etc). As long as you have the loot credit threshhold you will have a chance to get this bonus wxp. What I dont know is if the loot credit threshhold and the exp threshholds are the same. I think they are but I'm not 100% sure.

SIO is a 60 second cooldown in WvW, really needs to have its cooldown looked at. Its just currently not viable in that mode.

Yes, but you already invested it. And you got your reward. You are due nothing. Your basically a 0.1%er whining about pennies. Let me put it in a way you might understand. When I crafted my legendary it cost about 500g more than it does now. Should Anet compensate me because material prices and precursor costs deflated? When they added an alternate way to get a precursor and the precursor cost dropped I suppose under your logic i'm due compensation? Or no, I'm not due any compensation. I knew what I was getting into at the time and that there is always an inherit risk that the value or cost of something may change over time. If anet removes something from me than I think i have a just cause to ask for compensation for it. But in this case nothing was actually removed, its a buff to quality of life even if it is slightly more expensive, but for those that already paid the extra grind... no you are not due anything.

Tough! You got it for cheaper in the past, and going forward it only takes 2.5k. There is no way your entitled to any compensation here. Nor would I expect Anet to give you anything.

I guess it depends if you value your sanity (salvaging 7,500 RN) over 12-25ish gold.

Then you poorly converted items. RN cost as little as 10 copper, but realistically the first stackable item you can salvage gives you 1 RN per 64 copper, which puts RN cost for 7,500 RN at around 48 gold.

Only if you pay 75 gold.

Whining about this on the forums is inept. I can see a handful of reasons why a commander may prefer to focus a tower champ. 1) Tower champ is < 10% hp 2) Commander is worried about enemy reinforcements and wants to cap asap. 3) The enemies are so few in number they are not a threat to the group and the group should focus on the wincon. I have on several occasions stalled a cap long enough by getting part of the enemy group to chase me instead of focusing on the objective. Due to how the cap event scales the lord several people peeling off of the lord will increase the TTK by a lot. I'm not saying this particular situation warrants the 3 points above, but the commander isn't going to learn where the breakpoints are if you cause the lord to scale when the commander is calling for a quick kill. What the commander sees is some idiot not following the call, and then believes the call is indeed good if only people would follow it.

You don't need to be in a squad to follow the commander tag around. If you remove it you just get individual parties instead of subgroups in the squad, so it changes little. I think the only change this would force would boons/heals would go to pugs more often if you fail to maintain a perfect stack. Oh and the commander wont get a supply count. I suppose this nerfs hidden tags a little but we used to just put the target mark over the allied commander anyway when you wanted to run hidden before hiding tag was an option.

I was thinking more like 6 or 7 at most to start. 6 is a 20% increase max in zergball situations. 10 is probably too much.

I don't care about 1v5, or 5v15, or 20v50. I care about 1v1, 5v5, 20v20, and 50v50. Anet has a balancing issue in the game that the bigger the blob, the more advantaged ranged is in a fight. Just nerfing ranged skills or buffing melee ones drastically changes smaller scale balance and skews smaller scale toward melee centric. My concern is that anet is going to keep 'balancing' ranged till they see more melee builds in the mix in the larger scale fights. My general opinion is that melee combat in zerg situations should be a high risk and high reward play. Looking at the cleave cap gives anet a balancing lever that does not require them to buff melee dps or nerf ranged dps further until the meta is where they want it. Yes its been hashed around a lot before, but that doesn't mean we cant keep pushing it. I don't think anet has to fix 5v15 balance. If someone manages to beat 15 people with 5, good on them. The suggestion is not aimed at buffing unorganized play, but quite the opposite. I want there to be a larger reward for a successful organized melee push into a ranged comp. I think combat in wvw would be a bit more fun if zergs entered melee combat against each other more regularly and I think thats the direction anet wants to push wvw into, but how they are accomplishing this I feel will detract from ranged gameplay more generally.

I don't think Anet is going to be able to balance melee vs ranged without touching the only balance lever that will matter, and that is the cleave cap for melee vs ranged. The problem with just nerfing ranged skills like they are doing is they are affecting small group/roaming play negatively. Cleave cap is the only lever that if it gets adjusted does not affect 1v1 or small group balance. I worry that anet is going to nerf ranged too hard to make melee viable when its probably better for them to look at additional tuning lever.

You can pip down in Obsidian Sanctum. Just FYI.

Overall a positive, my light criticisms for now are the following:Build template pricing is a bit out of line, same for build storage. I am going to be using notepad going forward to save uncommon builds and just use the tabs for common builds. I'm sure someone will make a handy website for us to make all sorts of codes to paste into the game and then everyone will have unlimited storage anyway. If the price drops significantly around 100 gems for 3 slots or 20 gems a character bound slot then I will purchase some. Pricing is way out of line on this one. Equipment templates are quite handy but do have some downsides that I believe could be improved. Many have been pointed out already.Modifications to the template should not save unless we tell it to. The price is almost right for me as I expected this feature to be around 400 gems. I would prefer it to be a little bit cheaper but its not too out of line.

Personal bank guilds, guilds made by people in same country/region to stay in touch while playing in their main guild etc. You're missing the point. The question isn't "when would it be a moot point to set the wvw flag" (e.g., personal bank guild), but when would it have costs or negative repercussions to set the flag to wvw. So far I haven't seen any dev supply any such reason.I think you have a misunderstanding, its the players that choose which guild is their 'wvw' guild. You can be a member of 5 different guilds that do wvw, but you can only have one flagged as your wvw guild which will determine your matchup. So I don't quite get your question here. The only thing that matters on the guild entity level is what alliance they are a part of, and that members that have flagged that guild as their 'wvw' guild go with that alliance from matchup to matchup. Each individual player will have to make their own choice as to what guild they flag to. So I really don't get why there should be any cost or repercussion.

3 posts on the subject from Gaile of the I've gathered feedback and submitted a report, there were meetings and keep giving feedback variety.

There have been two replys so far from Gaile Gray. These things do take time for most companies, I do expect to see something by EOD Fri.