Heibi.4251
-
Posts
673 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Blogs
Events
Articles
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by Heibi.4251
-
-
@MUDse.7623 said:while i dont see a single deadeye an issue in a keep, a group of 3 is. but that is mainly because what the defenders have to do to avoid ressurecting is too much. currently when your full dead every time you get rezzed 1 tick the timer resets to 5 min (it wont show on the actual timer but it does reset, timer stops at 0 and no port then). so the defenders have to make sure no other can come to the target out of combat for 5 minutes. they need to spread AoEs wide and even then the deadeye might shadowstep during an evade on the corpse to rez and only needs 1 tick for another 5 minutes. in such a situation the ressing deadeye is usually not fighting so can adjust his build completely for that. i usually take both defensive lines then SA + Acro and a shadow trap(+nomad gear with mercy runes). place that trap far away, start rezzing when the zerg hits me at 50% my instant reflexes trigger to cover my 'destroy shadow trap' teleport into out of combat thats pretty safe and if i have 5 mins after each tick, then you need ALOT to prevent me rezzing.for all i care full downed could be ported to spawn right away but so you can rez people after fall damage maybe reduce the timer to 1 minute and instead of it resetting each tick make it so it pause during rez, this should remove the rezzing of each other so you can gank one after the other.another option if you want to keep it 5 min: no timer reset and being able to damage the full downed back to 0%.
Love the idea of no rezz reset of the down timer. And the idea of instant spawn port after dying is probably a good idea too.
-
@Loosmaster.8263 said:
@Gondolph.7201 said:my suggestion on this.Thieves should loose %s of hiding time inside wvw buildings over time. After , say, 20 minutes their hiding time should continuously decrease. Just to give them some balance.In reality there is a Revealed timer after a cap. This should apply to all classes where youcannotstealth while you have the debuff. But hey, we're talking WvW here.I've already brought this subject of the Stealth Trap up on the forums. I don't think they should be revealed during the time after the cap. They should just be subject to the Stealth Trap reveal normally after it is tripped. Plus I've talked to a Dev about it. We'll see what happens in the future.
-
@Dawdler.8521 said:
@Heibi.4251 said:@Dawdler.8521 said:@Heibi.4251 said:On the update: Alliance size - We are currently leaning toward alliance size being 500. This is technically easier, as we already support groups of this size (guilds), and it gives us more flexibility to make the worlds even.I find that too limiting. So many people will be left out. I believe if they are able to work with guild sized numbers they can work with 2 guild sized groups as the alliance size. Think about it. A guild can be up to 500, therefore an alliance has to be bigger or it isn't really an "Alliance", it's simply a guild of 500. Thus combing say 2 guilds of 500 would be an alliance. I know smaller guilds can combine to form an alliance, but WvW is on a grander scale and should reflect such.Also, the smaller size SEVERELY limits recruiting by guilds looking for WvW talent. It will create the atmosphere of kicking people just because a guild found someone slightly better. I'm sure those types of guilds exist already, but the practice will grow. You will create even more drama, ANeT, than already exists.How many WvW guilds with 500 people do you know? And how many of them are raiding guilds that would create an alliance because the guilds want to be together?500 people is atonof people and there is currently only one type of guild that could reach those numbers - and that type of guild is quite literally what an alliance is.Let's say we wish to have 10 guilds for an alliance. We give each guild 50 slots for players to fill and hopefully give them room to recruit or add members who return at a later date. We hit our cap immediately. If one guild thinks they don't need 50 slots and gives some back, but then suddenly discovers that they need them back it is now too late since the other guilds may have used up the slots. There won't be 500 players all on at once, and not every day/night either. Of those 500 players their times will be spread out over the week.By limiting that number to such a low number friends who show up in the a guild who have not yet been added to the slots allowed are now left out. This will split not only servers up, but guilds as well. This is a game killer overall. The server allowed all members of a guild to most likely be on the same server and be on the same side if they went to WvW. With the system being considered this will no longer be the case. Guilds will be separated by this alliance system.ANeT you really need to do some more thinking on this. I'd like to see this alliance system implemented with as little pain to actual guilds as possible.Which again begs the question... how many 50 man WvW guilds that want to be together do you know? Really?I can barely name 5 "larger" guilds (ie those that can field 15+ active people in a raid) on my entire server and I can guarantee you most of them wouldnt work together in an alliance. That's also linked servers, so we're looking at 2 servers...IMO you're giving a scenario that doesnt exist in practice and one that the alliances actively work toprevent- too much stacking. It's the same thing players have complained about for years and want to reduce, especially raiding guilds so they can "fight" (or at least that's what they say). I could also easily say well if 50 guilds with 100 players each want to play together, they cant under alliances, that's bad and limiting! But the very point of alliances is to make smaller chunks of players. Instead of one massive 2500+ man chunk like the current servers, Anet wants five 500 man chunks. The cap is there for a reason.Also in your specific scenario and if we're assuming active players and raiding guilds, even at a "limiting" 10 guilds with 50 people in each you just created an alliance that would DOMINATE any current T1 matchup on its own. That's how many people 500 really are.You keep forgetting the time zones. There's NA(Pacific to Eastern), EU time zone and SEA. Not all of them play during the same time. An alliance will be built across time zones not as a bulk of players. I gave the example of 50 players per guild as a sample of what might happen to actual guilds once the system is implemented in such a fashion as 500 max per alliance. My concern is that players will most surely be left out because of the low limit of players in an alliance system. Currently we can have way more than 500 spread across multiple time zones. Certain servers are stacked to cover all times(i.e. Black Gate), but others aren't. Those stacked servers have way more than two 500 guild-worth of guilds in them. Which is why they remain in the top tiers. Limiting them to two guild populations of 500 each in an alliance(1000 total) will actually limit the coverage to some degree. There's definitely more than 1000 players on the top tier servers who cover WvW time zones. I'm just trying to salvage some of the Server Comrade-re that already exists. ANeT seems to be overlooking that issue.
-
@Dawdler.8521 said:
@"Heibi.4251" said:On the update: Alliance size - We are currently leaning toward alliance size being 500. This is technically easier, as we already support groups of this size (guilds), and it gives us more flexibility to make the worlds even.I find that too limiting. So many people will be left out. I believe if they are able to work with guild sized numbers they can work with 2 guild sized groups as the alliance size. Think about it. A guild can be up to 500, therefore an alliance has to be bigger or it isn't really an "Alliance", it's simply a guild of 500. Thus combing say 2 guilds of 500 would be an alliance. I know smaller guilds can combine to form an alliance, but WvW is on a grander scale and should reflect such.Also, the smaller size SEVERELY limits recruiting by guilds looking for WvW talent. It will create the atmosphere of kicking people just because a guild found someone slightly better. I'm sure those types of guilds exist already, but the practice will grow. You will create even more drama, ANeT, than already exists.How many WvW guilds with 500 people do you know? And how many of them are raiding guilds that would create an alliance because the guilds want to be together?500 people is atonof people and there is currently only one type of guild that could reach those numbers - and that type of guild is quite literally what an alliance is.Let's say we wish to have 10 guilds for an alliance. We give each guild 50 slots for players to fill and hopefully give them room to recruit or add members who return at a later date. We hit our cap immediately. If one guild thinks they don't need 50 slots and gives some back, but then suddenly discovers that they need them back it is now too late since the other guilds may have used up the slots. There won't be 500 players all on at once, and not every day/night either. Of those 500 players their times will be spread out over the week.
By limiting that number to such a low number friends who show up in the a guild who have not yet been added to the slots allowed are now left out. This will split not only servers up, but guilds as well. This is a game killer overall. The server allowed all members of a guild to most likely be on the same server and be on the same side if they went to WvW. With the system being considered this will no longer be the case. Guilds will be separated by this alliance system.
ANeT you really need to do some more thinking on this. I'd like to see this alliance system implemented with as little pain to actual guilds as possible.
-
On the update: Alliance size - We are currently leaning toward alliance size being 500. This is technically easier, as we already support groups of this size (guilds), and it gives us more flexibility to make the worlds even.
I find that too limiting. So many people will be left out. I believe if they are able to work with guild sized numbers they can work with 2 guild sized groups as the alliance size. Think about it. A guild can be up to 500, therefore an alliance has to be bigger or it isn't really an "Alliance", it's simply a guild of 500. Thus combing say 2 guilds of 500 would be an alliance. I know smaller guilds can combine to form an alliance, but WvW is on a grander scale and should reflect such.
Also, the smaller size SEVERELY limits recruiting by guilds looking for WvW talent. It will create the atmosphere of kicking people just because a guild found someone slightly better. I'm sure those types of guilds exist already, but the practice will grow. You will create even more drama, ANeT, than already exists.
-
I've had my Squad chat be affected by it. I get suppressed Squad Chat for some reason and it won't clear up. Squad chat should never be affected. Heck, I'm the commander. I always understood "Map" chat being hit with message suppression, but never the "closed" chats.
-
@Gq Fresh.1764 said:I had just completed my 2nd time through the achievement when they stopped working. I now have 10 more keys collected, same issue. I'm not inclined to visit every map to see if 1 or 2 work when they're all supposed to. Reported this days ago. Come on, Anet! This is slack that's hard to tolerate!
Just wait until the next patch when they say they've fixed it. Just continue to collect keys.
-
@SlippyCheeze.5483 said:Just to repeat what was said above: ANet support have confirmed the bug is known, and a fix is being worked on.
However, an ANET dev hasn't popped in to say the same thing. I think that's why folks are still posting on it. Until we, as a group, hear it from the actual devs we reserve the right to post about it. And then even after.
-
ANET: Please clarify whether you put in a time gate on sunken chests other than keys. Otherwise there's really no reason to have extra keys drop from mobs.
-
Yep, I have 7/10 done on my third time through the achievement and 3 of the chests won't reset. Mt Malestrom, Iron Marches and Harathi Hinterlands won't reset.
-
@Heibi.4251 said:Got a new modem today. Forgot about the WinAuth App hell that I have to go through. It no longer seems to recognize my password. And of course since I can't get the code from the WinauthApp I can't go in and get rid of it and switch to the simpler version of just sending a code to my cell phone via SMS. Gaile, how long should this take? It seems pretty simple to address. I'm hoping it's not a multiple day event for a new modem issue.
Situation was resolved fairly quick. About 4 hours. Thanks, ANeT.
-
Got a new modem today. Forgot about the WinAuth App hell that I have to go through. It no longer seems to recognize my password. And of course since I can't get the code from the WinauthApp I can't go in and get rid of it and switch to the simpler version of just sending a code to my cell phone via SMS. Gaile, how long should this take? It seems pretty simple to address. I'm hoping it's not a multiple day event for a new modem issue.
-
In discussions with friends and comrades I've come to the conclusion that there is a great chance that this restructuring will tear guilds apart, especially the PVX and smaller ones.Many players are members of multiple guilds. I myself am the leader of a smaller guild but also run with bigger guilds in WvW. There was talk at one point the other day about who should be allowed in the alliance or whether they should just go independent for a while. The problem here is, I lead my guild along with several others into WvW 3 times a week. We combine forces and go wreak havoc. If the larger guild I'm a member of decides to not allow my guild into a possible alliance of existing guilds currently on the server(due to guild limit caps - ANeT this is the worst of the ideas on this plan), I will have to bow out of the larger guild, as will many others. Before you say that I could just get the other players invited to the larger guild there are problems with them being accepted due to skill level, participation limits, and guild size limits. This is where I would draw the line. As leader I won't abandon my guild members just for the glory of being with a good WvW guild. And I know the choice of selecting a single guild to be my WvW guild will of course be my guild. That way my guild members will be able to join me in WvW. But many people in other torn between what WvW experience they are looking for.
In short, bigger guilds offer shinies and bags(they say they have cookies sometimes), and they will begin to devour the smaller guilds. Is this your intent, ANeT? Are you trying to make smaller wvw guilds vanish? Are you trying to create chaos in the guilds? Because it will happen.
-
@Baldrick.8967 said:
@"Heibi.4251" said:Two concerns on the "Guild Cap" in alliances.- A Guild cap will punish smaller guilds that can be beneficial to the alliance overall. Scouting, Havoc and the like. If the cap is set at an arbitrarily low number without regard to actual player numbers then ANeT has basically told the small guilds that they really don't matter and that they should just go join a big guild.
- In relation to #1. Bigger guilds will basically devour the smaller guilds because players from those smaller guilds who want to play in the big league will have to join them to play. Sure, they can rep any guild while in WvW, but there is always the heavy handed 100% guild rep policies we all know exist out there. Not to mention the overall guild cap in general. This is creating a big nasty monster that will drive players away.
Solution:Base the alliance purely on total number of players. No extra algorithms involved. You could have 30 guilds as long as you come in under the player total cap. But still, there is going to be a lot of heartache out there when an alliance caps out, just like now when a world is full and you can't transfer there.Small guilds were already ignored when they brought out guild halls and guild buffs and the huge gold sink that was upgrading a guild hall.Having a low total number of guilds cap in an alliance is just another way of being shafted as a small guild- and i won't be surpised if the number mentioned of 5 is the limit, rather than basing it on active wvw members.Which speaks poorly of the ANeT devs and management. They don't seem to see the harm this will create. Smaller guilds will be affected in a negative way if they choose to use the number of guilds in an alliance rather than using the true measure of strength - actual player numbers.
Speaking of small guilds - we have our level up to 69. But we have a sister guild that helped us achieve such a level. Though we were hoarders and were able to accomplish our guild rank to a certain point. We love you, CH.
-
Two concerns on the "Guild Cap" in alliances.
- A Guild cap will punish smaller guilds that can be beneficial to the alliance overall. Scouting, Havoc and the like. If the cap is set at an arbitrarily low number without regard to actual player numbers then ANeT has basically told the small guilds that they really don't matter and that they should just go join a big guild.
- In relation to #1. Bigger guilds will basically devour the smaller guilds because players from those smaller guilds who want to play in the big league will have to join them to play. Sure, they can rep any guild while in WvW, but there is always the heavy handed 100% guild rep policies we all know exist out there. Not to mention the overall guild cap in general. This is creating a big nasty monster that will drive players away.
Solution:Base the alliance purely on total number of players. No extra algorithms involved. You could have 30 guilds as long as you come in under the player total cap. But still, there is going to be a lot of heartache out there when an alliance caps out, just like now when a world is full and you can't transfer there.
-
Ideas:
- To simplify your calculations on caps. I wouldn't use the "Number of Guilds Allowed" as a benchmark. The number of players should be the ONLY consideration. What little community we have left can be reformed under the alliance, but if you limit the number of guilds we may not achieve this and some guilds will be left out in the cold. Those guilds will be at the mercy of algorithms when going to WvW. On our server we are already thinking of ways to stick together.
- Returning players - instead of punishing them with a possible 8 weeks of hell away from their guild and friends have a prompt when they log back in telling them to set their WvW preferences(WvW Guild, NA/EU, etc). You may lose players and gem purchases if you throw returning players into a situation they have to hold their noses every moment they are playing.
Question:We have guilds that are on our server from the EU. Will they be relegated back to the EU? Since they chose to play on an NA server in the first place I think that NA should be their current default.
Just a few thoughts on a Saturday morning.
-
Quick question that may have been covered:The OP says that a player can select his/her guild as their WvW once their guild says they are a WvW guild. How does this affect the guild? Obviously it means they go to WvW. But what about the PVE environment that many WvW players also do? Is the guild only WvW now?
-
After reading nearly all the thread, up to this point, I'm somewhat ready for this post.I also hope this isn't one of those ANeT "We want your feedback, but it doesn't really matter because we are doing it whether you like it or not."
Note: Not everyone who is against this is from BG. Those folks who post "Just ignore those who don't like this change" are just very vocal and don't truly represent WvW. It is quite apparent that those who are vocal in jabbing at those opposed to this are aware of the real WvW community that exists. I know our server has tons of server pride, and I know other servers do as well. For those who attack another's post because they disagree with you it is your post that needs to be ignored. Pointing out an error is one thing, but pew-pewing someone's concerns and opinion really isn't needed here. It makes it harder for the Devs to find the real meat of the issue.
I'm against this particular change. I'm one of those who never changed servers. I've been on HoD since Beta. So here are some of my reasons to be against it.
- Community is alive and well. We have guilds that transfer to our server because they are looking for a less toxic environment in WvW. Getting rid of server identity will destroy much of what has been built on ours and many other servers.
- We have a thriving teamspeak that the players on our server have invested in. The alliance system will destroy what was built over the years. We are able to include our linked servers due to the hard work of our admins. We have friends in a lot of the guilds that have channels in our TS server. Without a "world" identity this will leave smaller guilds without a place a to go.
- Elitism will reign supreme. Imagine the power the alliance founder will have. He/she will have the power to kick any guild they like on a whim. You will have to conform or you won't be admitted to the alliance. We may have a common goal and cooperate with each other, but we have different ways we do it. Enforced Guild Repping already happens, so imagine the effect this will have on alliances. ANeT will be putting way too much power in the hands of too few. Look at what happens in homeowner's associations.
- I'm a member of a guild that raids in the EU time as guilds that raid in the EU. With the limited number of guilds that an alliance may have I, and my friends, may not be able to raid in the same "WvW instance". I also lead in NA about 3 times a week. I put in about 15-25 hours a week into WvW due to my EU/NA WvW times. I can see the "yea-sayers" posting "Just get them in the same alliance or join their guild". Well, limits on size guilds and guilds in an alliance and number guilds may put a damper on that. And the EU guild may not allow people who rarely raid with them(NA main players) to join their guild. Plus they may be full on guilds and due to the size of their guild(small usually) the alliance doesn't want them. If the guild isn't in the alliance you are s.o.l.
- Concern: Changing guild tags while in WvW - Say I'm repping my WvW guild and go to WvW. I wish to switch my tag to claim something but the tag I'm switching to isn't in the alliance. What happens? Am I kicked from WvW? Do I get transferred to a different instance of WvW? Do I become "red" to the other alliance members? Do I nee to rep the guild at all to enter WvW and be where I'm supposed to be with the alliance?
- If my guild can't be a member of an alliance and my guildies aren't members of guilds in the alliance this would split up my guild. Not only is this proposed system a danger to community it is a danger to guilds. You will have created a true "Guild War" in a guild.
- Community events get destroyed. One of the things our server likes to do is try to attract new players. We hold "Theme nights" and the occasional "WvW Training Night". I'm sure other server do this as well. Well, with the new system, so much for training night for new players. Why should we bother? Theme night is also basically gone because the alliance will be more concerned with winning than fun.
- This goes away from the mantra that ANeT professed "Play like you want". With alliances implemented this way you destroy that - See point #3.
- If this was implemented on day 1 of WvW this wouldn't be an issue. But to change everything now that we've established friendships, stable communities, and good times is like dropping a big can of doggy doo in the middle of a pizza.
Anyway, I do hope some the negative to the change comments get addressed. Otherwise it will look like this was just an ANeT exercise of letting everyone blow off steam for an already made decision. And for every one of the players who says they'll quit if this happens I'm sure there a five more who will do the same.
-
@Vermillion.4061 said:
@Klipso.8653 said:@Vermillion.4061 said:@Klipso.8653 said:Does Anet have plans to add in-game voice communication so that our squads can talk to ourselves and allow commander chat between tags?This is an important feature that will prevent this change from becoming a new version of EotMTakes 5 seconds to have a discord link posted in team chat with API verification already being a thing anet doesn't have to add in-game voip.Discord does not support commander chat, problem remainsNobody outside of Blackgate uses commander chat anymore and you can do workarounds on discord with multiple accounts.Um, you are blatantly wrong. Our server uses commander chat all the time. And I'm sure other servers with TS do as well.
-
@McKenna Berdrow.2759 said:
@"Kabar Jaw.4670" said:So if a guild has a large population but only a portion of that guild actually plays WvW, would they have to make a new guild in order to keep the population accurate?No. Only players who set that guild as their WvW guild will count towards that guilds WvW population.I'll be posting a longer message later but this caught my eye. And for the record, I'm not for this change.
So another question comes up. Say I enter WvW using my "WvW Guild" but during my time in WvW I switch my guild tag to one I haven't designated as my "WvW Guild". Would I suddenly get kick from WvW? Would suddenly get marked "red" to the other players? Would I be transferred to another Wvw "instance"?
Three-toed Tootsie Still Broken
in Bugs: Game, Forum, Website
Posted
I'm stuck on Minstrel 1 because Tootsie has been broken for a while now. She instantly gets her defiance bar and instantly heals. This means she can't be killed and I can't get the Swift Egg the recipe requires. We tried yesterday and the bug still lingers. Are you ever going to fix it?