Forgotten Legend.9281

you could try using the split screen (or window snap) features of window... i know Windows 11 22H2 lets you drag a window to the top of the screen to select how many "panes" and which configuration (thirds split from left to right, halves (either top + bottom or left + right), quarters, etc) but that would require running GW2 in windowed mode. 32:9 is becoming a more popular monitor size. enough so that Samsung has 240 Hz 49 inch and soon to be 57 inch dual UHD monitors.

so, i've been crashing a lot lately (since May 2 update) and all the crashes are basically as follows:

i was most upset about the RANGE of Hammer being the new weapon. it was exactly the same range as Dagger / dagger: 0-600. it basically that someone said: i want to kite with my low range build! and that's what happened. it was the third close-range e-spec in a row for Elementalist. Tempest: class mechanic: Overloads... close range Weaver: class weapon: sword: melee range Catalyst: class weapon: Hammer : same range as close range dagger dagger. but i've said all this before. so i feel like a broken record. After the next expansion, if speculation is correct about weapons / utilities from E-specs being unlocked for Core... that would offer a lot of close range stuff for Elementalist. I can only hope that future new tools will include ranged (1200+) DPS weapons (not like staff where only 1 element is DPS, 2 elements are CC, and 1 element is full healing / CC support) there's plenty of GW1 skills with elemental arrows that combined would make a great DPS longbow (preferred 1500 range) where longbow could use staff-like animations for spells that could fill in the gaps of non-arrow skills. Anet has archived my class e-spec brainstorms from the past, "Celestial" was the name of the spec i used, but the longbow was my idea of bringing back those GW1 arrow skills with other elemental spells, like Javelins and certain obsidian earth spells

they said for the June 27th update. I didn't notice, at first, the bold titles of each section included dates for some of the news.

wow, way to split hairs about naming conventions.... Cosmetic Aura is a visual effect... and again... the ones that drop in PvE give PvE bonus of AR. it makes no sense for the PvE cosmetic aura infuisions to have WvW-inherent stats. they said this new one drops in WvW, so it makes sense that it would have WvW stats, NOT PvE stats EDIT: Ghostly infusion for example has a blue flames visual (cosmetic) effect, AND +5 on a stat, AND +9 AR, so does Peerless infusion (with the bubble visual instead of the flames.). the point being, they have stats and visual components. also, no infusion has both AR and WvW + damage vs lords / guards/ etc. those would be considered best-in-slot for all game modes. it occurs to me that you may have mis-typed, that you may have meant that you want +5 power / prec / healing / etc (stat) plus +1% damage to lord / guard /etc... but those already exists in the game at the skrimish ticket vendors and the WvW laurel vendors, which is why i supect the new infusion will have a cosmetic effect in addition to WvW stats, like the Ghostly and peerless infusions are cosmetic with PvE fractal stats.

my guess is that the new infusion will be a visual effects one, not a new best-in-slot-for-all-game-modes infusion... and it's a WvW infusion. wouldn't really make sense to me to include agony resistance to a reward in a game mode that doesn't use AR... /shrug

noice... !!!! Let the speculations begin! my first thoughts: does that mean that certain weapons / skills might no longer require E-specs? maybe new weapons / utilities /elites for "core" use? maybe new F-skills dependent on game mode? YES!!!!!!! YES! YES! YES! to all of it! I'm definitely looking forward to see the damage tempest build improvements, as damage tempest is my preferred open world / story playstyle !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and people say that Anet never listens! they apparently haven't been paying attention. I can't even begin to list the player requested changes, even in high level form... i remember i tried it once or twice many moons ago on the official forums, but YES!!!!

you're absolutely right.... WvW right now is basically getting stale... the weekly achievements by themselves just exacerbated the problem by pitting the hardcore PPTers against those who want to tank to avoid servers. i honestly don't blame either side for playing the way they want to play... but i DO blame them for the fighting against each other in chat all the time. current WvW reminds me of when NA T1 was consistently BG v JQ v TC every week for practically 2 years. it just got extremely boring. we're in that rut again right now. it'll definitely take a lot more than just new rewards plus alliances with the new matchmaker to "fix" it. it'll take more than all that plus updated maps. (because all the maps are getting boringly stale, too). plus new types of siege, plus new masteries, plus plus plus... i hope they finish with the "World Restructuring" as they call it because i want them to get on with the other stuff, like updating the maps and introducing new stuff to the game mode. a LOT of people have made suggestions and are really getting frustrated with the lack of meaningful WvW updates during the wait for the all-coders-on-deck effort World Restructuring will it all help? I don't know. i have no clue. i just know that MAG or BG week is boring as the old JQ v BG v TC years. and the weeks preceding or following MAG or BG week is just as boring because of all the tanking going on just to avoid them.

I believe that ANET said that they are going to implement match rewards in some form in the future, and i really hope they find the right balance of motivation and rewards. yes, i absolutely would like to see something more! as we can clearly see, at the present time without those rewards, there is a disconnect between a) try-harding players who want to win, even during the final skirmish of a match when the placing (1st, 2nd, 3rd) is already determined, and b) those commanders who decide to throw the match in order to not have to face a certain enemy next week. and then there's the resulting toxicity in team chat where both sides yell at each other because of undesired outcomes (such as facing a certain enemy in the next match, as a result of the one-up one-down tier system)... part of that toxicity is due to weekly rewards without match rewards, so i really hope they find the right rewards to essentially end the match-throwing and resulting toxicity, with the right balance to avoid the burnout resulting from the WvW tournaments back in 2014 (i think that's the right year when those tournaments were held)

don't get me wrong, i love to see coordinated efforts. someone else mentioned here that some commanders will organize subgroups in their squad specifically to direct coordinated attacks... and even requesting pugs to do things with dignity and respect, which is great! as long as it's done with respect and manners, instead of calling people names in map chat and throwing blame around constantly. and two groups i run with, sometimes run so big they need 2 squads, because the max people in a squad is only 50, and so they run a second tag, and sometimes a second discord channel, but if a second channel is used. both tags use a commander channel to stay in touch and coordinate their attacks. These groups do so without bossing around people outside the squad/s. and if we're small enough, with other tags running around on map, there are specific people that will contact the other group via whispers with polite updates and possible coordination requests, both giving and getting updates and requests, and relaying those messages to the tags. the playing together with dignity and respect seems to be beyond some people though, even though examples like the above exist to show how easy it is without the toxicity PS: i'm trying to say that i agree with you, and continue sharing my thoughts, hoping that it helps promote positive community interaction in game and on the forums. i also hope that i'm not venting too much, because, as is evident in WvW map and team chat, venting frustration can easily devolve into toxicity. PPS: speaking of education, it does seem like there is a disconnect among players for both squad etiquette and related game mechanics, [such as mounting up in an objective's capture ring to stop capture progress, in order to allow nearby teammates into the ring to get credit for the capture (and resulting participation). <---- an example of etiquette. an example of related mechanics -----> standing in a ring while mounted will not contribute to the capture progress, but will receive credit for capturing the objective if mounted within the ring the moment the objective is captured.] Some commanders just assume that everybody is on the same page, while in other squads, there's always someone giving out tips for etiquette and mechanics.

there is a difference between: A) my squad and i are gearing up to play, but there appear to be about 50 of us... will you all please open up a map for us to play together as a full squad? vs B) if your not in my squad, move off map to make room for the rest of my squad! it's your fault we lost northwest tower! (that happened to be paper tier 0) A) will some roamers please take southeast camp to deny blue supply lines while we attack their t3 hills? vs B) take southeast camp you idiots! A is a request... B is a demand aka bossing around others. a request is a question, while "bossing around" is telling someone to do something. i see B much more often than A, and by about 9 to 1. so, no... i'm not misinterpreting when other commanders TELL OTHERS to move off map. i'd show you screenshots, but frankly, since you decided to essentially call me a liar in an inflammatory way, which generally indicates that you've made up your mind and nothing i say, even providing solid evidenc,e will change your mind. (this may not be the case, but i'm done wasting time with you. i have better things to do.) and so i've decided to block you and your toxicity and personal attack, and won't even get notified if you respond. and IF you respond: have fun with your one sided conversation! i'm not offended... i'm just exercising my right to ignore you... and, no, i didn't report you either. you have a right to express your opinion just as much as i have a right to not listen to it. PS: there's nothing to win... there's no in game trophy, no in game leaderboard, no in game reward for "winning" a match. there's also no official ANET out-of-game rewards for winning a match in WvW either. so try-hard bossing others around is just extra bad form. and that's all i have to say about that...

what? you think they'll actually listen to me? they haven't so far! so many people will boss others around without actually tagging... and they've never stopped bossing around others when i tell them "don't tell me how to play!" So i'll just voice my opinion, but they still have the right to block me just like i have the right to block them, too. having the right to speak does not guarantee that anyone will listen to them or obey them. People still have the right to ignore their speech, too. Commanders that repeatedly order out-of-squaders to 2v20 anything (from your example) will probably earn disrespect from their server, and will probably earn a lot vitriol in chat. (i'm not saying that's right either.) They may have the right to say what they want, but that doesn't free them from the consequences of their speech. unfortunately, the anonymity of the internet encourages toxic behavior on both sides, due to a much lower chance of consequences or punishment. too bad so many people mistake silence for permission, and often mistake objection for encouragement. it reminds me of commanders who demand that squads move maps to make room for the commander's newly formed squad. When the prior squads are in the middle of their planned raid times. Those commanders are bossing around people who did not agree to join their squad, and earn a lot of ire from the other squads on that server. Those are also the same commanders who never seem to help the other squads on their server, and expect the other squads to help them. PvE squads, who are forming up for big Metas like Triple Trouble or Soo Wan, have learned how to get their squads onto the same instance IP by essentially starting new IPs, and then transferring everyone onto the empty IP, because it's tons easier AND more appropriate than begging / paying a half-full instance to leave the map they've already been playing on for maybe hours and making their own progress. unfortunately, in WvW, a lot if people want everybody else to cater to them, instead of being team players. but again, people will disrespect others and expect no consequences for it. dangit! i guess i couldn't hold my tongue afterall... i guess that happens occasionally when i run out of bacon... /sigh

commanding is basically a contract that contains 2 main parts: 1) the tag chooses how to direct the squad, and 2) people, who don't want to follow that the commader's directions, don't have to join the commander's tag. Though i should add a third thing: if someone's NOT in the squad that you are commanding (even if you don't have a tag up), you don't get free reign to boss them around. PLayign together should always include respect. both ways. PS: I edited my previous post to include this little blurb as an explanation for adding bullet point 5

i think you misunderstand... or maybe i misunderstand your suggestion... i'll explain a little further: ANET uses Chromium based browser for the Trading Post. so this debug log has nothing do with what web browser i (or anyone else) uses outside of GW2. I quoted the debug log because GW2 crashes that doesn't result in crash dumps. (ie, the game simply closes to desktop without an error message, and there's no log of the crash via crash.dmp.) for me, personally, the game crashes-to-desktop regardless of whether the browser is open or closed or not even launched once after turning on the PC. if i understand what you are saying, is that Chrome based web browsers have a conflict with GW2 BECAUSE of Chromium using a default D3D11 backend... i would say that is worthy information for Anet to look into, because this could explain some of the crashes-to-desktop since April 18, 2023, especially if the user's default browser is Chrome based.

this report is mainly for adding information to GW2 tech support crew: so, since Chromium was enabled... i get occasional related crashes. Checking in the Debug.log file, i find the following error several times since April 18, but no before. when i google searched, i found many references to Chrome browser, and the most common fixes i found were adding command tags to the Chrome Browser, or total reinstall by deleting first, then reinstalling Chrome. However, that is not possible with GW2, since the framework is built in to the game. here is the complete debug.log for my steam account (uses same email address as this account, but Steam credentials) and, so you can see that this is not a Steam specific problem: here is the debug.log for THIS account: Here are a few links from my research: https://similargeeks.com/errors/errorgpu_init-cc426-passthrough-is-not-supported-gl-is-disabled/ https://github.com/cypress-io/cypress/issues/22509 https://stackoverflow.com/questions/67501093/passthrough-is-not-supported-gl-is-disabled

so how am i wrong again? you just said the same thing i said: that defendiung is part of PPTing, while not-defending is part of karmatraining.... the upgraded status of the target doesn't matter when no one is defending the target. tl;dr... the main difference between whether you are PPTing or K-Training is whether you defend targets, but taking targets is still part of it. (it should go without saying that if you're not successful at taking nor defending objectives, you're doing neither)

/sigh.... there is a difference between PPT and Ktrain... taking an objective is not necesarily PPTing... PPT means points per tick, and includes defending objectives, because the focus is getting points per tick, and you get more points the more objectives you hold. Defending an objective IS PPTing.... while attacking objectives without ever defending is called K(arma)-train. as for joining Squads: 1) joining a squad essentially means that you agree to follow the commander and the commander's rules... some people don't want to be told what to do or how to play, or what objectives to focus on and how. 2) people who want to "boss others around" need to tag up and spew their commands and vitriol in squad chat, or shutup, because nobody has agreed to follow their rules. people join tags for that. 3) some people don't like running with huge map blobs. it gets boring real fast. 4) don't tell me to join your squad when you're more toxic in chat than the people yelling at commanders telling them how bad they're commanding. EDIT: 5) if i join your tag, i expect you to take objectives and/or defend objectives and / or fight. above all... keep doing stuff. if you focus on banging your head against the wall over one thing while ignoring everything else (IE you keep trying to take 1 t3 keep while our server owns nothing on that map), i'm gonna leave and probably block you for wasting my time. EDIT2: PS: i added that last part more to simply say that commanding is basically a contract that contains 2 main parts: 1) the tag chooses how to direct the squad, and 2) people who don't want to follow that the commader's directions don't have to join the commander's tag. Though i should add a third thing: if someone's NOT in the squad that you are commanding (even if you don't have a tag up), you don't get free reign to boss them around. PLayign together should always include respect. both ways.

it happens to me, also. when i buy something on the TP.... with the item window open (with options to close or okay)... i used to be able to simply click on [take all items] button in the main TP window... but since the upgrade, i am forced to choose [close] on the item window before i can [take all items] from the TP NPC.

i believe that question to be rhetorical because i "answered" it in the post you quoted (emphasis added):

escorting yaks: you get credit for the Event, only if you actually escort the yak close to 75% of the total distance travelled or more. and you need to complete the event in order to receive participation toward the pip system. simply "tapping" the yak (staying close enough to the Yak to cause it's "ally is in proximity reduce incoming damage to 10%) buff will only result in achievement progression, but not event nor pip participation. keep defense is much easier event to complete than tower defense after the change. still need to complete the defense event, but now there is a lot of confusion as to what actually counts toward the event. right now, i'm under the impression that you need to kill an enemy who sieged and broke the walls, or an enemy who killed a guard. it's not even good enough to kill an enemy within the walls of the tower. it's not even good enough to kill an enemy who ran outside the wall to escape. ANET said the change was to stop the degenerate gameplay of AFK repairers, who simply take up space and don't actually play the game mode. i agree that something had to be done, but the current solution is only half of what should have been done. Those who actively participate in the defense, ie, they show up and stop the enemy from taking the tower, regardless of if they kill one of the assaulters, should still get credit for the event. especially if they are attacking the assaulters with siege or personal skills. or destroying enemy siege.

honestly... i think we should have both... and they both be seperated... soloQ vs soloQ, and teamQ vs teamQ.... like back in GW1 but i honestly also think it's too late to re-populate the game mode with all the toxicity and cheating and match-throwing.

so, now, after 14 March 2023 update, defense events seem to require enemy kills and don't care about repairing walls (another case of people abusing the system and getting rewards nerfed for using legitimate tactics for people who didn't abuse the system), while people still troll their server by destroying friendly siege golems (and other golems) through use of gravity damage... in earlier updates to the Objective Scaling Rewards, Anet said that they were going to give rewards to people who assaulted a tower / keep /castle, but failed to capture the objective. this was during the first week of the system, over a month ago. I know it takes time to get code ready, approved, and then a month before said already ready-code gets into the game through the patch process. PLEASE tell me , Anet, that you're still working on this and that it will get into the game soon. and also please tell me that you're working on rewards for winning a match as well, and that these rewards are affected by tier. otherwise NA servers will still intentionally lose matches so as to avoid competing against a certain hated server. a possible suggestion in that regard: maybe the winner of tier 1 match could be forced into a different tier, because tier 1 and t2 matches are getting stale again (like back when it was constantly BG vs JQ vs TC for months at a time.) because t1 basically feels like it's a race to see who will throw the match most successfully, and t2 is a competition to see who WON"T go up to t1. the failed assault rewards are only one of the rewards that will help remove the staleness. Match victory rewards is another, but there still needs to be more incentives for servers to stop throwing matches. Alliances may help with the population and troll issues. Updated Maps could help, too. They're getting stale with barely any expansion updates, and new masteries could help, too PS: please keep updating WvW! it's definitely helping, but please give us more hints on what you're doing, WvW is one of my favorite game modes of any game, and i, like many others, are passionate about it's continued success! Thanks for reading this mess of a post.

not quoting the above, but since the graphics aren't matching the dialogue (as far as the jade's interaction with the concentrated haze), that explains why i thought what i thought... so that begs the question: is the graphics an actual error, or designed that way to keep up confusion / speculation? (referring to the hazes effect on the jade... brighter or darker? right now the jade glowing from the ley lines appearance in-game is too close to the haze infused jade. is it meant to be the same effect? is it supposed to show two different effects or is it meant to show only one effect) so it's when the commander's team reaches the leyline hub that Gorrik postulates that the hub will power the jade (through visuals of the surrounding charged jade) I guess that makes it easy to describe why they haven't mined around Harvest Temple... they just now discovered the correlation, so there hasn't been a reason or time to even consider mining around Harvest Temple, yet, as they just discovered it "today". that may change in the future... but my guess is that since the leyline hub in Gayla Delves is already accessible, and known location, that it will be used before the digging expedition even starts near the Temple. after all, they don't know exactly where underground the Harvest Temple ley line hub even is. so it will take a lot of time to find it, before they can use it.

here's a list of related and unrelated possibilities to consider 1) because the Harvest Temple is a holy site in Cantha. it was the Emperor's retreat solemn duty to pray to Dwayna as part of a ritual there before Shiro killed him there. and the Emperor is basically God to the Canthans. 2) It's also a highly significant historical site, being the place of several major battles. Shiro killing the Emperor, the freeing of Kuunavang, the freeing Soo Won. 3) The Ministry of Purity probably has listed this as a protected site 4) the digging around it to find the ley line hub below could possibly cause harm or total destruction to the Harvest Temple, and simply that belief of possible harm will stir up rabid fanatical protection of the site. 5) the mining operation hasn't even reached the Temple yet, but eventually will if continued along the path, why try to alter the path? it'll be tons easier to continue digging until they get there. instead of trying to start over at the Temple. doing so would create a logistical nightmare, disrupting the supply lines back to New Kaineng City EDIT: as for the ley lines powering the Jade... i thought it was pretty obvious that it's NOT the typical ley line energy that's powering the jade. it's specifically the new concentrated haze energy that's charging the jade. a whole story step was devoted to this... scan the new energy... then take chunks of jade to where you scanned the concentrations of the new energy. based on this information learned in this chapter, there's no reason to dig for the ley line hub under the Harvest Temple. because it's the concentrated haze that's powering the jade from the experiment. the concentrated haze is speculated by Gorrik to be affected by and a result of the haze interacting with the ley line hub. (which is most probably the case)

i'm actually speculating the return of the Leyline Anomaly (from the side story) which is somehow evolved by contact with unfiltered ley energy, (EDIT: i guess that doesn't make sense... because the leyline anomaly probably comes from the unfiltered leylines, unless it's originally an otherworldy being that came into contact with the leylines before the side story began: new speculation, contact with the new concentrated Haze) and possibly dealing with growing pains and possibly madness. Could possibly be linked to the commander through earlier interactions during the side story, which could be a partial explanation for some of the madness / growing pains. It probably also stumbled upon ancient enemy corpses (like Kanaxie), being partially influenced by / linked to them as well? i am a little afraid of the mirrored-self-as-an-enemy trope, though. We already fought "ourselves" in the ascension mission in GW1 and ascension references in PoF near Augury Rock, and many many games use an "evil self" as a boss.