Illconceived Was Na.9781

There are several reasons this won't happen. Some of them have mitigating factors, some don't. The underlying theme in all of them is: it's a lot more effort than we think it is, with a smaller payoff than proponents imagine (mostly because it's a change that has limited value for lots of people). Recognizing foe professions: this is important and it's complicated by outfits and mitigated by the option to use "standard models" (which ignore opponent's armor choices). Clipping: yes, the game has tons of clipping. But it would be far, far, far worse if the devs didn't spend tons of time eliminating as much as they can. Essentially, it's impossible to avoid clipping; the goal is to make it so most people don't notice it most of the time. Mixing weights adds tons of clipping because the skins aren't designed to be matched. So yes, this is huge.Incompatible designs: besides general clipping issues, the "meshes" used for each weight are different. Which is partly why there are so many trench coats and but capes for medium armor (unfortunate choice of mesh to make trench coats easier). The meshes don't, well, mesh together. So that would have to be adjusted, probably redesigned. Dyes: different materials take dye colors differently. We already get confused when using dyes on the same types of materials and see different effects; this would be far more common.Other priorities: regardless of the pros & cons above, to make this possible, the designers would have to work on... making this possible. That means that they aren't working on fixing existing issues or designing new skins. And while lots of people like the idea of mixing more than seeing new stuff, there are plenty of players who would rather see another armor set or two in Expansion #3, rather than use any of the other weights, because they don't like the current selection.In short, it's a lot more work than most of us realize to make this possible and that means designers would be taken off of other design/skin projects.

@Ben Phongluangtham.1065 replied:Capes are problematic. They are difficult to animate well. Especially when it comes to tails. I know we had them in GW1, but animations there were much less complicated, including not having the ability to jump. I think the OP is saying that we have that banner in and can we have the same item, but with a guild emblem instead. Which seems reasonable to meIt 'seems' reasonable, but the tech is apparently different. (My guess is that banners are simpler because they don't touch the character or armor.) I don't have the quote handy, so I'll see if I can find it later. As I posted afterward, I think if people want more banners, they can do that.

Banners, by the way, are a different mechanic. It seems much more likely that ANet can add more banners in the game than redesign backpacks to act as capes. (My reading of dev remarks is that they probably are already considering this and we might see more banners 'soon'.)

@Ben Phongluangtham.1065 replied:Capes are problematic. They are difficult to animate well. Especially when it comes to tails. I know we had them in GW1, but animations there were much less complicated, including not having the ability to jump.

GW2 is a successful game and many games borrow from its design and feature aspects, but that's true of GW2, as well (it also borrows).

What the kitten are you smoking ? Any WvW guild I have encountered has never restricted acceptance based on gear.... what sad server are you playing on if what you say is even true. Both of you seem to be assuming that personal experience is a substitute for checking to understand what others are seeing in the game. There are some "serious" WvW guilds, just as there are hardcore Raid guild or restrictive Fractal PUGs. Such guilds care very much about gear and player skill, in addition to other requirements.There are 100s of guilds. Not all of them are "serious". Many don't care at all about builds or comp; they just want numbers and work with whatever they get.PS you can't count food as part of the "fully buffed up" because exotically-geared players can use the same food. Counting WvW infusions seems fair for Veterans, but most newer players won't have the gold or laurels to also afford that. Regardless, in an even match up, Ascendedly-geared players will defeat exotically-geared foes, but... in WvW, it's almost never a fair fight. Skilled commanders can defeat PUGlings, folks who know their professions (and their opponents') will win out over those who don't. Gear is a factor; it's just not enough to determine the outcome.

Test... what? What sort of meaningful testing do you imagine there would be that doesn't involve, oh all of WvW for 8 weeks? If only 10% of people join the test and some people are still playing live, then it's not a valid test of the system, which depends on everyone playing as they normally do (some full time, some sporadically, some bingers, some burn outs, etc). The only "real" test is going to be the first Season. So instead, I'd ask, Generally, for the first few months after launch, are you prepared to make frequent changes to the formula breakpoints, ratios, and even variables used?If the numbers are wildly off from predicted, are you prepared to end Season 1 early and start S2 with appropriate adjustments?What sort of metrics will you be able to share with us post-launch to help us see whether it's going well and/or better than the current status quo? Or is the only metric how many (or how few) people complain about weak match-ups and/or overpowered sides?

There are a couple of different achievements. Most of them require "completing a race"; as I recall, just one requires finishing win, place, or show.

How sure are you that the race didn't start? As I recall, the race start|stop times aren't "announced" everywhere in Vabbi. My memory is that I I wouldn't learn of the race if I was too far. For Vabbi, I ended up parking a toon near the start and just flipping to the character whenever I was waiting for something else.It's been a while, so I might be confusing one zone with another.

I run mostly exotics in WvW. I can count on one hand the number of times I've died because my gear wasn't ascended. It's much, much more often because I was outplayed, let myself get out of position, took a dumb risk, or generally because I'm not skilled enough to survive some circumstances.

They are going to look at the numbers and figure out if it's a useful tool for predicting outcomes. If it is, of course they are going to use it. If not, they won't. You make it seem as if squads of 50 goofing off are equally likely than squads of 50 crushing opponents. They are both possible situations, but one is far more likely than the other... and even if it isn't, ANet's has the data to figure that out and change the metrics accordingly. It wouldn't surprise me, for example, if squads with a core of 25 + 10 more (adding & dropping) affect warscores far more than squads with 10 core + 40 (adding & dropping). If that's the case, ANet might set a smaller multiplier for commanders with huge squads than those with smaller/tighter squads. The point is that any model is going to be an approximation of what's really going on in the game. If it's useful in predicting results, they'll use it; if not they won't. And we won't every have access to anything close to enough data to evaluate whether ANet's doing that well or not, whether they missed something big or coincidence plays a bigger factor than they can handle. Netflix can't tell you for certain if you're going to enjoy a movie; they can just predict whether that's likely to be true or not. And that's all that's reasonable to expect from ANet: that this will allow them to do a better job of arranging match ups, compared to the tools they have now.

Let's be careful, however, not to overstate the actual numbers or the importance of the metric. The link doesnt show linked pairs. Linked servers can equate or surpass blackgate. Still BG singularly doubles that of the average server and linked pairs dont make up the difference due to lack of organization and time used to make a solid effort to compete. BG doesn't play against the "average" server.Of course it's relevant that BG doubles the average; it's just misleading to say "BG had everyone beat by double." That statement is not supported by the evidence in the chart.

There's only so much any model can do to predict what would happen if this group is paired with that against another group paired with two others. All ANet can do is identify the factors that are highly correlated with even matches. Hours played is clearly going to be the biggest factor; everything else is going to be used to modify how they use hours played. People who tag up are going to have a disproportionate influence over people who don't; guilds that play together will impact outcomes more than guilds that play at varying times. Big guilds with high rep will dominate over even tight-knit smaller ones with high rep. My hope is that they identify more factors than they plan to use on day 1 and setup the formulas so they can tweak ratios and breakpoints and add (or remove) factors from the formula, without having to overhaul the system again.

Let's be careful, however, not to overstate the actual numbers or the importance of the metric.

I'm sorry that you keep crashing, especially after wading through all the steps up til the very end. That's got to be super frustrating. I had a friend for whom that used to happen during one particular instance of LS2. First, create a support ticket and provide as much info as you're able in the ticket. If you figure things out before they contact you, you can reply to the automated email to let them know you resolved the issue (and you can tell them how, if you want). If not, then you're already in the queue for another avenue of help. Second, what have you tried to do to address? Anything besides restarting the instance? The more details you can provide, the easier it will be for others to suggest things that might help. Until then, here's some generic things that tend to solve a lot of hard-to-pin-down problems associated with cutscene-related crashes: Repair your client. This takes 5-30 minutes, depending mostly on your hard drive speed.Clear out the Cache.Tone down your graphics to the barest minimum, including turning off things like light adaption & best texture filters. Turn on things like effect LoD.Change your resolution (use windowed full screen or full screen at a lower resolution than your monitor)Turn off all sounds from the game.If possible, do the story with someone else who can start the instance and literally turn off your monitor before the cutscene. (Sounds improbable, but this is how we got my friend through the LS2 instance. Turned out he had a hardware problem that only showed severe symptoms in GW2. Having us run the game and turning off the monitor allowed his machine to stay just calm enough that it could survive a few more minutes... and it crashed after instead of during.)Good luck and please let us know what you find out.

This is... very interesting. I'm looking forward to seeing more details. One thing I hope you build into the new system is the ability to iterate changes as you learn more. One of the fundamental problems with any game, including the WvW mode, is that reasonable decisions are made based on what we know at a certain time. But once the new system goes into place, everything we (and you guys) know about WvW participation is going to change and evolve. For example: players, such as myself, that didn't used to care about having a WvW guild might start to care a lot about it. Some folks are going to play a lot less; some a lot more. So I'm hoping that whatever you end up doing offers flexibility in not only changing numeric details (91% = Full vs 88%) or weights of various data within a formula, but also mixing & matching elements within the formulas. Obviously that is tons more work than the current overwhelming task of "simply" overhauling the entire definition of "world" in "World vs World."

I'm sorry that the OP had bad experiences. If they really want to help, they should offer specific details about what happened, without assuming they know the cause. Ideally, they should start by opening up a conversation with a senior support person and identify which tickets and why the OP considered the service to be poor. There's nothing in the current original post that would allow ANet to figure out what might need to change. It's all vague and generic, full of assumptions and conclusions without evidence.

The vouchers don't really have enough currency for anyone to worry about the most efficient way to convert it to gold. While there is a bad choice or two, there are lots of decent options depending on the content you do now (or later). I agree with @"Danikat.8537" that the "best" use is saving them until you find yourself in urgent need of 300 dungeon tokens or 30 elegy mosaics to buy something. For a lot of people, that's going to be some sort of skin, maybe a legendary.

There's always going to be some clipping. And I'd be happy for ANet to spend more time reducing it further, except that I prefer for them to prioritize other artwork projects. For me, most clipping in the game isn't noticeable until/unless someone points it out... and even then it's not that bothersome (for me). There's a spectrum of potential clipping issues, from "can't find them at all" to "wow, that's obvious on every single edge/interface". It's prohibitively expensive to get any animation to the "can't find them at all" stage and because charr (and to a lesser extent, asura) have more edge/interfaces, it's more noticeable for them. Worse, the more clipping issues that the studio solves, the less clipping that we will accept, because our standards will evolve accordingly. Given this, how much money do you want ANet to spend reducing the amount of clipping we have? Or, since we don't really know what things costs, what other artwork improvements|changes|additions are you willing to give up for ANet to reduce clipping? And would that opinion change if resolving a charr clipping issue means one less armor set per expansion? Of course, I cut my teeth on poorly-animated games, so maybe my standards are too low.

Each time offering a different recommendation to the council: Sunspears, Joke, or Neutral. And then each character has to complete the entire story (plus do a few other collection-related activities). Okidoki, so in order to get another of the aligned backpieces (joko/kormir/neutral) I have to do the entire story to receive the (in this instance) Kormir backpiece instead of the Amnoon one which was my first play through choice. :anguished: Yeah, it requires more of a time investment than most collections. However, it compares favorably to other collections/achievements that also reward ascended gear.

From the discussion on reddit, it seems likely that the OP already gave Riddhais the broken weapon. OP is now trying to progress the other bits (and I hope will report back when they complete the achievement... or get stalled).

Each time offering a different recommendation to the council: Sunspears, Joke, or Neutral. And then each character has to complete the entire story (plus do a few other collection-related activities).

The character who finished the story has to open the mail from Warden Leide, then visit the memorial to Trahearne, then visit with Leide. Then speak with Ridhais. She'll set you upon your journey, at which point, Miyani can replace the broken sword for you (if needed). It's all covered in the walkthrough on the wiki. And on the wiki's page about the broken sword.