Illconceived Was Na.9781

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).

I really like underwater in this game and I wish that ANet had time to develop it further. However, before they add underwater mounts, I'd like to see them at least get aquatic GW2 up to the same level as the rest of the game. If skills are restricted (due to coding reasons), then give us a separate build with separate traits for underwater. Make sure there's at least two elite skills and that specializations mechanics work. I don't mind if they never retrofit weapon skin sets to include underwater; I just want them to do it right ... or leave things as is and concentrate on other things.

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.

This is much more likely, because it doesn't require inventing a new mechanic. It's not "free" either; it would be resource-intensive (just not as bad as creating a new pack). And there would be an expectation that if ANet did it for Warbringer, they should do it for the PvP & Fractal backs, too. I think it's interesting enough to be worth its own thread.

I don't remember if it's come up recently that this exposes the underlying weakness in the luck system in the first place. Luck no longer serves its original purpose of adding value to blues & greens, so that they would sometimes be worth selling them on the TP. It's all salvage fodder now; there's hardly any green/blue gear left that isn't better to salvage than to TP (if only because it's so quick to convert to use or coin). And that leaves everyone with much more luck than ever before. (Yes, luck also was added to the game to replace the gear-based MF system we had at launch. That part worked really well: it's far easier to get the same 80-120 MF for all your toons now than it was to get any up that high at launch. Plus, we can spend all those delicious stat points on something that helps with combat.)

If it's easy to add an arbitrary number of currencies to the wallet, sure. It doesn't solve the problem as much as it hides the issue from our day-to-day worries.(I suspect that there are limits, both performance|maintenance and psychological — as the list gets longer, it becomes more difficult for programmers and players to manage.)

You can't.He probably wrote the wrong number https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Essence_of_Luck_(legendary)Oops. Yeah that was a typo (and I've fixed it in the original post). Sorry for the confusion.As far as I know, there's no way to break deconstruct essences of luck into smaller amounts; you can only combine them via artificer and only up to Exotic (200). At this point, I'd settle for a recipe that converted three exotic luck (200x3) into legendary (500). The 20% loss would be worth the savings in space.

What's the advantage for ANet to do this? It costs them extra time & money to manage a separate queue for "private" communication, plus it increases the expectation of a response (which isn't likely), and it means that the ideas aren't tested in the crucible of the community's opinion, which matters for any MMO. I know the OP means well, but I don't see how ANet could possibly enforce it being only used for could be used for "items and events that would be better left as a surprise to other players."

And this about weapons, but the same points (mostly) apply to backpacks, too: (text is verbatim; emphasis and bullet points are mine) tl;dr It's only "possible" in a theoretical sense They decided long before launch that there wasn't enough bang for the buck (effort|time) to dye weapons.The existing game depends on that decision, so changing it would mean re-rendering every single weapon in the game (whether dyeable or not), plus additional QA to make sure weapons work properly with extra 'metadata'.For what it's worth, a few of the past requests from the old forums https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/Weapon-Dye/4662447https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/Weapon-dyes/3344528https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/Dye-able-Weapons/5768082https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/Let-us-dye-weapons/4547784https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/hot/Weapon-dye-Application/4818242https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/hot/Weapons-back-Dye/5090753https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/Dyes-for-weapons/5836961https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/Suggestion-Dye-Channels-on-Legendaries/6521161

Short story: they can't setup even one special backpack to have dye channels without changing the mechanics to make it possible. And if they do, that requires making changes to every backpack that exists right now... and means spending more time on any future packs. That's doable, of course, but it's a huge cost relative to the benefit. Especially since our appetite for new skins is never sated. From Tidgepot.3285, regarding someone asking why the Shining Blade Glider can be dyed, but not the backpack, even though each were created relatively recently. Ibid

Actually, I believe this has little to do with the mounts. There are some specific Oakheart Essences that auto-interact and some that don't. That's been a reported issue since the zone was introduced. It was annoying before and it's ... differently annoying now, because, as you say, "it seems wrong... [to add] an effect [we] probably don't need while on a mount."

LaunchBuddy started out as a command line assistant, then later added basic support for launching multiple accounts. I've never used it, so I only know what it can do from the reddit posts, plus the complaints about it sometimes not working and problems with patching / having to manually update. I thought they added this feature, but I didn't see it listed, so fun fact, for every launch, GW2 will create a new %temp%/gw2cache folder, which can quickly add up. Gw2Launcher is my personal launcher I made back when they did the $10 accounts, which is specifically for running multiple accounts. As such, I have features built around that, such as pre-configuring window sizes and positions, individual volume control (because the in-game master volume is bugged and applied twice to videos), the ability to cache patches (because each Local.dat file needs to be patched for ~30 MB) and download them while you're still playing. I just don't advertise. Thanks for the info. I've heard good things about GW2/L, but (as you might guess) I see more people running GW2/LB.