"There are few players remaining on this map"

[Kiki.9450]

1 minute ago, Buzzbugs.1236 said:

Finally. I think you're the first person who said anything about it not being technically possible. Almost every response in this thread has been contrary in nature and tried to make the argument that the loading screens are a preferred thing (from a gameplay perspective).

+1 for calling me deranged, though. Making a list of all the things I get called here for giving feedback.

I don't think anyone has said that they "prefer" the loading screens, so much as they're an accepted part of the game. They've been here for as long as the game has and it's expected that an older game will be built using older methods, perhaps including less seemless loading methods.

And you're welcome.

[Manasa Devi.7958]

9 hours ago, Buzzbugs.1236 said:

Yes, really. I do think most players these days see extra loading screens as antiquidated. Look at any review for The Sims 4, or more recently Starfield. Expectations from gamers is changing. GW2 is coming up to 12 years old now and these extra load screens go a long way in showing it's age. You already need to go through a loading screen between each and every map. To have extra loading screens on top of that is just going to turn off some new players.

Nobody likes loading screens, NOBODY. I can make that statement with confidence. And so the less we as players are interrupted by loading screens, the better.

I don’t like loading screens, which is why I ignore the pop-up and play on. I don't think I've ever been on a map long enough for the 1 hour timer to run out.

[Sobx.1758]

51 minutes ago, Buzzbugs.1236 said:

Finally. I think you're the first person who said anything about it not being technically possible. Almost every response in this thread has been contrary in nature and tried to make the argument that the loading screens are a preferred thing (from a gameplay perspective).

+1 for calling me deranged, though. I'm making a list of all the things I get called here for giving feedback.

Other than you, nobody said anything about liking loading screens, stop making up this nonsense to avoid what is actually being said.

[GBEW.5947]

22 hours ago, Buzzbugs.1236 said:

I'm making a list of all the things I get called here for giving feedback.

You don't give feedback. You complain about many things that you have no understanding about. 
I would absolutely hate the game that you want guild wars to be, and i also don't think the dev's should be taking feedback from newer players revolving topics outside of new player issues. 

[Buzzbugs.1236]

19 minutes ago, GBEW.5947 said:

You don't give feedback. You complain about many things that you have no understanding about. I would absolutely hate the game that you want guild wars to be.

I must have no understanding because the way you think makes absolutely no sense to me.

GW2 becoming a more seamless open world MMO without needing to taxi to other maps constantly to find other players somehow makes the game worse, according to you. It would ruin the game so badly you would hate the game. Is Taxi'ing to other instances your favorite feature about GW2? Try to help me understand. Thanks.

Edited January 14 by Buzzbugs.1236

[Sobx.1758]

27 minutes ago, Buzzbugs.1236 said:

I must have no understanding because the way you think makes absolutely no sense to me.

GW2 becoming a more seamless open world MMO without needing to taxi to other maps constantly to find other players somehow makes the game worse, according to you. It would ruin the game so badly you would hate the game. Try to help me understand your logic here. Thanks.

Yes, considering the visibility issues and and often lack of individual impact for content that's getting zerged even with current numbers, "uncapping" player numbers -which is what your idea involves- does make the game worse, not better. You do lack the understanding of what you're talking about which btw in itself isn't even a bad thing, except what's bad is that you keep covering your ears and refuse to listen to any reasoning.

Not like you were not already given reasoning earlier btw:

On 1/13/2024 at 2:17 PM, Sobx.1758 said:

How about describing it for what it most probably is, so: people don't like playing in empty instances (so they're ok with instance swapping to the more populate ones) and they don't want 500 players in the same place at the same time, either for gameplay or performance reasons (so they're ok with several instances of the same map existing)?

Edited January 14 by Sobx.1758

[Buzzbugs.1236]

14 minutes ago, Sobx.1758 said:

How about describing it for what it most probably is, so: people don't like playing in empty instances (so they're ok with instance swapping to the more populate ones) and they don't want 500 players in the same place at the same time, either for gameplay or performance reasons (so they're ok with several instances of the same map existing)?

Gameplay is not a reason when every encounter in the game can automatically be scaled to the amount of players. 500 players or 50 players? It makes no difference when the boss HP can scale to it. You are ignoring this fact on purpose.

Secondly, you mentioned performance reasons. I literally included in my OP the question if technical upgrades to the engine could open up the possibility of more players on maps without performance issues. We had an upgrade to DX11 already, so we know more improvements may be coming in the future. But you inconveniently ignore that also.

But arguing with you is pointless because you are only here to disagree with me since you turn up in almost every single thread that I post in just to reply to me and try to shut me down. You are targeting me and trying to gaslight me constantly.

Edited January 14 by Buzzbugs.1236

[Sobx.1758]

5 minutes ago, Buzzbugs.1236 said:

Gameplay is not a reason when every encounter in the game can automatically be scaled to the amount of players. 500 players or 50 players? It makes no difference when the boss HP can scale to it. You are ignoring this fact on purpose.

Yes it is. Even if the scaling was perfect -which it isn't- do you think every player has the same impact whether they do content solo, in groups of 5-10 or zerg a meta as 50? Because they very obviously do not. I'm not "ignoring" anything, once again it's your lack of understanding what you're trying to talk about. Take a boss and make 1 player fight it. If that players fails and dies, the boss won't be killed. Take a 10 man raid. If one person fails and dies, 9 players can still can easly kill it. Increase the number to 50, 150, 500 and try telling me the gameplay and player impact doesn't change. You're simply incorrect.

5 minutes ago, Buzzbugs.1236 said:

Secondly, you mentioned performance reasons. I literally included in my OP the question if technical upgrades to the engine could open up the possibility of more players on maps. But you inconveniently ignore that also.

Ok, so answering your specific question: not going to happen. Hope it's all cleared out now.

Edited January 14 by Sobx.1758

[Buzzbugs.1236]

9 minutes ago, Sobx.1758 said:

Yes it is. Even if the scaling was perfect -which it isn't- do you think every player has the same impact whether they do content solo, in groups of 5-10 or zerg a meta as 50? Because they very obviously do not. I'm not "ignoring" anything, once again it's your lack of understanding what you're trying to talk about. Take a boss and make 1 player fight it. If that players fails and dies, the boss won't be killed. Take a 10 man raid. If one person fails and dies, 9 people still can easly kill it. Increase the number to 50, 150, 500 and try telling me the gameplay and player impact doesn't change. You're simply incorrect.

More semantics.

Gameplay and player impacts change all the time. But you're telling me if we had some more players on the same map, suddenly the entire gameplay and it's systems collapses under the weight of it all? You have to be kidding me..

The sole reason map instances exist in the first place is because of performance. GW2 came out in 2012, for 2012 computer hardware and was on DX9. It's antiquated and it shows the age of the game. How is that so illogical to you? You don't think Anet originally wanted to have as many players in a single map as possible? Of course they did! It was one of the major selling points of the game, to have BIG cooperative battles seamlessly with other players. But in reality the limited engine and hardware of the time forced a compromise, and that is why we have instanced maps.

You are just making things up now to try to justify it's continued existence in the game because that's what you always do because you don't like anyone questioning the status quo. Or you just like to argue with anyone who gives feedback on the game. Either way you're wrong.

Edited January 14 by Buzzbugs.1236

[Linken.6345]

4 minutes ago, Buzzbugs.1236 said:

More semantics.

Gameplay and player impacts change all the time. But you're telling me if we had some more players on the same map, suddenly the entire gameplay and it's systems collapses under the weight of it all? You have to be kidding me..

It's more likely the sole map instances exist is because of performance. GW2 came out in 2012, for 2012 computer hardware and was on DX9. It's antiquated and it shows the age of the game. How is that so illogical to you? You don't think Anet originally wanted to have as many players in a single map as possible? Of course they did! It was one of the major selling points of the game, to have BIG cooperative battles seamlessly with other players. But in reality the limited engine and hardware of the time forced a compromise, and that is why we have instanced maps.

Have you ever played wvw ebg with a 3 way fight?

If you have you would notice you pressing skills and it just flashing not doing anything.

That would happen all the time if you get your way with this idea.

[Sobx.1758]

1 minute ago, Buzzbugs.1236 said:

More semantics.

Translation: I respond to what you write, but you dislike the answer you get. "more semantics!", sure.

2 minutes ago, Buzzbugs.1236 said:

Gameplay and player impacts change all the time. But you're telling me if we had some more players on the same map, suddenly the entire gameplay and it's systems collapses under the weight of it all? You have to be kidding me..

Point out where I wrote anything about "entire gameplay and its systems collapsing under weight of it all". What I wrote is that your idea makes it worse.

For someone who just tried using that backhanded "more semantics" non-response, you sure like to avoid what you're reading and make up your own counterarguments you can argue against. You know, just like you did when you started repeating "so people like loading screens, wow!", which is nothing anyone wrote. 🙄

4 minutes ago, Buzzbugs.1236 said:

It's more likely the sole map instances exist is because of performance.

I did write about performance, not sure what you're trying to "point out" here. You literally mentioned my answer about performance in your last post. What are you even trying to do here? 😐

You asked if it will change, I told you it won't. What else do you need answered?

[Buzzbugs.1236]

15 minutes ago, Linken.6345 said:

Have you ever played wvw ebg with a 3 way fight?

If you have you would notice you pressing skills and it just flashing not doing anything.

That would happen all the time if you get your way with this idea.

I proposed the idea with a hypothetical engine upgrade bringing the game tech more in line with current day computer hardware because as we know, GW2 in its current state does not utilize computer hardware very well.

Why are you ignoring what I'm saying entirely? I don't care if you think an upgrade like that will never happen, because nobody knows that. And technology is improving rapidly.

Edited January 14 by Buzzbugs.1236

[Teknomancer.4895]

17 minutes ago, Buzzbugs.1236 said:

I proposed the idea with a hypothetical engine upgrade bringing the game tech more in line with current day computer hardware because as we know, GW2 in its current state does not utilize computer hardware very well.

Why are you ignoring what I'm saying entirely? I don't care if you think an upgrade like that will never happen, because nobody knows that. And technology is improving rapidly.

The game engine is the foundation the entire thing is built upon. What you're suggesting is that ANet detach and lift up the structure that is built on top of that foundation, rip out and replace that foundation, then put the house back into place.

That's a huge amount of effort to put into a game that's more than a decade old for a questionable-at-best RoI (from a game publisher's PoV), while the company is busily focused on making more expansions for the above-ground structure itself. As @Sobx.1758 said, that's not likely to happen.

 

[Buzzbugs.1236]

1 minute ago, Teknomancer.4895 said:

The game engine is the foundation the entire thing is built upon. What you're suggesting is that ANet detach and lift up the structure that is built on top of that foundation, rip out and replace that foundation, then put the house back into place.

Sure. Mankind landed on the moon, didn't we ? 😆

[Teknomancer.4895]

The letters are ANet, not NASA.

[GBEW.5947]

Just now, Buzzbugs.1236 said:

Sure. Mankind landed on the moon, didn't we ? 😆

Mankind as a whole isnt invested into guild wars 2. are you expecting arenanet to provide the same level of workforce as the entirety of mankind? or even NASA. dream on. 

[Sobx.1758]

3 minutes ago, Buzzbugs.1236 said:

Sure. Mankind landed on the moon, didn't we ? 😆

At this point you're not looking for an answer to a question (despite trying to emphasize "people ignoring your question"), you're looking for a confirmation of what you want to hear. You won't hear it though because what you want is not exactly realistic.

Edited January 14 by Sobx.1758

[Schimmi.6872]

26 minutes ago, Buzzbugs.1236 said:

I proposed the idea with a hypothetical engine upgrade bringing the game tech more in line with current day computer hardware because as we know, current day GW2 does not utilize computer hardware very well.

Why are you ignoring what I'm saying entirely? I don't care if you think an upgrade like that will never happen, because nobody knows that.

This wouldn't help in this case, if the skills don't go through like in the mentioned case of large WvW fights, but the rest runs rather normal, the usual problem is that the server is overloaded with calculations. A better utilization of the clients hardware won't change this.

[Buzzbugs.1236]

Just now, Schimmi.6872 said:

This wouldn't help in this case, if the skills don't go through like in the mentioned case of large WvW fights, but the rest runs rather normal, the usual problem is that the server is overloaded with calculations. A better utilization of the clients hardware won't change this.

Server upgrades aren't on the table, either? And here I was thinking technology had improved 100-fold over the last 2 decades.

Never say never.

[Surelia.2651]

All I have seen for the last few weeks on this form are threads from you where over and over you post nothing but uninformed whinging about the game and it's features, then proceed to spend then next few days arguing non-stop with everyone about every single thing they say in response, despite they are simply trying to help you understand how this game actually works.  Forum trolling for fun is apparently more productive for you than actually playing the game 🙄

[Buzzbugs.1236]

6 minutes ago, Surelia.2651 said:

All I have seen for the last few weeks on this form are threads from you where over and over you post nothing but uninformed whinging about the game and it's features, then proceed to spend then next few days arguing non-stop with everyone about every single thing they say in response, despite they are simply trying to help you understand how this game actually works.  Forum trolling for fun is apparently more productive for you than actually playing the game 🙄

Maybe you should take a look in the mirror and go play the game instead of coming on the forums and whinging about other people that take the time and effort to make suggestions for the game? Your post adds literally nothing to the topic of discussion and is just another hopeless attempt at attacking me. So who's really the troll?

[GBEW.5947]

20 minutes ago, Surelia.2651 said:

All I have seen for the last few weeks on this form are threads from you where over and over you post nothing but uninformed whinging about the game and it's features, then proceed to spend then next few days arguing non-stop with everyone about every single thing they say in response, despite they are simply trying to help you understand how this game actually works.  Forum trolling for fun is apparently more productive for you than actually playing the game 🙄

yeah this is actually the reason i joined in the forums. Its annoying to see from an outsiders prospective, and even more annoying knowing how wrong they are about nearly everything they've posted. 

[Buzzbugs.1236]

8 minutes ago, GBEW.5947 said:

yeah this is actually the reason i joined in the forums. Its annoying to see from an outsiders prospective, and even more annoying knowing how wrong they are about nearly everything they've posted. 

Your problem is you can't think for yourself. You see a few people ganging up on someone else and so you assume the larger group must be right.

I was at a protest a few years ago and I watched as a group of youths physically assault an elderly man who disagreed with their protest. Do you want to know how the rest of the crowd responded? They all joined in on the assault, of course, without even knowing what the elderly man was standing for in the first place.

You've added nothing of substance to any of the discussion in this topic. You simply decided to finally to chip in with your worthless 2 cent opinion. Don't worry though, you'll make lots of allies here with your behavior.

Edited January 14 by Buzzbugs.1236

[GBEW.5947]

1 minute ago, Buzzbugs.1236 said:

Your problem is you can't think for yourself. You see a few people ganging up on someone else and so you assume the larger group must be right.

I was at a protest a few years ago and I watched as a group of youths physically assaulted an elderly man who disagreed with their protest. Do you want to know how the rest of the crowd responded? They all joined in on the assault, of course, without even knowing what the elderly man was standing for in the first plac

You've added nothing of substance to add to any of the discussion in this topic. You simply decided to finally to chip in with your worthless 2 cent opinion. Don't worry though, you'll make lots of allies here with your behavior.

no i am thinking for myself. i am 99% sure i am way more experienced with this game than you are. especially considering the content of your posts. You are simply wrong.

[NovaanVerdiano.6174]

Insane thread actually.

 

Anyway, while the map closing system could certainly improved (most notably by not popping at the weirdest times and causing issues otherwise), there is a reason you get an hour to jump to a new map instance.

Suggesting that we should "simply put everyone on the same map" is lunacy as well; neither would the game be able to handle that well (think of how many adds some of those encounters would have to spawn and what that does for example, as well about the mere existence of a 500 player blob), nor would the players and their machines be. Swapping to a new engine - or even worse, building a new one - is a monumental amount of effort and would equate to more than just rewriting the game from scratch. We may as well get GW3 instead at that point because the game will die during the time this would be in development.