Nawaak.6918

Btw, I use the directX12 proxy. I doubt it is dx9 or dx11 specific as dx12 didn't prevent crashes to occur.

sounds like duct tape fix.. Something is wrong, might be triggered by other situations. Cause should be identified and fixed (instead of preventing plp to cast spells in warmup..)

Will you do something about the current PvP season? People are crashing when the match starts. Today, again a crash, couldn't rejoin for 2 mins (got back to the mist without the chance to get back to the match), had to dc/login again, and got the loose anyway. This affects badly the ladder, and higher elo players are more likely to be affected, as if plp do not want to give a try (so even less high elo players). Matchmaking can't find a match for your level and you end up risking it all, matched with lower elo players to eventually get smashed by a crash anyway. It is understandable for me to see that plp who usually do pvp do not even connect since 2 weeks. It is FAR from rare to see 3 to 4 people crashing. In average 1 to 2 guys crash per match. What will be the value of this season? do you plan to extend it until the problem is fixed? This is carnival handling, outraging if you decide to maintain the season terminaison on the 14th with such a clown state. The worst would be to discover that players are not evenly affected by the problem. Will you let the unaffected players get rewards for having "luck"? - Fix the issue - Extend the season to end at least one week after the problem is fixed Most people do not care of 2v2/3v3, will you kill pvp by letting this 5v5 season end this way? We are not here for lotery. THX

After in-game discussion with Grahckheuhl.7549, it appears that the behavior differ from skill to skill (which is even worse than I thought) Examples with "instant" cast and "Allow skill retargeting": - Ice Spike, frozen ground (ele staff), signet of water save initial cursor location even though there is a cast duration. - lava font, meteor shower (ele staff) do not save target location and will land where the cursor is at the end of the cast. This inconsistency is quite a bug rather than a missing option. Thank you Grahckheuhl.7549 for pointing out the above examples.

Dear devs, "Instant" cast would launch the spell upon key press, while "Fast with range indicator" would launch the spell upon release. While using "Allow skill retargeting", there is no option for ground targeting aoe spells to "save" the initial target location for the spell when using "Instant" cast, the spell target location would keep being updated upon cursor movement during the incantation. I believe an option is missing to allow both behaviors, i.e. the current one and the following one: I would highly appreciate to have both retargeting ability for direct targeted spells (ranger's rapid fire, mesmer's confusing images, etc..), while enjoying smart cast without update of the target location after I pressed the key for ground targeting spells (sneak thief's cluster bombs while kiting in pvp, still using smart cast and my cursor as I intend to..). I believe this would not represent much development to implement this feature as the tools of you need already exist. Best regards, Nwk

@Ben Phongluangtham.1065Can I have at least an acknowledgement that Anet at least saw it? ty. It's sadly mostly right.. but I wouldn't be that critic regarding the point capture. First because well the mode itself isn't that bad (just doesn't work as it could with a smart map design), just that after 7 years everybody gets tired of it (and only months for most of us). The real problems do not lie there, because well, you can design other modes with gw2. The real challenge comes from the combat design. If you think of it 2 seconds, you can see that this game, as a MMO, has been designed as a single player game, I wouldn't fire the guy who thought of the capture mode, but the one who designed these aspects which make GW2 a hard game to work on to design real PvP modes.First you have a self heal. On a 5v5 mode with 3 points to capture, the meta went naturally to duelist builds. I hate duelist builds because we are playing a multiplayer game, when the game design encourages you, in PvP, to play as a duelist (the 5 members of the team), it's a really BAD omen on the PvP level on a game. It means that you can't at the same time encourage team fights, where strategy has a more important place. Even wow arena or bg would be more interesting, and when you start to say that wow pvp is more interesting you get instantly how badly designed the game you are talking about is.You cannot target allies. This is a freaking important point. There are no spells you can directly cast on an allie, only AOE. This is a tough problems, the most stupid ones would instantly say "yes but that's sufficient if the team communicate correctly" and indeed, there is nothing more annoying than casting a heal AOE spell like geyser (Ele) and the allie run away from it. But it was predictable that this design was bad, you can't design a game which provides more mobility to the characters and at the same time using game mechanics which makes you stand in a aoe for 5 seconds. A solution would be to design a game modes where:the heal is replaced by the gw1 resurrection signet, single use, you target an allie (or the ground and it res the closest allie, I don't know how you designed gw2). What would it change. First, you can rally ONLY with a resurrection signet and a the same time you can't heal yourself, It will give a hard time to the duelist build, because no team would risk to send a member somewhere on the map to cap or decap because dying would have much more impact.you do not get resurrected by the timer, when you die, you die, unless there is still one signet available in the team to res you (eventually a res every 2 mins or whatever).This would bring more important to res control with interruptions on the guys who tries to res with the signet (we need at least a signet with a 600 range, otherwise it wouldn't change anything we would still have the stupid cleave on the guy to res/the guy who res). It would also bring more importance to the healers roles, and the key point of pvp is the collaboration, get rid of this kitten duelist meta.Reducing the number of Objectives AND/OR increasing the number of players per team. But why? Well simple, if you have 3 objectives with a 5 players format, you can't prevent strategies where the duelists are the key points. Let say we only have 2 points, when you split you would have way more often 2v2s and 3v3s than 1v1s, and if at the same time dying is a problem, and you don't have a heal, you have at least a support on a roaming group. If the maps are well designs, you will encourage different play style, what kind of support can or cannot be played for one objective, as well as the other classes. Of course the signet is on a long term a cheap solution for the target allie problem, but at least it brings back some pvp spirit on a short term and it's an easy thing to implement. In 7 years, they proposed nothing to change a bit how bad the things were going for PvP. For me it's intellectual laziness. You cannot release a living world episode every 3 months with new skills/mounts/maps and so on and at the same time being unable to release a beta mode on an existing map just to take the temperature with the pvp players and see if it is going the right direction.What's going on at Anet? Should I do it myself? As a computer scientist, it's disgraceful that some of the functionalities I mentioned in my previous post for the queues are not implemented yet even though they are definitely no technical challenges, and solve problems really seen as freaking annoying for players who like both pvp and pve. You guys at Anet probably do not play PvP otherwise you would be aware of the queueing problem. Guild Wars is my childhood, seeing it die because of bad choices is hard to see. If PvE is the flesh of a game, never forget that the PvP is its backbone. Good PvP wouldn't make the game way more popular, but every player, pvp and pve acknowledge of the quality of a PvP mode. In guildwars 1 a lot of PvE players would do pvp always for the challenge, it makes a game deeper, do not let gw2 stay a caricature of its name.

Yea could be worse.. like having comments neither constructive nor positive ;)

but your frustration is justified :/ I do feel the same

I think you are wrong on that. Thief is actually the only interesting class to play/play against on a strategical point of view. It creates movement, dilemas, and unlock situations in a meta full of bunkers and 1v1s. Having a free electron class which makes the gameplay dynamic is not a bad thing. If you stopped season 7 you then don't have enough experience and/or interest for pvp to have an accurate opinion about it for what happened in the last seasons. circlequest isn't essentially bad, again it's what they made of it. I do not agree if you say that a circle quest map wouldn't have its place in a mode like HA in gw1. It would have been interesting. The problem is really the 3 points for only 5 players, which creates too few teamfights and too much duels. What you do not like it's that the thieves just have to decap to make a huge difference, not even fight (which is not true in higher divs but nvm) , and of course when there are only 3 points for 5 players such situations happen a LOT, the thief wouldn't be that OP in lower divs not even fighting if the ratio players/objectives would be higher.I actually did not see bots, afks, reward hunters and wintraders in 1500+ games but I'm playing in europe, it makes maybe a difference.

It's sadly mostly right.. but I wouldn't be that critic regarding the point capture. First because well the mode itself isn't that bad (just doesn't work as it could with a smart map design), just that after 7 years everybody gets tired of it (and only months for most of us). The real problems do not lie there, because well, you can design other modes with gw2. The real challenge comes from the combat design. If you think of it 2 seconds, you can see that this game, as a MMO, has been designed as a single player game, I wouldn't fire the guy who thought of the capture mode, but the one who designed these aspects which make GW2 a hard game to work on to design real PvP modes. First you have a self heal. On a 5v5 mode with 3 points to capture, the meta went naturally to duelist builds. I hate duelist builds because we are playing a multiplayer game, when the game design encourages you, in PvP, to play as a duelist (the 5 members of the team), it's a really BAD omen on the PvP level on a game. It means that you can't at the same time encourage team fights, where strategy has a more important place. Even wow arena or bg would be more interesting, and when you start to say that wow pvp is more interesting you get instantly how badly designed the game you are talking about is.You cannot target allies. This is a freaking important point. There are no spells you can directly cast on an allie, only AOE. This is a tough problems, the most stupid ones would instantly say "yes but that's sufficient if the team communicate correctly" and indeed, there is nothing more annoying than casting a heal AOE spell like geyser (Ele) and the allie run away from it. But it was predictable that this design was bad, you can't design a game which provides more mobility to the characters and at the same time using game mechanics which makes you stand in a aoe for 5 seconds.A solution would be to design a game modes where: the heal is replaced by the gw1 resurrection signet, single use, you target an allie (or the ground and it res the closest allie, I don't know how you designed gw2). What would it change. First, you can rally ONLY with a resurrection signet and a the same time you can heal yourself, It will give a hard time to the duelist build, because no team would risk to send a member somewhere on the map to cap or decap because dying would have much more impact.you do not get resurrected by the timer, when you die, you die, unless there is still one signet available in the team to res you (eventually a res every 2 mins or whatever).This would bring more important to res control with interruptions on the guys who tries to res with the signet (we need at least a signet with a 600 range, otherwise it wouldn't change anything we would still have the stupid cleave on the guy to res/the guy who res). It would also bring more importance to the healers roles, and the key point of pvp is the collaboration, get rid of this fucking duelist meta.Reducing the number of Objectives AND/OR increasing the number of players per team. But why? Well simple, if you have 3 objectives with a 5 players format, you can't prevent strategies where the duelists are the key points. Let say we only have 2 points, when you split you would have way more often 2v2s and 3v3s than 1v1s, and if at the same time dying is a problem, and you don't have a heal, you have at least a support on a roaming group. If the maps are well designs, you will encourage different play style, what kind of support can or cannot be played for one objective, as well as the other classes.Of course the signet is on a long term a cheap solution for the target allie problem, but at least it brings back some pvp spirit on a short term and it's an easy thing to implement. In 7 years, they proposed nothing to change a bit how bad the things were going for PvP. For me it's intellectual laziness. You cannot release a living world episode every 3 months with new skills/mounts/maps and so on and at the same time being unable to release a beta mode on an existing map just to take the temperature with the pvp players and see if it is going the right direction.What's going on at Anet? Should I do it myself? As a computer scientist, it's disgraceful that some of the functionalities I mentioned in my previous post for the queues are not implemented yet even though they are definitely no technical challenges, and solve problems really seen as freaking annoying for players who like both pvp and pve. You guys at Anet probably do not play PvP otherwise you would be aware of the queueing problem. Guild Wars is my childhood, seeing it die because of bad choices is hard to see. If PvE is the flesh of a game, never forget that the PvP is its backbone. Good PvP wouldn't make the game way more popular, but every player, pvp and pve acknowledge of the quality of a PvP mode. In guildwars 1 a lot of PvE players would do pvp always for the challenge, it makes a game deeper, do not let gw2 stay a caricature of its name.

Titles are nice but only few players are concerned..@Ben Phongluangtham.1065PvP is dying because it is not appealing, but also because queuing is already a pain. The waiting times are high, but you can't make the people play pvp to reduce this time, but you can make this waiting time be more appreciable to motivates the players to play pvp. And secondly I'm not sure the strategy you used to make pvp appealing worked well, tournaments are nice but meh.. too few players are playing. To facilitate the PvP queuing: A "stay in queue" button when a match is found: Nobody wants to camp somewhere doing nothing, and it's actually annoying to do PvE while being in queue. Players actually CAN'T do PvE while waiting for PvP because they do not have to possibility to delay (a bit) the match. You end up saying no, you then forget to tag again, or you get a terrible place in queue which makes you lose time and you finally don't play pvp.The second important feature for the PvE players would be a character selection to enter the queue or when accepting a match: We do not always play PvP with our PvE chars, and if we want to do so, it means 1 loading screen to get to the match, 1 loading to reroll to the PvP char, 1 loading to exit the match and 1 last to get back to the PvE char. Can't we have automatic reroll to get to the match with the PvP char and back to the PvE char after the match? This functionality would be gold for most of the players and would motivate PvE players to do more PvP, I can't believe this is not implemented already.To render the PvP more appealing: Remove the map selection. I do understand you wanted to please the players by giving them a chance to avoid playing on some maps. But in my humble opinion is was a really BAD idea. Your just indirectly reduced the number of PvP maps, because the players always choose the same ones for bad reasons (easier to play without a team, they always hear the map is bad, or they don't want to be disappointed if the teammates do not play the map mechanics correctly). It actually kills the pvp. Strategy should be a central point, if you let some idiot pvp players betting everything on their personal skills by choosing easy maps instead of using their ability to make good strategies (even with matchmaking) , the PvP level decreases logically.Couldn't we have another solo(/duo) queue that functions like the tournaments with eliminations? The problem of the tournaments is that the constitution of a team is already a bottleneck. Even thought the principle is much more appealing, the players are simply not getting into it because it is for the moment too elitist (which is not a problem) but on a mode which is not popular (which is a real problem). The tournament are now a lot a time to invest for little time of fun. If there was a queue, it would also benefit to the tournament. Having a queue would make the elimination mode more popular. This mode is underrated, it brings way more satisfaction of progression (gw1 HA). The tournaments live next to a mode which doesn't show much impact for a single loss, losing a ranked game does not impact the progression where losing the first tournament match changes everything for the current progression. Because these two ways of playing are really different, I'm not sure the tournament will ever get popular if there are no automatic queue to make this mode what it deserves to be, an appealing pvp mode via a queue, with the possibility of getting higher rewards via the tournaments.The capture of points did its time, people are tired of it. On one of the maps we have the lord to kill to get 150 points, at the release the pvp players like me saw it as a hint that the GvG will come soon. How many players did you already loose just because GW2, compared to GW1, on a PvP point of view, only has its name? I do not say it has to be the SAME but you can't pretend other modes like king of the hill, flag capture or gvg by killing the enemy lord are impossible to implement on GW2. GW1 shined in pvp because it was different, gvg, HA (with the HoH 1v1v1) , arenas, AvA.. With GW2 you lacked imagination, with your esport 5 members format, and this new MOBA-like mode that nobody liked. Could we please get something which is new AND worth to play on a strategical point of view?Something smart would be to mixed the 2 last points. (#BringHoHBack)When I talk with former GW1 pvp mates, it is not nostalgia, you get nostalgia when you had good time and moved on to something different, here I talk about mourning, because we lost something that never came back, in GW2 or on another game. GW1 pvp was really elitist on a strategical point of view but players liked it and there was a ton of pvp players. GW2 pvp is not elitist but nobody likes it. I do not say there is a connection, but as we say in French, "perdu pour perdu" (=nothing to lose) do not be scared to be more ambitious for your future pvp updates.. I intentionally exaggerate, which can make some of my saying too adamant. But at this point, the message has to be heard before there's nothing to be saved anymore.When we read "Hey folks!" followed by these new pvp titles.. It could be seen as a provocation. Anet had 7 years to improve pvp, and somehow I miss the tournaments we had post release. At some point we will think that you keep intentionally the pvp this way, not to create a hype around it because the pvp players are harder to monetize with a cashshop."La Bise" from France Nwk