ArenaNet talk:Developer updates/Archive Apr-Jun 2009

April Changes

I didn't get it, introduced new cartographer title for the Battle Isles? Weel, I ain't see anything for now. Is it a new change to be included in another update or something?

It was an april fools (Fooled ya) T1Cybernetic 10:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't these be removed by now? April Fools yeah but its nearly may now.79.70.221.252 19:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The archiving will probably contain all of April through June (using 2008 as an example). My guess is that it won't be archived until there are any July updates.

The real question might be why pre-April isn't archived yet. 76.30.79.54 19:41, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Because no one has archived it? If you feel it needs to be archived, then do it, that is a community function, but do it within reason.... -- Wyn 20:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Should the April edition updates be tagged as april fools for those browsing the archive? I for one struggle occasionally when just scrolling down until I go "uhh wha?", then check the date. --Nela 18:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I've created a tag ({{april fools}}), which could be used to mark pranks. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 05:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

...... Just spent 20 min looking for the battle isle cartography title, was all excited for a title i could finaly max out.... 71.61.84.70 12:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Makeover Suggestion -- Hairstyle only option

I'd like to see an option where I could pay say pay $9.99 and select 3 hair-styles that I could then switch between for e.g. 100g. Kind of like the Festival Hat Trader. I'm much less interested in completely changing my characters, but changing the hairstyle could be a lot of fun, especially if it's not too expensive. Or maybe for $9.99 give us 20 hairstyle changes. Though I would prefer being able to change in-game without having to pay real world money all of the time. 69.179.155.232 08:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you're no longer allowed to make suggestions on the wiki. 145.94.74.23 09:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

That is changing. Soon there will be a way to do so. MithTalk 13:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Umm, what? Legal issues? What kind of legal issue is stopping anet from using suggestions from it's own players? Not trying to be incendiary here, I want to know. Is there a policy page or something that I can read?68.193.113.198

You can read the 2009 archives at User talk:Mike O'Brien. Basically the wiki license (GFDL) requires things taken from it to also be under GFDL, and the Guild Wars isn't and can't be under that license. — Poki#3 20:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course you are allowed to make suggestions all you want, with the understanding that Anet cannot, for legal reasons, use them. So we have no official suggestions space, they are posted in userspace. - anja 13:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course they can't use them there either. Just keep your pants on. The big wigs on the wiki are working on the policy issues regarding suggestions.--Ryan Galen 14:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I still think a game people have purchased, people should pay a similar once off fee per function (much like unlock packs)... free MMORPGs charge similar as the store does now, for reasons of the game being absolutely and completely free... 203.171.192.169 21:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Many things are like that on Guild Wars, and I like you would be delighted if everything was like that. No hidden fees like that is part of what makes this game so great. But at the same time I understand that they need to look to the future of keeping the servers running and maintained, not to mentioned the live team paid, with no more full campaigns coming out for the foreseeable future. And since changing your appearance is an unessential luxury that has no impact on game mechanics, I see little problem with the makeovers being consumable. If it was a consumable that had an impact on gameplay then I'd be on your side, but purely luxary consumables are OK in my book.--Ryan Galen 03:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd also prefer the option of a one-time fee, unlimited uses. But I'm quite happy with the current scheme. I choose to look at it as costs / play, or even as rarely-needed cosmetic costs, and by both ways of looking at it it seems like I'm getting a good deal. -- Alaris 13:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

So

How about a very good explanation for the failure that took 2 months to develop? --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:72.64.0.119 (talk).

I'm interested as well. This is an incredibly small update for 2 months of development. I won't even get into how little it fixed (outside of WE, which was a good change). -Auron 00:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem is not that the update is small. The problem is that it's bad. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:72.64.0.119 (talk).

You remind me of Entropy sometimes... Yes that's an insult. In all likelihood, we already know the answer to this: They pissed away all that time on the storage/pettingfarm update leaving them no time to endlessly QA/datamine more than a handful of actual useful skill updates. But let's focus on the silver lining here... June, July, and August presents the possibility that they will actually start listening to experts like yourself and get some real balance changes finally. ...on the condition that swine flu outbreaks persist, thus preventing them from just vacationing to Cancun for the next 3 months instead... --ilr 02:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

They did fix Lingering Curse according to a wiki suggestion (I think it was made by Auron himself no less). 145.94.74.23 05:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

It was closest to Ulterions, but still not a fix for what made it broken (hint: the aoe + high duration + no recharge makes it broken.) ~Shard 06:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, now it's just lame again in PvE but still gimmicky in PvP. I dunno why so many game studios cling to these design theories that Spammable (always) = Fun. --ilr 19:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

What else would you run for an elite skill in PvE if you chose the passive debuff skills (Faint/Shadow/Meekness, Enfeebling, Insidious, etc)? Heroes aren't smart enough to aecho SS, let alone intelligently chain it with the other important skills like Reckless. Vili 点 08:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I've got my heroes mimicking and echoing Lich Aura. Gamepad Keybound Macros FTW! --ilr 17:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

1) That's in a different attribute line; 2) A MACRO? That might be a bannable offense! It better not be giving you any Drunkard minutes! Vili 点 19:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

What's an Ulterion? 145.94.74.23 07:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Ulterion is probably a user. BTW, why is there still no developer update? Perhaps they're having tourlbe saying that the update failed badly in a way that doesn't make it look like a bad failure.72.71.226.59 23:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Nah, they're waiting for results so they can see that they geared they're update towards what we are seeing =P --Riddle 00:07, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I was told by Martin Kerstein that they hadn't done the dev update because the review process is so long, but it's been quite a while since he told me that and still no dev notes. But then again, he also told me that the German forums seemed to like the update more than the English forums....which turned out to be a lie :/ Karate Jesus 17:49, 19 May 2009

Obvious lie was Obvious, 'The Hoff' is the only thing Germans like more than Americans --ilr 18:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Usually they post the developer updates in the same day. Its a bit strange that there hasn't been a post yet. I would hate for it be delayed a whole week. Dero Ahmonati 19:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

It's coming this week. :) Drago 16:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

So we've heard.... Karate Jesus 16:54, 20 May 2009

May 21 Dev Update

Was wondering if/when~>Sins WDB 00:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

If/when what? -- Brains12 \ talk 00:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

"...and provide some buffs to underused skills."... where are they?--ShadowFog 00:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

If/when there would be update notes.

Despite this... weak? attempt to make monk party heals viable, which is not what they are doing at all, monk party heals don't cut it still. PwK is still the only viable party heal. Burning a monks elite on LoD is idiotic and heal party is a 2 second cast + 15 energy. The DF Earshot heals aren't party heals so they won't be used and for them to be worth it monks can't attribute split. In short all the change to PwK did was make it the old PwK +5 seconds on the recharge, so yeah it didn't make other party heals more viable because if they were people would use them.~>Sins WDB 00:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

How about Strength of Honor (PvE) and Illusionary Weaponry Shadow Frog? Not to mention making the random shadow steps less random...that's also a buff. 145.94.74.23 06:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, he overlooked those buffs. I think mostly because they're still overall crappy skills. Illusionary Weapon for example, the main problem is the recharge time, not the energy cost...

Question

Exactly how many layers must information pass in the ArenaNet developers circle to be heard? People see these updates and look back on their calenders as to when they remember skills being a problem, and it appears that they run on the same time scale as the United States Supreme Court (ie: massive amounts of time between the knowledge of and the fix).

I understand that Guild Vs Guild is a major component of guild wars, but the majority of Guild Wars players happen to not play Guild Vs Guild. So here is a suggestion: Instead of starting at the top and working your way down, start at the bottom of pvp and work your way up.

I could list skills and combos that require attention, but you can easily find lists of those on your own. 68.47.192.6 04:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

"implying that ANet understands or cares about balance"

Tee hee. --Jette 04:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Guild Vs Guild used to be a major component of Guild Wars. Everyone quit because of updates like this one. ~Shard 05:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Most of those guys watch the updates every now and then though so if they would balance the game they would proly go back Lilondra *panda* 11:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

um....why did that take so long again? Karate Jesus 17:19, 22 May 2009

Arena Net is busy. — Jon Lupen 17:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Busy eating power pellets, fruits, keys.......and oh yeah, something called Guild Wars 2, on their spare time.--Wealedout 23:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Boy I hope GW2 is good. smøni 23:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

GL getting dissapointed :) Lilondra *panda* 14:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

:( smøni 16:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, they did release the (pretty big) April update just before this so you can see that they might have had less resources for it, but even so I pretty much agree with most of the things on here (OK, imo WE should have had a re-work, not a revert etc but still). Of course I do agree that some of these things have needed attention for far too long, but let's not be unfair. Hopefully this month's update will give us some more, and hopefully better, changes but otherwise save the complaining for then. 81.109.179.84 10:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Good thinking....

"Despite numerous options for party healing, Protective Was Kaolai had become the obvious choice for party heals and was used in most builds. We've raised the recharge to make other party-healing options more viable and reduce the overall ability to negate pressure builds with strong party healing."

So instead of buffing any of the other party-healing options, they nerf the only one that IS actually viable, and not enough that it can be replaced by the other pathetic offerings, so it will still be used, only less effectively? Brilliant. Targren 17:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

You mean that as sarcasm? Because there's nothing wrong with their reasoning. -- Alaris 17:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Except that it DOESN'T make any of the other party-heals more viable unless they intend to unnerf Ursan and go back to HB/UB teams. If they actually meant what they said there, they should have buffed the eternally suckalicious Heal Party or something. As it is, they just nerfed an already-gimped class to no real end. 71.0.246.138 19:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, weaken an already underused healing profession instead of buffing LoD. N/RTs make better healers than primary Rits, you don't need crappy spawning power (which is really only good for Spirit's Strength, and wow, +48% health to spirits which die in a few hits from any foe) to boost the length of über Xinrae's, do you? Yay for GoLE and HP, lol. Why can't we have a decent buff to LoD? smøni 23:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I hate to support a position of hate... but as a healer it always raises my bloodpressure when I see healing skills nerfed, if only because the knee jerk reaction is to nerf healing because they're afraid of making the pace of the game slow. I never really used Protective Was Kaolai, but when the reasoning for the nerf was that it was too popular... it's days like this I'm glad I have a stress ball. Excuse me while I try to see if I can break the thing.--Ryan Galen 02:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey look on the bright side guys, IW costs less energy! 68.193.113.198

Am I the only one who thought these explanations were poorly written? I mean I don't wanna start callin' 'er "bad Gaile" cuz that's just mean. But reading this is like listening to some spokesperson who didn't write the policies they're preaching, couldn't justify such random changes on their own, and doesn't understand why they'd be necessary in the first place. I'd quote all the examples I'm referring to but I don't wanna turn this into a TL;DR post... Point is, communication broke down at some point here b/c the logic just seems to go in a hasty little inconsistent circle. I never get that feeling when I'm reading proposals or write-ups from people like Auron, Boro, or even Linsey herself. ...I'm not sure why. --ilr 18:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Alaris, there is a major flaw in their reasoning - the change didn't make other party heals any more viable. The way it reads is actually pretty confusing, because they talk about PwK as if it were healing so much that party healing became "zzz pot"... but then talk about making other party heals "more viable" as though the other heals weren't doing enough. Compare this to what's actually seen in game (parties blowing up because there's so much damage going around) and their reasoning is revealed for the bullshit it actually is. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 19:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

One-Man Live Team is one-man. I also percieved he was at his coffee break during the updating and decided to let his/her toddler take care of the tasker for him. /endsarcasm --Ulterion 03:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

This dev update is pretty bad. I like how in the Encouraging Pressure section they talk about trying to bring back other party-wide heals. --Riddle 05:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

It's completely relevant. Nerfing a popular pressure counter, such as a party healing skill, indirectly buffs pressure. As for making other party heals more viable, IMO it would be more accurate to use "competitive" instead of "viable". Nerfing one option can make other options more competitive, it just isn't guaranteed to do so. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 06:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The other notable one is the explanation for WE nerf. It wasn't nerfed because warriors were doing gigantic fucking damage, it was "to encourage a more diverse spread of viable builds in all three weapon types." -- Mafaraxas 19:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure they meant the other TWO weapon types (swords' ftl if they didn't know by now). --Ulterion 20:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

When you sand down wood, you remove the spikes, you don't create more. If something stands out, that's the thing to change. MithTalk 23:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Anets logic: Nerfing the only worthwhile skill makes the other skills seem less crappy, even though they still are. But we can't be bothered to update and balance them all so this will do. SniperFox 13:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I just wish they applied that logic to some PvE combinations of skills that promote solo playing. You can't get into some areas unless you have the appropriate farming build, because normal parties no longer enter there. At least with all-ursen builds you went in full parties, not just minimal farming ones. MithTalk 13:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

lol u posted at 13:37 - Wuhy 86.101.134.142 14:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

That last comment shows how important the issue really is to the community. 145.94.74.23 19:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

People just fear losing the SF they use too even when they say they don't. It's like smoking. We all know it is bad, but some still use it. But you don't quit unless you start to. And the better way to not smoke is not starting to. MithTalk 19:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

You guys are all so hilarious.

1. In PvE, Heal Party is by far the most powerful party healing option. You don't need anything other Heal Party, because the places you would even need HP you would also have a BiP to spam at your beck and call.
2. In GvGs, nerfing PwK only made people who didn't preprot hurt, and even if you think you don't have enough party healing, just get your friendly E/Rit to bring Life and just spend 3.75 seconds more at the stand, after all, he has tons of energy, and probably tons of time.
3. In HA, you got HB monks, you got channeling. Channel tank better, or don't play a HA monk. Or simply bring a PnH bitch and get him/her to spam divine healing/heaven's delight on 40/40 recharge, that settles all the party healing you ever need, else it just means you need to get better, or think about not HAing.
4. In AB/TA/RA, why are you bringing party healing for a 4 man party?
5. In FA/JQ, why do you ever need to heal across the map when they can die and ress in approximately 10 seconds time with full health and energy?

Seriously...although anet's reasoning suck, PwK nerf is somewhat done well because

1. In GvGs you have lesser party-wide pressure now(save for the pure hexway teams, and that's just buildwars, no amount of party healing helps when you can't remove 1000000hexes on each party member, unless you get something that heals for 100 health every second :x).
2. In HA, it just nerfs heroway and E/Rts, which means less defenseball and more proper builds. Mind you, IWAY still is powerful, just makes it easier to power through the 3 man defenseball keeping the party up. Teaseway is easier to power through now that PwK is nerfed; didn't people complain about how much defense they provided? Now that anet made these options people were complaining about less viable, why are they still complaining? Why are people expecting a fix to the power creep that doesn't involve tweaking numbers?

/endofwalloftext Pika Fan 19:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Our problem here is that Regina doesn't have connection with the developer team, and continues to write illogical, inconsistent, half-baked excuses for every update. Seriously if you want to write about game balance then you should know game balance. Boro 06:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

And are we that petty and narrow-minded that we have to resort to nitpicking bad reasoning even if they are nerfing skills in the right direction?Pika Fan 11:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I laugh so hard at every developer update, but that's ok because I have my own developer update in my head that makes sense. Misery 11:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

well of course i'm glad WE nerf happened, i hope the opposite didn't come across ;o -- Mafaraxas 11:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)