Feedback talk:Joe Kimmes/Archive 2011-2014

GW(1)Fanday

You're a very quiet man. See also Feedback talk:John Stumme#GW(1)Fanday. - Tanetris 04:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

A question of practicality

This is a purely hypothetical scenario, but if the skitzers running ANet told you to, how much of the game could be rolled back to a prior state, and how much of a pain in the ass would it be to do so? I don't mean a previous state as in account info, items, etc.; I mean skill mechanics, attribute mechanics, monster info, and other junk. Basically, if Mike O'Brien told you he'd been coked out of his mind for 5 years and wanted everything back to the way it was when Nightfall was released, how possible would it be for you to make that happen?

There's a valid reason I'm asking this, but it's convoluted, wrong, and stupid, so just don't worry about it for now. –Jette 02:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

If it were absolutely everything, sure, the team could roll the game back to Nightfall without too much trouble. Of course, you'd reintroduce fixed bugs, make everyone redownload less-polished art, remove features, etc. Rolling the game back partially while preserving bug fixes and features would be a massive headache. - Joe Kimmes 18:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

How about just skills and those purty character selection screens? I seem to remember someone saying that the Nightfall, Factions, and Prophecies (Diablo rip-off campfire) character selection screens are gone forever with no hope of return, but I don't remember why. –Jette 19:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I miss NF's character selection screen, it was so.... relaxing.... :( --BriarThe Spider 20:03, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Not only is that one of Linsey's FAQs, Joe's already responded to a question about it. -- FreedomBound 20:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thanks then, sorry about that. That raises some other interesting questions, but I'll direct those to someone else. –Jette 23:59, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

models

Do heroes use different models from human players? Aside from the obvious ones like Zhed, Oghden, MOX, etc. A friend and I noticed that EotN heroes (I've noticed Kahmu, Xandra, Livia, and suspect Hayda) use different models and different proportions than human players and Nightfall heroes. They seem to have smoother curves along their features at high zoom levels; classic models look pointed as the bodies contour. I wasn't sure if it was just confirmation bias, so I want to know: do the heroes use different wireframes (or whatever) than their player counterparts? I'm not sure if you would know this, but you seem the most "techy" of the ANet people who post here.

In the same vein, would it be possible or feasible for a player to use the high-resolution models? At first glance, they appear similar enough that any textures that work on old models would work on new ones. Even if it's just an option in the Graphics menu (use high-res models on players, or similar), it would be cool to have, especially for people like me who like to play at stupidly high resolutions. If it's possible to do it without dragging people away from GW2 or setting the server on fire, I think I'll suggest it as a low-priority feature on the suggestion... thing. –Jette 20:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Heroes use a fixed model the same way all non-player models do - players are composited from their various armor parts. The EotN heroes look a little better simply because our artists had more time to polish them - the art has improved in every chapter, and there are no EotN player-characters to compare them to. So no, there are no higher resolution player textures than the ones already in use. - Joe Kimmes 21:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Thanks. I keep thinking of things to ask you, though I at least searched for this one: why can't you use two dyes of the same color on an armor? The dye system got rehauled around the time Nightfall was released, which was nice for the most part, but ever since then it's been impossible to use two colors at once on an item (even though it looks different than just one). The engine is obviously capable of doing it; is it a server side thing or just an oversight? On a related subject, why is it old dye combos that can no longer be achieved still appear in-game? For instance, a friend of mine has a very, very old elite Geomancer set from before Nightfall came out with a special black color that can't be achieved anymore, with any combination. If the entire system was redone, wouldn't it make it impossible to display older colors? –Jette 21:18, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Dying an item with multiple identical dyes should, realistically, not stack the color - it's an artifact of the dye system that the preview shows a brighter preview when you stack the same color.

When the dye system was updated, not all old colors could be converted - older combined dyes would have been slightly reshaded, which would disappoint players who had a specialized combination. So older items still use the old dye system; if you redye them, they update to the new system. - Joe Kimmes 21:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, both systems still exist? Maybe I'll ask someone to allow both or something... would it be possible to add a "switch" to the preview menu to let you pick whether you want the old or the new? Anything that's exclusive to one side or another would have to be removed from the selection before you could hit apply, of course. Assuming the designers say it's acceptable, how much work would that be? –Jette 23:45, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The old system doesn't allow for, just for example, white dye. But apart from that, the old system - mixing dyes, not having pink dye, etc - effectively no longer exists; only the generated dye values from it are still there for the old items. - Joe Kimmes 23:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I see. Thanks anyway, then. One last thing (hopefully): you mention "dye values;" are those RGB hex values or something similar that auto-color the armor? And if so, would it be possible to enter the values manually if an interface for it were created to make a custom dye value? An "ultimate platinum edition dye" that sells for a sickening amount of gold (or $4.99...) which lets you enter whatever value you want would be kind of cool. –Jette 00:30, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

There are of course numerical values for the dye shades, but they're more or less specific to each armor type. Setting up the Pink Dye to function reliably took Mike Zadorojny the better part of a week. It's not something we would want to expose to players. - Joe Kimmes 01:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

But you're totally cool with exposing them to this crap, right? It's cool, I kind of figured it would be a nightmare to get it to work right. –Jette 01:17, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Dyes have ID numbers 1-13. 13 being pink since it was the latest added 89.108.110.170 02:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

a further barrage of questions

I made a suggestion not long ago and was told by a friend that the size of some critters you turn into prevents them from working properly, that the collision system is based on model size or... whatever. This sounds sensible, but this friend happens to do a whole lot of cocaine on the weekends, so I want to be sure. Are there technical reasons why tonics couldn't work out of towns? And if there are, which do you think would be unacceptable? More specifically, do you think the Mursaat and Ooze ones would be workable? Those are my favorite two. Finally, if it isn't possible for them to work at the normal sizes, how much of a pain is it to scale the models down to fit? It seems like it'd be as easy as dragging a bar, but I don't do 3-D stuff.

Sorry if I'm bugging you a lot. I get curious about some things in the game and, as some of my friends will tell you, my curiosity quickly develops into neurotic obsession. Asking you is the healthiest, legalest way for me to handle it. –Jette 21:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

There aren't technical reasons tonics aren't usable outside of towns - in fact, the birthday tonics are. We didn't make all tonics work that way, partially just to make the ones that are usable a little cooler. - Joe Kimmes 22:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

wtb mursaat useable out side of town... 100k+250zkeys... but really i would love to be able to float around and kill things as a mursaat i always thought that it was because the models were missing animations for like swinging a scythe (as far as i know there are not scythe wielding mursaat in the game. though i supose you could steal the paragons animation for that... - Zesbeer 23:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Huh, I thought that the reason was lack of animations for all 10 professions (there's probably a reason outside of lore we don't see Mursaat assassins or Forgotten paragons). Konig/talk 23:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

@Konig lol we said the same thing...- Zesbeer 23:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, then, uh, with all due respect, you and the live team have a pretty friggin' weird definition of cool (as opposed to this or this). On that subject, Mursaat have attack animations for non-staves; go check out the Profession's Constructs in Sunjiang district. They're awesome, the old Hundred Blades Animation for the Warrior's Construct was this wicked spinning thing where it'd float up a few inches and then rotate at high speed. It was freaking sweet. I don't know if they do it anymore now that Hundred Blades is dumb. It would probably trigger on Cyclone Axe, if they used that. –Jette 01:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

There have been tonics that were scrapped entirely due to animation issues, but that's not a deciding factor for explorable use - to give an example, the Kuunavang tonic is usable in explorables.

As for what's cool, you may need to reread my post; the birthday present tonics are usable in explorables to make them cooler, irrespective of what they turn you into. - Joe Kimmes 01:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

mouse pointer question

so i have been wondering for a wile (mainly because i hate window's 7's mouse pointers wtb 3d mouse pointer from xp...) anyhow how hard it would be to export the mouse pointer we see in game to work as a mouse pointer theme for windows 7?- Zesbeer 23:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

There's some goofball program out there called MappingOut or something similar that has GW's mouse embedded in it (this is probably copyright infringement, but if you've spoken to me for five minutes you've probably figured out I don't give a crap). There's a tool called ResHacker out there that can yoink resources like that from Windows binaries, go steal it off of that. It would probably work on GW, too, but I'm assuming the people who wrote it put a thousand different protection schemes that take 20 minutes to make sure your computer isn't carrying a weapon or Islamic and download all your family photos, porn, credit card numbers, and personally identifiable information to a central database so that you never-ever-never take something for a harmless purpose, omg you felon. –Jette 01:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Art is not my department, sorry Zesbeer. - Joe Kimmes 01:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Icons

While we're assaulting you with curiosities, would you happen to know what these icons are/were intended for? --ஸ Kyoshi 00:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea, but the suggestion that they are for corpse requiring and health-draining skills seems like a decent one. - Joe Kimmes 01:47, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

While looking for something completely different, I happened upon the original uses of those icons - they're respectively for health upkeep (the arrow) and death penalty (the skull). - Joe Kimmes 22:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I didn't know they had the death penalty in GW. I mean, hell, banning is one thing, but... capital punishment? Christ. I guess RMTing is more serious than I thought. –Jette 13:23, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Death penalty? Fascinating - so using such a skill might give you 5% DP or something? And I'm guessing the other one was for vampiric-style enchantments that drain health instead of energy to maintain? -- Armond Warblade 15:44, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Very cool, thanks Joe. --ஸ Kyoshi 16:51, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Frostmaw Lvl4 Hidden Treasure

My group just did Frostmaw's Lair, and the first Hidden Treasure, right at the entrance spawn to level 4, fizzled out after using Light of Deldrimor on it. *Malganis Frostmourn* 99.48.31.204 22:58, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the report; we're very close to having a fix for this issue thanks to players tracking down the problem areas. - Joe Kimmes 17:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Awesome news, Joe. Do you still want specific reports in the meantime? – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 17:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the reports I've gotten should be enough; I'd be interested to hear if you see it happen somewhere new or some different form of the bug though. - Joe Kimmes 00:36, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

There might be specific locations missing from above, but I think they fall into the same patterns (near entrance to level or near a conflux of impassable wireframes; pings location but fails to appear vs appears without pinging). (Resolving this would leave us to concentrate on the bigger mystery of why my friend always gets lockpicks but I get map pieces.) – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 00:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Are you only able to look at/fix the locations that have been listed? Or are you able to look at the code for each location, fix it, then extend those fixes to makes sure it doesn't happen at any location? --Musha 03:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The fix is a universal one, fortunately. - Joe Kimmes 17:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

See, give him enough time (and a place to code), and Joe can fix the universe. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 18:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

And, in fact, he has! Today's update fixed it all! Congrats, Joe; and thank you for this fix! --Musha 02:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Thanks for fixing this long-standing bug (or bugs?). This has been one of those issues that plagued spellunkers, but didn't seem worth as much time to research in detail (since it could be hard to replicate the exact circumstances). I haven't checked all the glitched locations, but I checked several ...and haven't encountered any problems getting a successful ping (if outside the reach of LoD) or revealing the treasure (if within range). In particular, I finally exposed the treasure at the start of Bogroots L2 (never could get that to appear) and the ones that pinged-but-did-not-reveal in Frostmaw/L4 and Oola/L2-3 (L2 included an ally that I was never able to reveal before).

Good stuff. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 18:21, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

You mentioned on talk:Hidden Treasure that the random appearance was one of the things getting in the way of consistent mechanics. Was there anything else? I noticed recently that most of the badly bugged locations had treasures that needed to appear at an odd height relative to the surrounding area and I wondered if sometimes the treasures were being revealed...but below the surface (so to speak)...so we couldn't reach them. Or perhaps they couldn't spawn due to a collision with a non-navigable part of the environment. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 21:31, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The appearance randomization malfunctioning was the main problem; there was a treasure or two that collided with the environment but usually in that case the treasure won't even sparkle at range. It'll be at least a month or two before I make any changes to their appearance rate, simply by virtue of other priorities, by the way. - Joe Kimmes 01:53, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Hidden Treasures revisited

So I've found two spots where the LoD shimmer isn't visible after a successful ping. It's strictly cosmetic: there's no problem getting an accurate ping nor in exposing the treasure/ally if you stand in the right spot.

1. Raven's Point, L3. Treasure is in the snow just to west of rez shrine in the boss fight room. (Not enough contrast between glimmering light and the snow.)
2. Arachni's Haunt, L2: in the lake area west of the Flame Guardian, just south of the web. The two that spawned under the water weren't visible.

In both cases, the LoD caster just needed to walk out of compass range (and back) to ping again so we could get a fix on the position. I haven't managed to visit every dungeon, but so far, those are the only blemishes (slight as they are) on the otherwise perfect mechanics that we see right now. Let me know if you need a map with the exact locations. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 09:20, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I suggest passing these along to support/QA - this is a problem that would be solved by moving those treasures to a location where the shimmer isn't blocked, which is handled by the spawning team. Thanks for continuing to check these! - Joe Kimmes 19:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. (Or maybe they'll have a sneaky way to allow the shimmer to shine through the reflections on the water.) – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 17:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

A question for you, mister Kimmes

It's something I think the whole community wants to know and excuse me if this question has already been answered. Will Imperial weapons be displayable in your hall of monuments?--83.82.62.210 15:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Adding things to the HoM is unfortunately a big hurdle for our team. It's easy enough for me to make it work in GW1, but since the HoM Calculator is available now, it also means that the Calculator and GW2 interaction have to be updated as well to add new items. In some cases, like Minipets, this isn't as big of a deal since they just tally your total count, but adding new Weapons would require time from the web team and potentially the GW2 team, who are understandably very busy at the moment.

All of that said, it's something I'd really like - if nothing else, I think I'm 1 weapon away from maxing that monument! - Joe Kimmes 18:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Would it be easier to make such new additions only count for the total tally's (e.g., the "15 weapon statues" and "30 Companion statues") rather than unique categories (such as the "Oppressor Weapon Statue")? I think that way of adding them would be best anyways, so that those who currently have 50/50 don't suddenly have 49 or 48/50. Konig/talk 19:11, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

If you take a look at the calculator, it lists each weapon you have individually - that's the data GW1 sends, the total is calculated web-side. So, it'd have to count as one of the existing weapons for that to work, which is pretty confusing. - Joe Kimmes 19:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I see, thanks. Looks like I'm gonna sell my Imperial Dragon's Tear.--83.82.62.210 19:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

@Kimmes: Makes sense, though not in the sense of why they did it that way... @IP: Greens don't go into the HoM, it'd be the gold version that would, if either (which you get from Requisition Orders). Also, Tears cannot be traded. Konig/talk 20:29, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

@IP number: I'd hold onto it myself, at least until GW2 comes out. We'd like to let players add the weapons, it's just difficult so I can't promise anything.

@Konig: It was coded before the rewards were finalized, so we sent as much data as possible so that if the GW2 designers wanted 1:1 rewards, it was possible. - Joe Kimmes 21:03, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I see... Another semi-HoM-related question: Previously Stumme said that Keiran has some alternative armors ready, does Miku and Zei Ri? Similarly, must we have them able to be placed in the HoM for us to get those alternative armors? ^^ Konig/talk 21:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

What John is talking about there is Keiran's existing alternate versions, like Tuxedo Keiran and Battle-Damaged Keiran. Making those available is something we've talked about, it's just not a high priority. - Joe Kimmes 22:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

So I take it as no to Miku/Zei having alternatives (though Zei arguably could but it'd just be the addition of the MoP helm), but yes to able getting the other armors regardless of placement in HoM just not certain whether we will or not. Konig/talk 22:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

If weapons clutter up Hall of Monuments, you can try to make requirements different for getting points (such as: One GW:Beyond weapon, One Tormented weapon, one Titan weapon etc. --Boro 22:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

"1 point each + at least X of Y type" worked pretty well for miniatures. Not so well for armors, though. If you favor Dervish or Paragon and are trying to fill your HoM just with them, since since there's no elite kurzick or luxon armors for paragons and dervishes, you wont be able to do so and have to make another character just for that. MithTalk 23:17, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Winds of Change commendations

Any chance of seeing WoC repeatable / bounty quests added to the game? It's kind of annoying to have a finite number of Ministral Commendations and Imperial Guard Requisition Orders available. A system similar to the one implented in WiK where you can keep farming weapons would be much better for those of us choosing to focus on just one or two characters instead of 10 different ones. PS, outside of this and the Kappa quest great work on the WoC campaign. Tons of fun! 84.48.54.253 10:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't want to put words in Joe's mouth, but I'm pretty sure we'll get more dailies out of this. -- Hong 19:54, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

If we were going to, I suspect we would have with part 3's release. Also, @ IP: Ministerial Commendations are not finite. Konig/talk 21:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

They drop from ministry units. Well, supposedly at least. I'm yet to see a single drop, while with heroes I must have got about a stack of Confessor's Orders while playing with all my characters and doing Wanted Quests. Anyways, I always found just going around killing random enemies kind of boring, so I'd also love to see cyclical repeatable quests too for when I'm done with my characters and there's still things I want to get by myself. MithTalk 23:07, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Playing through WoC part 2 NM (since part 1 doesn't give MoP'ers), I have roughly 5 commendations with 7 heroes. I didn't get any in part 3 though, and haven't done HM quests beyond part 1. It should be noted that Ministerial Commendations could probably put more on par with War Supplies than with Confessor's Orders, even though fewer commendations are needed for requisitions than supplies for medals. Point being - for every 3 or so Connfessor's Orders, you should have been able to get 1 Ministerial Commendation, rather than 1 for 1 in rates. Of course, with random drop chance, that's all just theoretical - like how 200 fortunes should get you a celestial mini (yet the past 2 years, 200-300 got me 0). Konig/talk 04:06, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I had a commendation drop for me the other day... didn't think to screenie because it didn't seem that odd to me (WiK having drops as well, after all), but I can confirm that they do drop. Just not very frequently apparently. -- Elv 17:57, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

For all intents and purposes, the number of mini-commendations is finite. Two of us played through nm/HM WoC and received 108 total from quests, but between us, we only saw one dropping from foes. After WoC, there are only a limited number of areas that spawn the relevant MoP foes ...and none of the optional quests do (at least, according to the list of hostile NPCs for them). The current effort:reward ratio makes it unlikely that anyone except dedicated farmers will see many of these outside of receiving them from quest rewards. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 09:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

AI Update and bundles

After the socalled melee update I'm noticing a tendency of any characters using bundles such as protective was kaolai or Anguished Was Lingwah to act like complete and utter idiots. They rush forward in to the middle of the enemy mob and I end up with my only 2 healers and 1 protective character all dead at the same time. This is very annoying! 84.48.54.253 07:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I suggest adding problems you're experiencing with the AI to the Hero_behavior/Unexpected_behavior page. - Joe Kimmes 19:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

AI updates

Could you please take a very quick look at spell breaker? Heroes do not cast friendly spells on allies under the effect of this skill. Such as heals / prots and buffs. 84.48.54.253 00:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not able to reproduce the problem; is there a specific example of an ally or skill that this fails with?

As before, I recommend reporting issues through the Support Forums or relevant wiki pages like Hero_behavior/Unexpected_behavior - it may seem slower than contacting me directly, but it helps our QA team track the bugs and get the fixes into future builds. - Joe Kimmes 00:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I see you did add it to the wiki before adding it here - thanks! - Joe Kimmes 00:54, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Missing some EL Tonics

Hey Joe, had a quick question. We have many forms available through the Mysterious Tonic, is there a reason these aren't available as a Everlasting Tonic? In particular an Everlasting Swarm of Bees tonic. Dealaka 22:04, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there's a reason code-wise. Design-wise, having a lot of unique results does make the Mysterious Tonics a little more special. There are certainly a lot of 'missing' individual tonics there though; that might be a fun thing to add next time we're looking for new rewards. - Joe Kimmes 22:21, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

If the team is going to bother with new ones, use models that don't currently have a tonic form. Also, if the team doesn't have resources for new assets, why don't they look into doing something with the all of the unimplemented content the game has. 78.47.250.35 22:35, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Most unimplemented content is 'cut' content; quests and skills that were replaced, renamed or simply beyond saving. A lot of unused art has made it into Beyond content; for example, the Peacekeepers in the War In Kryta. - Joe Kimmes 22:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh interesting, but more specifically I was referring to maps. 78.47.250.35 23:13, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

The tricky thing with maps is that often any unused maps never received a full polish pass, so they have floating rocks, texture seams, terrain imbalances (in the case of PvP maps) and so on. Fixing these can take a lot of time; with everyone working on GW2, that's not usually an option. The Live Team is always looking for unused pieces of art though; the map for Embark Beach is one example. - Joe Kimmes 23:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

That's understandable. There sure is some interesting ones though. The one pictured here is nice. Makes you wonder what they were originally designed for. 78.47.250.35 23:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

@ip i dont think those are maps from the game i think that user made those maps via reverse engineering the game. maybe i am wrong but he has no expiation about them at all on that page. never mind read his discussion page and he says he got them off the dat file.- Zesbeer 10:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

AI skill usage repots by IPs & registered users

I have found that you are re-directing players to make edits on Hero behavior/Unexpected behavior main page, but we have left two top notice messages to use the talk page instead. I would like to ask that you tell people to do that instead too. Yoshida Keiji talk 16:31, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Sure thing. - Joe Kimmes 17:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Anniversary Celebration

Sadie Salvitas appeared in last year's event, but she hasn't appeared in this year's event. Is this intended? --Silver Edge 08:01, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

This is unintended, and will be patched as soon as possible. Thanks for your report! - Joe Kimmes 17:35, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

2014 April MAT Obs Broken?

I could only watch the Finals- the rest of the matches before can't be observed (for the ones I tried). Gets stuck at "connecting". Targetdrone (talk) 18:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the report! I've reproduced the issue and passed the report along to the server team. - Joe Kimmes 20:46, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Still couldn't obs that mAT though. Anyway is obs broken today or is gw1 gvg and HA really quiet and there are zero matches? Targetdrone (talk) 19:07, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I have one match available; it looks as if they're just really quiet. I'll keep an eye on it though. - Joe Kimmes 00:30, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Well there were ATC matches that day and obs was broken for those - shame since apparently some matches were interesting (and all the first round matches were > 20 mins!). Someone in my alliance claims they had other matches than just "Pooptrim Material vs Gargantuan Titan". Targetdrone (talk) 16:41, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Some people are using Toolbox to cheat

http://bgsmz.forumotion.com/t31-gwtoolbox-2

Toolbox can change your attributes in an explorable area. You should patch this. 96.61.78.97 20:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the report, I will look into this. - Joe Kimmes 21:42, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Joe. I don't know how Toolbox works, only seen it used by other players. It is real and it can legitimately do stuff beyond what is normally allowed by the game client. Some of it is pretty mystifying. 96.61.78.97 22:09, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

If it's possible, you might want to monitor attribute levels in explorable areas to find out how it can be used. (Hint, hint.) Also, you didn't hear about this from me. ; ) 96.61.78.97 23:01, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

If a solution to prevent the use of Toolbox isn't found by the time it's June and the Flux is Jack of All Trades again, will ArenaNet at the very least replace Jack of All Trades in the Flux rotation (with another Flux or an additional month of Odran's Razor), since Toolbox can modify attributes to exploit Jack of All Trades? --Silver Edge 22:21, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

If it came to that, it's a change I would personally be fine with. It would also be possible to modify Jack of All Trades. However, I would prefer to prevent illegal attribute changes entirely; do you have reports of continued abuse in that regard? - Joe Kimmes 22:52, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

No, I don't. --Silver Edge 23:46, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Does toolbox allow the attrib changes to be beyond normal limits? Or allow immediate maxing out of appropriate attribs as each skill is used? Because in the avg vs EDGE playoff match of the 2014 June mAT you can see the avg split air ele use patient spirit for 102 HP heal with aura of restoration still giving 18 HP and 37 HP for 5 and 10 energy spells, while still doing very high damage with air magic skills. Either way the game seems to be trusting the client too much. The toolbox aggro count/target monitor feature might be interesting for pre-prots assuming I understand the description correctly. I think it should be possible to build an auto-cancel cast feature vs pesky mesmers or rangers (e.g. if they target you and start casting certain skills while you're casting, your client auto-cancels). Maybe even an auto recast (during the aftercast of the enemy ;) ). Won't help me since my ping is high. But if a monk uses such a bot you might be able to use up the monk's energy by repeatedly using and cancelling a rupt signet... Bot Wars :p Targetdrone (talk) 17:45, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

2014-07-02 Obs broken?

Is obs mode broken again? I see hall of heroes activity but nothing in obs. Targetdrone (talk) 12:27, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll pass this along to the server team, thanks for the report. As before, it may be simply low activity in combination with not all games making it to obs. - Joe Kimmes 17:34, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

As before? I'm pretty sure it was broken before, not low activity. GW1 isn't that dead yet, e's just resting ;) Targetdrone (talk) 19:12, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

2014-07-10 Obs broken

Hi, I think obs mode is broken again. There's GvG activity but nothing shows up, not even the "own guild's battle". 121.121.120.125 13:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, it's disturbing that this is happening so frequently lately. Thanks for your report, I will pass it on to the server team! - Joe Kimmes 16:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Allow heroes in guild scrimmages?

How about allowing heroes in guild scrimmages? I know it's late in GW's life but might be fun :)... Targetdrone (talk) 15:57, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I think there's a multi-year old post somewhere in my talk page archive where that feature was requested right after Heroes were removed from PvP; it's something I'd hoped to one day have time for. Right now though, GW1 is focused on maintenance, so there's not a lot of room for adding even small features. - Joe Kimmes 17:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Pretty please? :) Targetdrone (talk) 17:22, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

What Isa Ku said

Will we ever be allowed to figure out how to grow our own "cupcake tree"? ^_^ --Falconeye (talk) 00:16, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Alas, I doubt it; the creation process of the birthday cupcakes is ironclad, lore-wise, and I don't want to conflict with that. - Joe Kimmes 17:13, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Wayfarer's Reverie

Wiki folks are prepping for it, and I am wondering if any articles under Landmark categories have official names to them? Example: Royen Beastkeeper's location in Nahpui Quarter isnt properly documented as a landmark; is there anything unique/official about this area, or do I just unofficially name it "Royen's Nahpui Nightclub". ^_^ --Falconeye (talk) 08:42, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

When the Wayfarer's Reverie quests were created, we used the best-available name we had for the target areas as the quest objective. I'm sure a few generically named areas have a proper name that we missed, but for the most part there probably isn't an official name for areas like Royen's tree. - Joe Kimmes 19:12, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I cast one vote for "Royen's Nahpui Nightclub" becoming the official name. ~ Matthew Moore (talk) 19:56, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Seems plausibly official! - Joe Kimmes 20:07, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Now we just need the Am Fah there to start dancing. - Alexis Toran (talk) 20:57, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Alright, we found eight of the Xunlai Archivists, and although some of us suspect that there is an NPC in a Prophecies explorable area, we're running out of areas + it'd be nice to know how many we've got left to find (possibly zero). Would you be so kind as to tip us off? ^^ -Chieftain Alex 17:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I saw the Archivist articles being added and was excited to see them finally being found! I don't know for certain if all of the Wayfarer's Reverie NPCs have been found, but I can confirm that all of the Archivists are now documented. Excellent work! - Joe Kimmes 19:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Does Anet have any "nice" Flame Temple screenshots, or any other Wayfarer-related shots not currently documented on the wiki? --Falconeye (talk) 21:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're asking for - we took some promo screenshots for Wayfarer's Reverie that are on the main website, if that's what you're looking for? As far as adding images to the wiki, I'm not likely to come up with anything better than you can get in-game given my limited composition skill. Or are you wondering which part of Flame Temple Corridor is the actual Flame Temple, which may be a question of a more philosophical nature? - Joe Kimmes 22:11, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes to both questions. --Falconeye (talk) 22:19, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The promotional screenshots are at the bottom of the Reverie webpage.

I polled a few nearby designers and was told that the Flame Temple is not 'in' the Corridor so much as it 'is' the Corridor - the various edifices and charr altar are a Flame Temple which you pass through in travelling the Flame Temple Corridor. This is a pretty casual level of canon though, so take it with a grain of salt. - Joe Kimmes 22:52, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. The wiki had all but Royen's location, so I uploaded that. ^_^--Falconeye (talk) 01:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Hero Battles

I wish we had Hero Battles back even though I wasn't any good at it. Yes there was that red resign thing but we have botters, syncers and resigners in other PvP formats too and that includes Codex Arena. I find Codex Arena a more boring concept than Hero Battles - it's basically Crippled Arena ;). I don't know of any MMO that has something like Hero Battles. Oh well too late. Just grumbling :) Targetdrone (talk) 14:26, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I have a soft spot for HB too - it was one of my first big projects that I was responsible for. Hero Battles had multiple issues aside from resigning though; as you've said, other formats are not free from resign issues, so I don't think that was the deciding factor.

If you enjoyed the gameplay of Hero Battles, I would actually look outside of MMOs for similar experiences - it's more or less like a small-scale RTS. Maybe there's some sort of RTS/MOBA hybrid that would play similarly. - Joe Kimmes 17:02, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah it's a bit like a mini RTS but with guild wars heroes and skills. What fatal issues did it have? The meta getting stale might partly be due to players not trying new stuff (the stuff they were using worked fine). But people played and enjoyed Counterstrike for years doing similar things over and over again with basically the same weapons, and on the same old maps too... Targetdrone (talk) 16:44, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Unofficial terms

Is Feeder still considered an unofficial term among the Anet staff? (The term was first coined in the Elementalist update notes, and subsequently adapted for lack of a better name.) And on that note are there any unofficial names/terminology adopted by players/fandom/wiki community that have now largely become official? --Falconeye (talk) 07:16, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I've actually never heard that term used in-house.

There's probably a lot of lingo originating with the community that we all use, but nothing in particular springs to mind. - Joe Kimmes 16:53, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Observer mode limitations

Any technical reason why we can't see the observed toon's skill bar, skill bar usage, its target, target skill usage etc just like you were the targeted toon? I think it would have made observing matches more interesting for spectators ( especially those who don't have every skill animation and sound memorized ;) ). Would have made it easier to have recorded matches that are more spectator friendly too Targetdrone (talk) 16:50, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't have a great deal of knowledge about the inner workings of Obs mode. My guess would be that it's not a strict technical limitation, but rather a decision to limit the scope of observing for the sake of the UI. There are a lot of edge cases that would need to be handled to let you observe someone's skill bar for things like the skill queue, cooldowns, and so on. - Joe Kimmes 16:58, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Nagling

Is Nagling enabled at the server and/or client side? My pings to various non-GW servers are stable but my in-game pings to GW servers fluctuate by 200ms. I suspect this is due to Nagling or similar ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagle%27s_algorithm#Interactions_with_real-time_systems ). If so is there a way to turn it off for GW? Targetdrone (talk) 15:13, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not a network engineer, so I can't say for sure. However, it is far more likely that you simply don't have constant latency to the GW servers than it is that our servers are using an algorithm that would potentially increase the game's latency for every player.

Presumably though, you could prove this one way or another simply by observing the packets being sent to and from your machine. - Joe Kimmes 17:12, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

My in game ping to 206.127.158.45 last ping 546ms, average 424ms (I can give you screenshots if you want)

My Windows ICMP pings to 206.127.158.1 ( during the same period):

Ping statistics for 206.127.158.1:
    Packets: Sent = 83, Received = 83, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 332ms, Maximum = 366ms, Average = 340ms

My pings to www.guildwars.com

Ping statistics for 64.25.35.116:
    Packets: Sent = 495, Received = 495, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 213ms, Maximum = 271ms, Average = 229ms

My pings to 8.8.8.8

Ping statistics for 8.8.8.8:
    Packets: Sent = 590, Received = 590, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 16ms, Maximum = 20ms, Average = 16ms

So I don't think it's mainly my connection. Could check the socket options on the client and server code to see if TCP_NODELAY is enabled anywhere (it's disabled by default). But yeah it could be something else I guess. Targetdrone (talk) 15:36, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

OK I tried with psping to the various GW servers. First the instance/game server (the IP shown by the connection status "dot").

TCP connect statistics for 206.127.158.45:6112:
  Sent = 30, Received = 30, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
  Minimum = 333.65ms, Maximum = 382.67ms, Average = 352.73ms

To other GW servers- "Friends list" and session?

TCP connect statistics for 64.25.39.22:6112:
  Sent = 20, Received = 20, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
  Minimum = 216.97ms, Maximum = 253.05ms, Average = 233.66ms

TCP connect statistics for 64.25.39.107:6112:
  Sent = 20, Received = 20, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
  Minimum = 216.50ms, Maximum = 241.25ms, Average = 233.23ms

So while the instance server is 100ms higher than the other servers (in different IP range) for tcp pings, it's still 100ms lower than the average "dot" pings to the same instance server and the fluctuation range is smaller. Targetdrone (talk) 15:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

GvG Rated Automatic Match restrictions

Is it true that guilds can't get "Rated Automatic Match" battles with other guilds if they have played with each other in the past 5 matches? What other restrictions are there? Would it be possible to change this so that the restrictions only apply if the battles last less than X minutes (X=5?). In other words guilds that have short matches with each other won't be matched up against each other so soon, whereas if they have longer matches they can play with each other again (if they stop wanting to be matched vs each other they can resign). This way the players who want to sync can be happy and the players who want to play for real can be happy too, more happy players playing the way they want to play. I assume if a match is over in less than 5 minutes at least one of the guilds won't want a rated match with each other again soon (if the guilds do want one they can wait 5 mins ). Yes we could do unrated battles, but unrated battles require you to know which guilds are willing and around to play AND psychologically many players want rated matches... I know this will make it easier for farmers/syncers, but are the restrictions stopping the syncers anyway, and why should we care so much about the farming at this point of the game's life? The restrictions seem hurt the people who want to play real matches more than those who don't. Targetdrone (talk) 22:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of the actual internal workings of matchmaking, it's unfortunately not something I can change the mechanics of at the current time. - Joe Kimmes 17:27, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Too difficult to code, or it's a policy thing? I was thinking the way the restrictions are implemented was the game stores the guilds a guild has matched up against somewhere. And my proposal is to not do the storing if the timer is more than X minutes. Yes it makes syncing easier but the syncers don't appear to be stopped by the current system anyway, and they seem to be frustrating those wanting real GvG games (whereas I think that existing matchmaking restrictions aren't helping either - they prevent guilds from laddering with each other in real matches). Targetdrone (talk) 17:06, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Both. Matchmaking is a nontrivial system that is handled outside of my domain. - Joe Kimmes 18:19, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Good day, Joe. Is there a chance you could explain us a bit of what are the current restrictions exactly? It is something which is currently being discussed in a more recent thread, though I believe that none of the participants are truly aware of bounds which are there for two guilds who have already fought against each other. Thanks a bunch. Dmitri Fatkin (talk) 22:08, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Two Heroes' Ascent henchmen

Good evening, Joe. Is there a chance you could find the time to look into the possibility of fixing the old textures bug for Rollo Lowlo and Hobba Inaste while being in combat at Heroes' Ascent? At this moment, most parts of their bodies appear simply as white-colored nets. Thanks in advance. Dmitri Fatkin (talk) 14:05, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately that bug falls under the category of art, which I have the least ability to fix myself or pass off to our busy art team. The only option would be to replace the models of those two entirely to known-working models, which honestly might not be so bad compared to the Fighting Polygon Team. Thanks for bringing this issue up; I can't promise that it'll get fixed but I'll make sure it's at least considered for future updates. - Joe Kimmes 17:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

All right, I think using Herta's model for Hobba might be a good choice since both of them are elonians, and Rollo might get a look similar to Argo, since I don't seem to find another unique male henchman model which would resemble an elementalist of that (fire) kind. Zaishen Elementalist could also be considered as an alternate choice, though its model looks not that attractive and may cause a slight disappointment for the owner of that everlasting tonic. So, that's pretty much how I personally see this fix, considering a limited amount of time to adjust the game's code.

Edit: this look might actually suit Rollo perfectly, and here's another alternative I was able to find. Dmitri Fatkin (talk) 23:05, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Attribute rank limit on PvE NPCs?

Do NPCs in PvE have a limit on their attribute rank that prevent them from having an attribute rank higher than 20, even when using a skill that would increase the attribute rank above 20? I discovered that Skree Trackers in hard mode have 20 Marksmanship with or without Expert's Dexterity active, since the Favorable Winds spirit they create is always level 13 and lasts 190 seconds even if you used a stance removal skill, such as Wild Blow, to remove Expert's Dexterity before it started to use Favorable Winds. Do bosses also have this attribute rank limit of 20? --Silver Edge 05:21, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Fun question! Yes, the attribute rank code caps rank at 20 for both players and NPCs. There are certain circumstances that can push a rank over 20, such as players stacking buffs up to the limit of 20 and then getting a weapon mod proc, but for the majority of skills and situations the cap of 20 is unbreakable.

This is indeed a little unfair to Hard Mode enemies, bosses in particular. Skills are balanced assuming the cap of 20 though, so there would be some interesting results from changing that limit - various skills would reach 100% uptime, Fast Casting gets crazy, and so on. - Joe Kimmes 18:33, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Breast Cancer Awareness Month event

During October/the Breast Cancer Awareness Month event, do pink dyes drop more often than other colours of dye? Foreman the Crier's BCAM dialogue seems to imply this and last year I observed three pink dye drops from a total of four dye drops while solo-farming; however, this year, I've observed only one pink dye drop from a total of five dye drops while solo-farming. --Silver Edge 07:39, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I took a quick look at the festival loot tables to confirm: neither Pink Dye nor Sadie's Dye has an increased drop rate during any event. Foreman the Crier's dialogue is intended to let players know that there are (still) multiple ways to acquire Pink Dye, since initially it was not included in random dye drops. - Joe Kimmes 17:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Codex Arena Revival

Good day, Joe. You probably have seen my suggestions regarding GvG by now, as far as it can be improved with capabilities of a rather small, supportive maintenance team, and since both me and Faith have got quite a lot of other things to concentrate on, I thought it would be the most efficient to transmit the rest of associated insights here. And the topic for it would be what's presented as this week's bonus - Codex Arena. The problem with this one is that at the current time, it's mostly played only by bots, even during the bonus period, I mean, if you'll head to the outpost, you'll observe exactly the same situation as it was with Heroes' Ascent prior the "should have been there since 2013" update. ;) So what can be done about this area exactly, without the necessity to change a lot of things in the code or the use of in-game editor to add henchs? I believe it's only one element, yet its improvement will absolutely reverse the current state of things. The instance itself is the party-assembling system. Initially, back to 2009, the designer's goal was to make this arena a resembling copy of TA, having a different set of rules, yet being a fresh & entertaining area serving almost the same purpose. Unfortunately, it does not work today, not to mention the area itself wasn't functional for almost 2 years now... So what to do with it, and how can it be improved, the folks at ArenaNet might inquire? And my answer is: easily! All that needs to be done is the change of match entrance mechanics to exactly the same as the game has in RA. The only distinctive part will be that it will check for a proper set of skills before allowing to hit that "Enter" button... No 4-man parties, no waiting, no anything like that: you just teleport here, adjust your stack of skills & hit go! This way, the problem gets pretty much solved, with no major adjustments required and for as long as people will retain their interest in offered PvP. What do you personally think of the idea and what are the chances we might obtain something like that as a Wintersday gift for the next year? :) Dmitri Fatkin (talk) 09:36, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Interesting idea! For reference, it would actually be easier to add henchmen or change things like the Codex rules than it would be to change the matchmaking rules to be random teams (not to rule that out). Do you think that adding henchmen to the format would have a more positive effect, since it would take fewer players to have legitimate competition occurring? - Joe Kimmes 22:21, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Would the henchmen have fixed builds or henchmen that have different builds only available during a Codex selection that includes their skills? MithTalk 03:43, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

They'd unfortunately have to have fixed builds. It could be henchmen from the GvG/HA set, or the old Zaishen henchmen. Potentially I could make new henchmen, but that's of course a larger investment in design and testing time. - Joe Kimmes 18:01, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Would enabling the Heroes on this map turn out to be an easier solution, Joe? Like allowing the players to add up to 2 of those, letting them customize their bars according to codex restrictions currently in place? Yesterday, I've addressed that question, - of whether they'd like to see customizable Heroes or just selectable henchmen in this mission to 4 people, and all of them voiced that if it's technically possible, having the Heroes with tunable skillbars would definitely be a better, more thrilling to exercise choice. Dmitri Fatkin (talk) 11:28, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll keep it in mind, but it is very unlikely. Heroes were removed from PvP prior to several updates to make them more effective, so re-adding them in any PvP format would require a large QA pass over their skills to ensure that there aren't unforseen interactions or bugs. - Joe Kimmes 17:48, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

It sounds like the suggestions lead it back to Hero Battles. I am unaware of the code capabilities and limitations of your permissions Joe, so it is interesting to read your responses. It helps a ton in regards to providing suggestions and removing the ones considered impossible (example: not being able to add heroes). But the idea of allowing henchmen in codex - That would nullify the entire purpose of the arena. Codex was created for the skill limitations and odd builds (sealed deck) purpose. Providing 1 person with limited skills and 3 henchmen with super effective bars seems like you are reverting to Hero Battles. Why not simply reintroduce Hero Battles and only allow henchmen instead of heroes? You have already successfully updated Heroes Ascent to Henchmen Ascent, why not apply the same concept of Codex->Hero Battles->Henchmen Battles? Gladiator Motoko (talk) 20:28, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm assuming that a group of players would be able to defeat a group of henchmen, regardless of the Codex restrictions. If you think that's unlikely with the GvG/HA henchmen set, I've already mentioned the possibility of using henchmen like the old Zaishen who have poor skill bars.

As to restoring Hero Battles, it's a fun idea but that would again require a large amount of work beyond my domain; changing the map rotation, restoring NPCs and text to refer to Hero Battles, testing and so on. I also feel that Hero Battles wouldn't work as well without the individual command Flags, which henchmen don't have - and of course, adding them to henchmen would be a whole new can of worms. - Joe Kimmes 20:43, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Old Zaishen bars would be too gimped and I feel would hasten the demise of any end goal you might have with the arena. They are bad enough I could only envision it encouraging syncing. Honestly, it seems like the idea of restoring Hero Battles would be the ideal end scenario. It is unfortunate with the amount of work required and lack of available help you have. With that in mind I am not sure much can be done to Codex without completely changing the purpose of it. Other than completely removing it from the game - I would suggest to help "tweak" that arena, limiting the strat boxes farmed like you had done to Halls, and possibly limiting the faction farmed from it as well. I can't say I see a point in capping the honor points farmed as the arena is already very tedious itself. Gladiator Motoko (talk) 21:32, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Though I don't personally adore the "stick to henchs" idea and believe that having customizable Hero skillbars would be a way more interesting route to explore, it still is possible to adapt the Codex Rules to that static AI skillbars model. In order to do that, we'd have to anchor the skills utilized in the henchman bars as permanent, always available for player's choice set of talents despite the weekly pool, introducing a single such henchman for each profession. In this case, the randomization factor of the very core concept will not suffer, yet the environment itself will still be rather different than that of RA. What I'm not too certain about is Motoko's proposal of allowing up to 3 such henchmen in the group, as initially, the scheme I had in mind was 2 players + 2 heroes or henchs. Honestly, I'm not sure which would be a better choice, it's quite conceivable that the 1+3 scheme would better serve the purpose of boosting the area's liveliness. Based on HA example, I tend to presume that allowing the players to jump in solo is not a downside idea. To backup such conclusion, I'd like to make a quotation from one of the past interviews of Jeff Strain: “Our belief is if you have 10 minutes before dinner, you should be able to get into a game and have 10 minutes of fun”. So the henchway model, despite the fact of not being the golden pick, is still an acceptable road to improving the whole situation and revitalizing the opportunity to advance the title. What we have to carefully think about is how exactly such a standard skillset for each profession must look, in order to avoid that 1 mediocre player + 3 imba-henchway layouts issue. Let's try to agree on the exact bars, what we need precisely is 10 of those, considering every profession. Dmitri Fatkin (talk) 12:16, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

It took quite a while to think it over, and here they are: the proposed henchmen bars for the Codex if the Design Team decides introducing these would be an easier way of area revival than re-enabling the Heroes. The first 10 are the default skillbar sets for every profession, assuming that every skill listed inside will turn into a permanent option within the Codex pool, being available all the time to all players. The Monk bar, due to specifics of the area and the natural strength of the Word of Healing elite of Zaishen Healer (the only other healing candidate to the suggested, so far), was taken from one of Monk henchmen of Factions campaign, serving two purposes in the long run: the first one is being able to remove both hexes and conditions upon the use of elite, and the second is reflected practically in all of presented character templates: the capability to avoid commonly-used and obviously powerful skills, resulting in RA-resembling decisions. I've also thrown in an alternative for the Mesmer and the Ele, where the ending results wouldn't be too much different from their PvP counterparts. I suppose that most of you were also able to notice that I didn't give a lot of opportunities to the Rangers. Basically, there are two reasons justifying that: the first one is that the Rangers themselves are rather powerful interrupting species, able to spam rupts so effectively that the enemy healer hench will get rolled in a matter of seconds, and we don't want this obviously, also, the second one is that neither we want people running rupt bots in this area too, that's why I thought that the Warrior shutdown skills would be more appropriate here. In addition, as I see it personally, an extra flavor would be to encounter the Nightfall Odurra and the Prophecies Cynn as the Mesmer and Ele here, replacing Tannaros and Luzy Fiera, that would sort of diversify the existing PvP henchman pool, plus, I notice only 4 skills in their bars that would need PvP-related corrections (Aura of Restoration, Visions of Regret, Empathy, Mistrust). As for the party constitution, it should probably allow up to 3 henchs, to keep the area's liveliness throughout the day. That's how I personally envision this update, having all Joe's comments in mind and after having spent a month on situation research. Dmitri Fatkin (talk) 16:32, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Lora Lanaya

Daky (needs Charm Animal of Codex)

Tannaros

Erick

Luzy Fiera

Kah Xan

Narcissia

Zen Siert

Khai Kemnebi

Jamei (Factions campaign, no PvP-split skills)

Odurra (Nightfall campaign)

Cynn (Prophecies campaign)

PvP Survivor

I was curious if this title was disabled for PvP characters. I have a PvP character with 14,000 XP, and while the title usually starts showing progress after 5,000 XP, no title is present at this time. Will the title not show until the PvP character has achieved 140,600 XP or is it just simply not available? Gladiator Motoko (talk) 19:33, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I took a quick look at the Survivor code and you're correct: PvP characters are not eligible to progress the Survivor title. This is probably because during creation, they are given the experience necessary to reach level 20. You can demonstrate this by using the /deaths command on a fresh PvP character. Excluding them from the title prevented PvP characters from immediately gaining the first rank of Survivor. - Joe Kimmes 20:26, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

GvG Ladder Issues - Syncing/Killing Ladder

hello Joe in the last months a guy called " Il Mainstream Il " Ingame have been syncing the ladder with probably hundreds accounts to sync his " champion " title. So basicly whenever a guild try to enter the ladder they end up facing his sync/resign guilds that auto leaves. The guilds that enter to play the ladder and not sync dont get anything out of this so this guy has basiclly killed the ladder. Is there any way to get him banned? because we want the ladder back to play between the daily C ATs? =)

Let me try and clarify for you Joe. When ladder matches are entered, there is a 10 second timer before entering the match. This "Il Mainstream Il" person has 2 champ rank guilds that he syncs so he can get free champ points. He has both screens up of both guilds so he can watch the timer. When 1 guild gets a timer and the other does not get a timer, he simply closes out the guild that received the timer. The result is the match occurs vs another "real" team, but the syncing team does not load. As a result, neither team gains or loses rating and the syncing team can re-enter and try to face the other team it is syncing with. This creates a scenario where any guild trying to play a legit GvG keeps getting empty matches with no competition or benefit. Essentially this discourages any GvG competitive play in between Automated Tournament matches. Where often down times can range between 10 and 30 minutes. Gladiator Motoko (talk) 21:58, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you both for the report and clarification. I'm (wisely) not in charge of banning people, so to pursue that option please contact Support to report match manipulation on this player's part. Emphasize the impact that the match abuse is having on other players' ability to play normally.

On my end of things, there are limited changes I could make. Do you think that a daily Champion title point cap, like the recent Hero title point cap, would help with this? Alternately, are there changes to GvG team requirements or match timing that would make this type of abuse less viable? On the severe end, I could look into making a restriction on time between matchmaking attempts, but that could easily affect normal players. - Joe Kimmes 23:28, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick response :) ! I would say the limited champion title point cap is a very good start. I would suggest in the range of 10-20 champ points for regular days and 20-40 for double. In regards to adjusting timing - You could remove the time for a match to start entirely. That way when a match is set, it enters immediately - Not giving a chance for the syncers to back out and therefor costing them Guild Rating. This allows regular players to take advantage of syncing teams and while syncing will still be possible, regular players can enter matches and punish syncers. I would not go with the increased restrictions on match making as I think there is a general belief that the restrictions are already too much (example: high ranked vs low ranked). So... I would recommend starting with the removal of the timer and seeing how this benefits GvG. I can come back here with more information from GvGers at that point. Gladiator Motoko (talk) 01:38, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

In regards to banning players, support emphasized using the in game report method which is rather useless when your syncing opponent neither loads nor is in a district to be reported (not to mention there is not an option for it). Is it possible you could implement an option on the report system for "Match Manipulation"? And what would that threshold be for support to see it? Gladiator Motoko (talk) 01:38, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

On the matter of removing the timer: I'm sure there are better solutions than that in the game design world, as the one described one topic down there, for example, that is: penalizing the guild itself even if none of the players did load. As for the GvG party formation, all I can suggest about it is to once-again voice the concept which was described to Gaile and the Design Team: to have 2 players with the ability of adding up to 6 henchmen for the regular GvGs and 3 players with the opportunity to throw in 5 for the ATs (or 3 + 5 for all), as the current 4 players + 4 henchmen scheme simply cannot supply enough fuel to keep the daily regular matches going. Honestly, I'm still a little bit puzzled by the fact we've got that 2 players + 4 henchmen scheme in the tournament which was clearly built to utilize the competitions of 8, since in order to proceed with the whole thing, the guilds, as of now, are obliged to assemble at least 4, and not (as in comparison to if it was 6 vs 6 for some unknown reason) 2 people, just as I previously stated in my reply to folks responsible for game's design. Dmitri Fatkin (talk) 06:05, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Cool, I will look into the logistics of the various ideas and raise them with designers, thanks again for bringing these issues to my attention. As always, I can't promise swift changes or any changes, but hopefully this will get at least a bit of cleanup. - Joe Kimmes 19:45, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

It is great to hear that it is at least being looked at. So have we pretty much narrowed it down to three solid options? 1) Champ point cap 2) Remove pre-GvG match timer 3) Penalizing guild rating even if players don't load ? Gladiator Motoko (talk) 23:14, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Why shorten the timer if the alt guilds are going to lose a part of their "champ" rating with every such re-entrance anyway? You forgot Champion's Strongboxes cap, by the way, which I think should be about 12 items a day (a little bit higher than the limit set for them at HA, simply to encourage people to visit the regular GvGs more often). Dmitri Fatkin (talk) 10:21, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Would this really solve the ladder problem? The problem you'll find with GvG ladder is that unlike in HA, guilds can't face each other again until they play with X other guilds (as I mentioned in "GvG Rated Automatic Match restrictions"). Despite the hate, the syncers actually used to help by being the "in-between guilds". But with the recent game update that prevented resigning, increased dishonor etc, they switched to this method which "kills ladder" (but still presumably achieves their goals, albeit slower). But even if they are gone, you would still have the problem I mentioned. You need more than X active guilds for ladder to be active. Otherwise what will happen is (assuming X is 5) say on day 1 there are 5 active guilds. They ladder with each other, yay! But after that they can't ladder at all, unless they use alt guilds or there's a timeout to the restriction. If there is no timeout (or the timeout is too long), after a few days/weeks of trying to ladder and failing the active guilds give up on ladder and become inactive, and no other guild tries because "ladder is dead". In practice even if would be more than X active guilds, different sub-groups of guilds play at different times and days (european, US etc), and so the sub-groups have to have more than X active guilds. AT is still alive because the ladder restrictions do not apply to AT. Go look at the AT and see how many guilds would be there if the ladder restrictions applied. In short, I suggest that the real reason ladder is dead is because the syncers stopped actually entering matches with "real GvG guilds", and reducing syncing isn't going to help. Targetdrone (talk) 18:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

It's no doubt you raised an interesting question, though, to get a confirmation of whether your assumptions regarding GvG activity are right or not, the team-gathering structure needs to be amended first, and then, it'll be more than apparent if additional changes within the matchmaking system are actually required. The regular GvG, as of today, demands 4 people in order to be playable. What I suggested was the reduction of that number to 2, allowing up to 6 artificially-controlled companions in the group (with AT matches still requiring a higher, 3 players mark, not to promote the above-listed means of unfair play). Following this, the regular GvG would need about 3 guilds active on ladder at the same time for it to be functional, each of which is represented by at least 2 people resulting in 6 players total, for what doesn't seem to me as an impossible-to-achieve scenario. It cannot be claimed for sure, yet, to discuss it further, we'd need the following GvG improvements shipped first, and then, according to the unfolding situation, a necessity to dive into additional details such as the exact workings of the matchmaking system might arise or not, either way, this is the thing which only the addressee of this page could properly explain, and without Joe's commentary on how it actually works, it's just like trying to swim on sand in the desert, yet pretending it to be the sea. :) Dmitri Fatkin (talk) 17:50, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

The syncers helped until they started leaving prior to a match starting. Leaving prior to match starting is irrelevant to the update of dishonor/resigning. Leaving prior to a match is just the most effective method to preserve rating for guilds syncing. The point is we are trying to reduce syncing. Syncing will never fully be preventable under the given circumstances. Heroes Ascent has been updated to strongly prevent syncing. GvG just needs the same concept applied. Reduce syncability and reducing profitability. If you aren't on board with either then you have no business being a part of this conversation Gladiator Motoko (talk) 06:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I thought this conversation was about "GvG Ladder Issues"? I'm all for ladder being alive. Don't let your opposition to syncing blind you to what the real problems are. As I said earlier go look at the AT every day and see how many AT matches would actually occur if the GvG ladder restrictions also applied to AT. Then ask yourself how long AT will stay alive if those restrictions continued. There have been times when we knew 100% that others were also trying to ladder and nobody could get a match. Could only do unrated. Targetdrone (talk) 14:34, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

The only restrictions that have been suggested are ones that restrict the syncing ability to prevent counter syncing. Other than that I don't know what restrictions you are conjuring up in your mind. Gladiator Motoko (talk) 02:17, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm talking about the restrictions that already exist in the game's matchmaking system. The restrictions are why people have to change guilds to ladder again with each other. I'm surprised if you're not aware of those and think I'm imagining them. Targetdrone (talk) 16:14, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

The only people that change guilds are people trying to sync. The proposed fixes do not toy with the already in place restrictions. Syncing is going to happen regardless. You can choose to accept that or not. But what is being suggested is a method to counter those syncers. It won't stop them, but their syncing will at least have a consequence. I'm surprised you would even think of changing those restrictions and imagine that it would solve the issue. Gladiator Motoko (talk) 20:46, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps his concern lies in a more general, the desolated regular GvG environment field. This one can only be solved by allowing more henchmen or heroes, and adjusting the matchmaking system is not something which would help to improve the situation, since such change is not aiding anyhow to boost the activity of guilds. On the contrary, as you have already noted, if there are some matchmaking restrictions currently in place for two guilds being unable to battle with each other for a certain period of time after having met before, removing these will only ease the life of cheaters by reducing the amount of time needed for adjusting guild ratings, throwing up matches in favor of the main one, etc.

Ultimately, the solution to this is much more complex than placing certain restrictions on rewards and goes around playability revival of particular PvP areas close to how they looked in the age of game's triumph. Dmitri Fatkin (talk) 16:36, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

"The proposed fixes do not toy with the already in place restrictions". Please try to keep up and pay more attention. That's why I commented in the first place. That's why the "fixes" won't fix the ladder problem that I'm concerned about. You're aware of the restrictions - that's why syncers have to change guilds to ladder. Now tell me why won't the same restrictions prevent a few nonsync guilds from playing against each other on ladder (assuming players don't keep changing guilds)? Because the game magically knows they aren't syncers? Fact is, the restrictions do prevent such legit matches- we've been victims of them. That you refuse to see the problem does not mean it doesn't exist. Targetdrone (talk) 09:55, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

It is very unfortunate that the discussion we are trying to have here is hindered by your inability to comprehend basic conversation. That is fantastic that you are concerned about the "ladder problem". This discussion is specifically talking about syncing and the effect it has on the ladder. You are trying to suggest that the restriction that prevents guilds from fighting each other within 6 matches should be lowered or deleted to allow real teams to face each other. Problem? Yes. Then syncing guilds won't have to change guilds and they can sync between two teams back and forth infinitely. You also forget the "Scrimmage" mechanism. If guilds would like to face each other in such a manner, they can always scrimmage. The ladder is meaningless. It has been since ANET screwed up its value from freezing it years ago. Right now the concern is with the syncing and the ability to fight it. If you are still having trouble comprehending these messages, please let me know. Gladiator Motoko (talk) 20:39, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

The last I checked the title of this section was "GvG Ladder Issues - Syncing/Killing Ladder", which to me includes other ladder issues that kill ladder, not just syncing (since the concern of GvG players should be that the ladder is dead). And you're now suggesting that guilds can scrimmage instead. Perhaps everyone else can see how guilds scrimmaging will magically make GvG ladder alive. But I apologize for my inability to comprehend how that works. Car analogy: we're discussing how a particular race track is dead allegedly because of X, and how to make that race track active again, and you're now suggesting that people race elsewhere privately instead? You then claim the ladder is meaningless. If ladder is meaningless to you then you're really the one that has "no business being a part of this conversation". Your agenda and priorities are suspect. Targetdrone (talk) 14:14, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

GvG monthly automated tournament cape trim bug

October's monthly gvg tournament winning guild Il Northern Kings Il [NK] did not receive gold trim to their cape due to a bug in the system. Opponent guild forfeited the final match and because of that automated system did not give the guild trim for winning the tournament. Could this be fixed and trim given manually? -sync

By forfeit, I'm assuming you mean that the opposing guild was literally a no-show and that as a result no match was played at all? Examining the code, that can cause the trim to not be distributed. I will look into a solution for this for future occurrences.

As for the winning guild's trim, please send Support a ticket; this is something that their team should be able to confirm and handle. - Joe Kimmes 00:12, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes they did not enter the match at all, I guess giving trim is related to killing enemy Guild Lord and so we didn't get the trim. I have now contacted both GW1 and GW2 supports and got negative answer.

Answer #1: We are sorry that after finishing your tournament you didn't receive your rewards. Unfortunately I would like to let you know that the Guild Wars Support Team is unable to restore individual items to an account upon request. Therefore, we are unable to assist you with this particular inquiry, with our regrets.

Answer #2: Some months ago we made an announcement about Guild Wars that may be of interest to you. You will find the article, Guild Wars Development and Automation, on the following news link: http://www.guildwars.com/players/

Essentially, the article explains that we plan to continue to support Guild Wars but we will not be developing new content or making amendments to the game. Naturally, if a major issue arises, we will address it. But non-critical issues – such as feature requests, item or skill suggestions, input on a certain element of the game, report of a minor graphical bug – are things we will not be acting upon in the future.

I also wanted to let you know that the Guild Wars Support Team is unable to restore individual items to an account upon request. Therefore, we are unable to assist you with this particular inquiry, with our regrets.

Both of these answers show the writer doesn't even know what I was talking about since guild trim is not individual item related to account. In my opinion it is critical issue if automated system on only competitive PvP format doesn't work as intended.

It's disappointing to hear that they were not able to help you, I will investigate this. - Joe Kimmes 01:09, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

In addition to initial report, I'd like to note that there's another, a rather-similar flaw in the GvG matchmaking system, which is heavily abused by those engaged in arranging staged battles. The problem emerges when a certain group begins an active regular GvG participation by the time the cheaters are "working on advancing their Champion titles". What the last-mentioned do as a response with the purpose to make these people stop is synchronizing one of their multiple alt teams the way it always matches up against this interested-in-real-GvG group. The malicious part of the trick is that having a fake group made up of 2 alternate accounts disconnect right at the time the game has found an opponent and is processing the match-entering countdown allows the bogus points farmers to repeatedly block those who are actually interested to play, resulting in up to half an hour of dummy entrances. The problem we have now is that the existing game code threats all matches where at least one party didn't load up at all as 1 minute sessions which "never took their place", resulting in zero points loss for the stats-boosting fake guilds. In order to correct it, my proposal consists of penalizing all such void entrances, making it ineffective to bring up such foul tactics aimed to discourage those who are still willing to play GvG normally. Dmitri Fatkin (talk) 04:49, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

The Gold Trim should now be set on the winning guild; my apologies for the initial failure and the delay in fixing it. - Joe Kimmes 19:02, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Observe not working

Hello, the observe is messed up, we can't observe any matches, would you fix this please? =)

Extending the GWAMM Title

Hey Joe! I was curious if it is possible for you to extend the GWAMM title to rank 7 (35) and rank 8 (40) at some point. I don't know what title name you could come up with, but for a game that is nearing 10 years old, isn't it quite possible for a few dedicated individuals to have reached those amounts? Not only that, but it might be an encouraging goal for players to reach after having so many GWAMM characters on one account. I would assume that it would be an easy coding concept, but I have been wrong on those assumptions before lol. Edit: I'm only inquiring about the title itself, no rewards with GW2 and no visual changes in HoM (Although that second part would be pretty awesome) Gladiator Motoko (talk) 09:18, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

It's not that I don't like in-game changes, though what you are suggesting looks like the addition of a new feature which would demand not only coding it, but also localizing the respected title to multiple languages, of which there are 9. In other words, releasing such an update would pretty much require the involvement of numerous employees across programming, design, QA, localization and community departments. Perhaps Joe's answer will be a little bit different than mine, however, I'd like to point out for everyone who might be reading this page that what was done in the last few months was mainly centered around correction of key elements within the principal PvP-surroundings of the game, and introducing new content is much more challenging and time-consuming than it appears to most of end-users, so please, keep it in mind while deciding if something significantly affects the playability of the game, and therefore is expedient for further discussion. Dmitri Fatkin (talk) 14:19, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I was not looking for your opinion. Please keep it to yourself. Gladiator Motoko (talk) 19:27, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

If you aren't interested in discussions surrounding your own proposals, please make them privately in order to avoid all future misunderstanding: there'll be no different opinions, really. I'm sure you're aware where the Support tickets system is. Dmitri Fatkin (talk) 19:54, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I am not looking for a response from you, if I wanted a response from you I would have messaged you privately. Thank you for your concern. Gladiator Motoko (talk) 21:11, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

For fun, I ran one of the old server queries to see how many people have logged in recently with GWAMM over the 30 titles milestone. There's actually a pretty decent number of players who have made it to 35, which is neat to see.

I'll remember this request, maybe there's something small but cool we could do to commemorate players going for the absolute full completion. Ultimately though, as always, the amount of time available is very limited so I can't promise any changes. - Joe Kimmes 22:53, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

My suggestion was "How Do You Kill That Which Has No Life?" and "Mom! Bathroom!" Talk:Kind_of_a_Big_Deal#Suggestions_for_Rank_7_and_8 too bad it's out of the "Anchorman" theme, but I think they are more appropriate in other ways ;) Targetdrone (talk) 14:41, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Those titles seem more insulting than anything. Cute that it is off of the Anchorman theme... But still, no one would want to wear those. Gladiator Motoko (talk) 20:47, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

If you go for this, I recommend sticking to Ron Burgundy quotes. Maybe from Anchorman 2, or a reference to lyrics from Afternoon Delight. MithTalk 04:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I vote for "If you dont think this is the best [game] ever... I will fight you!" as epic rank 7 GWAMM! ^_^ --76.175.67.121 17:58, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Not bad at all! :) Could also be something like "My past is quite a long story to tell" or "Son, I fought a Bladed Aatxe to reach this" to stick it closer to the original theme. :) Dmitri Fatkin (talk) 20:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

This would hurt those that were hacked/spiked and their accounts ruined, tryin' to get gwamm.

<indent>

Happy New Years! Joe Kimmes, is it mechanically possible to allow players the choice in displaying earlier versions of Titles already unlocked? I already have gwamm, but am partial to "I have many leather-bound books". ^_^ --Falconeye (talk) 00:23, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

This would be cool; I know there are titles that I've preferred sub-max versions of. I will remember the request, but unfortunately it's unlikely that it can be implemented simply due to needing new interfaces for title selection. - Joe Kimmes 20:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

You had mentioned that quite a few had reached that 35 max title thresh hold - Is it possibly quite a few have reached the 40 max title? Legendary Defender of Ascalon characters can reach 38 max titles without doing any PvP - Quite a few have maxed the hero title since your most recent update, that would leave those people needing to max Gamer/Gladiator/Champion/Codex - 3 of which are very possible at this time. Just curious and even more curious if you'd have an exclusive update in regards to those characters. Gladiator Motoko (talk) 22:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't know about players reaching 40 - my reports are based on recent logins, so without going to more effort I only have a small, non-official glimpse at the whole story. I also can't help but imagine that some number of players with multiple maxed PvP titles have used less than sporting methods to acquire them, as seen elsewhere on this feedback page, which is disheartening. Anyway, I don't want to get your hopes up by speculating too greatly about potential updates, since as I've said the time available for any changes is very limited. - Joe Kimmes 18:30, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Snowball ATs?

Hello Joe? Will there be Snowball tournaments this year around christmas? Last year they never happend? =) --The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.226.120.158 (talk) at 23:32, 6 December 2014‎ (UTC).

There won't be anymore Snowball ATs. From Matthew Moore last year: "And some things that used the MAT system but were manually entered every year, like snowball ATs, will never start again. :(" [1]. --Silver Edge 07:51, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Silver Edge is correct; unfortunately there was no reasonable way to permanently automate the Snowball ATs and they were discontinued. - Joe Kimmes 22:56, 8 December 2014 (UTC)