User talk:Joe Kimmes/Archive January 2009

Welcome

to GWW! =D — Why 13:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Yay, Joe is here! --Regina Buenaobra 22:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh man, I'm late to the party. Yay, Joe! -Kim Chase 18:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Nice work on the AI

Just wanted to thank you for your work on the AI updates a couple of months ago, there were some great ideas there that make the AI a lot more efficient at using the updated skills. --Draikin 18:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you liked the update! I believe the majority of updated skills were looked at based on suggestions from yourself and others on this wiki, so thanks from me as well. The Hero/Hench AI isn't always as effective as I'd like it to be, but hopefully it'll keep improving. --Joe Kimmes 02:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

question:

Why did is P.O.X. so frustrating strong? he can self heal quite well, Do strong hard-to-interrupt AoE damage and annoy enemies with target aquisition and golem strike. Boro 18:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

You'd be better served to ask a designer if you have concerns about the encounter difficulty - I'm just a programmer. That said, Deactivating_P.O.X. is marked as a Difficulty: Master quest, so it's intended to be tough. That wiki page and the pages on P.O.X.'s skills seem to have some good advice for the fight, so I would start there if you're running into trouble completing the quest.--Joe Kimmes 02:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello and Happy Moo Moo year, Thanks for taking care of the update from now on! good luck and don't listen to QQ :P--The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Pumpkin pie (talk).

It was a simple question. Thanks for your answer. Boro 16:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

about A.I. in CM and AB

I have been always thinking about AB and CM, where shrine guards just stood in a savannah heat, searing heat and so on. I have the feeling that the NPC-s just use the normal mose AI instad of the more updated and smarter Hard mode AI. Is there any way to improve the NPC-s there to use the hard mode A.I.? Do you think it's a good idea to implement? Boro 18:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

edit1: I just want to discuss. Boro 18:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

It might be possible to give the AB/CM shrine guards improved AI to run out of AoE effects, but there are a number of possible effects to consider. Killing the NPCs would become harder, especially if they could flee players ('kiting') - this could change the current dynamic of Alliance Battles a lot, since solo capturing might be significantly more difficult. Alternately, it might become easier to solo cap if there were a way to abuse the AI's behavior, such as causing them to keep running out of AoE effects and not fight. Changing the NPC AI is a tricky proposition due to factors like this; seemingly simple things, like heroes being good at using interrupt skills, can have far-reaching effects, particularly in PvP where players expect to be dealing primarily with human opponents, not AI. All of that said, I do think that there are NPCs that could use improvement. The Hero_Battles Shrine Mercenaries are a good example - they should be almost as smart as heroes, but they definitely aren't. - Joe Kimmes 02:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I understand. I play Heroes Ascent sometimes and every build I see gets heroes for their super-interrupts. I have found it easy to trick by using a me/n with only a few points in fast casting, (i don't remember correcly the amount) and I saw that the hero had just shot his/her interrupt on me with no effect, but that's another topic. For me the AoE abuse is really spectacular in Jade Quarry, where even some monks bring AoE spells (ray of judgment and symbol of wrath) to capture. And no matter how hard I heal an NPC he gets nuked. It's just annoying sometimes. But... thinking about luxon wizards and kurzick illusionists with hero interrupts :) it's funny. And about players: I saw a monk in HA in an enemy team (ranked ofc), I used savannah heat and meteor on him. He didn't go out of the AoE in the first two seconds, got knocked down, and died in the AoE. Boro 07:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Joe.

If an item is programmed like the dungeon key where after you pick it up, it is register as action done without actually placing action related item in the character inventory.

What i am curious is, how does that work compare to a lockpick, lets say if we programmed lockpick the same as dungeon keys, could that possibly ease up just a tiny bit of server usage?

And how does it compare with say, a quest item, for instant, A letter Home's letter, or Burol ironfist's letter of recommendation or Kournan Coins and luxon totem, if they were to be programmed like the dungeon key, where the action related item is registered as "done" does that also, possibly ease up just another tiny bit of server usage?

What i am coming up to is, does removing those items from the inventory and programmed then like the dungeon keys help clear up the storage space? or it simply does not matter at all?

Thanks for your time, i am wandering in case i made a mistake thinking it does help in easing up server where it fact it does not.

cheerioPumpkin pie 03:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's a little more complex than that. Without going into too much detail on the underlying systems, the Dungeon Keys aren't really a stored item; they're a simple on/off switch for dungeon floors that tells the doors and such whether or not you picked up the key. So, you couldn't have 140 Dungeon Keys at once, which is an important feature of Lockpicks. It would be possible to code a system that allowed for non-item Lockpicks, but it wouldn't help the server usage significantly and would require whole new systems to retain the current functionality - for example, you wouldn't be able to trade Lockpicks, sell them, and so on.

You are quite correct though that not using actual items can ease server usage in some cases (and help players keep their inventories clear). The designers try to stay aware of this, which is why later chapters have fewer quest items like the Letter Home. - Joe Kimmes 18:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much Mr Kimmes. :) that help alot. Pumpkin pie 01:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

leechers

I don't know how much do you know about the state of Fort Aspenwood and Jade Quarry. Leechers are frequent there, and bot-leechers can accumulate points faster than a player can. And resulting the user of the bot/the leecher to get Zaishen keys from Balthazar and Jade/Amber from Faction points. A team with a leecher has a significant disadvantage too. I don't know if you know it, but the current report system leaves most of the leechers unhindered, because only 1 or 2 players report the leechers, and getting the dishonor points. This problem exists since the Factions was released.

The leechers have found a way to get out of players sight, by going "behind the starting area" (see linsey's page for screenies.

now there are the suggestions to solve the problem
ArenaNet:Guild Wars suggestions/Team based FA and JQ
ArenaNet:Guild Wars suggestions/Dishonorable Combatant System 2.0
ArenaNet:Guild Wars suggestions/Teaming in competitive missions

I have been an active player in FA and JQ since the nov13 update (Great job! keep it up), and I have encountered countless leechers. I had the idea of making it Team based for a month, I was thinking of posting it to GW suggestions, but I saw today that it was made two times before me.

I hope that you will address this serious problem in JQ and FA. --Boro 11:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

This issue is definitely known to us and is something we're looking into. I can't speculate on any changes we may or may not make, but it's clear that the current Dishonor system isn't working as well as hoped.

The suggestions you link to are good ideas, although I have some doubts about automated systems like the second link proposes - it's easy for an automated system to accidentally start punishing innocent players. - Joe Kimmes 18:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't 100% sure about that version too. I am also aware of that more than 50% of the suggestions posted on feedback are bad. If you want I will link there good suggestions that I think should be implemented or at least worth a look. Maybe with a few comments. Boro 19:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the thought, but you'd be better off to either add to the existing suggestions or make sure they get to Linsey or Regina rather than bringing them to me. I don't make the decisions on what gets implemented or not, so showing me things isn't really useful unless it's a question of feasibility that I can answer. - Joe Kimmes 20:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I will try to show her theese suggestions. I can only hope that she will have time for all theese. Boro 06:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)