The real problem here is invisible enemies. Give their algorithms time to match servers properly.

#1 - Sept. 19, 2012, 4:43 p.m.
Blizzard Post

Title: The real problem here is invisible enemies. Give their algorithms time to match servers properly.

This forum is full of people complaining about balancing WvWvW. Give it time, guys. Let them at least have a chance for the data to accumulate and for them to decide how best to match server vs. server vs. server. Maybe they’ll end up looking at peak hour and off hour population and start matching us up that way. Maybe they just need more data and the match-up logic they are currently using will even things up.

Whatever the case, it is very possible that time will solve the current balance issues.

The REAL problem in WvWvW is the invisibility issue. I don’t care how unbalanced the match is if I’m getting killed by enemies who are not on my screen until they are right on top of me.

1. We need to be able to see enemies at a greater distance. Trebuchets are currently “fire and pray” siege weapons. Shoot, even cannons can fire to a distance where the enemy is invisible. It’s no fun to have all these defensive or offensive weapons if we are just firing at empty ground and hoping there are actually enemy players there.

2. Many times I have been running along minding my own business or heading to a fort that is under siege only to suddenly be surrounded by a swarm of enemy players and killed instantly. Sometimes I’ve even had warriors and guardians already hitting me as they just appear out of this air. If I had been able to see them, I seriously doubt I would have just charged in and died.

3. Occasionally, upon pushing back an assault, the enemy team will receive reinforcements. All we can see is the same players we’ve been routing so we press on. 30 additional troops start appearing on the screen and kill a bunch of us before we even realize we have become the hunted instead of the hunters.

This is what will kill WvWvW. We can’t fight an enemy we can’t see. My computer can handle this game on the highest settings in the most insane battles without ever dropping a frame (and it’s not a user problem anyway) so the idea that There is no distance slider or ability to adjust the number of players visible at any given time is ridiculous.

This is what needs to be fixed. If you want to complain about something, please make it this.

#20 - Sept. 19, 2012, 10:56 p.m.
Blizzard Post

Hi all,

For a variety of performance reasons we limit the number of characters that are reported to any given game client. This report limiting (or culling, as it’s also been referred to) is generally distance based and limits both the amount of bandwidth and client side processing (rendering, etc.) required to play the game. Ideally this shouldn’t be something that you notice happening as characters will simply fade in when they’re “far” away from you. In the best case this happens far enough away that even if you’re looking right at them when it happens it isn’t too visually distracting. Unfortunately, there are some situations in the game in which this setup doesn’t work as well as we’d like and it seems that those situations come up in WvW rather more often than in other parts of the game. The higher player densities that we see in large battles are an obvious example of where this system goes awry. If only the nearest N characters are reported to you but there are N+100 characters within effective battle range then many of those characters will be invisible. There’s never a great time to be dealing with invisible characters, but I think that it’s fair to say that during a large battle is one of the worst times.

In WvW one of the things that we see exacerbating the issue is this: From the moment a character is first reported to your client to the first moment that your client is able to render it a non-zero amount of time passes. During this time your client is doing things like loading textures from disk, which can be (at least in computer terms) fairly slow what with all that accessing of spinning, physical storage media. So that means that a character who is moving towards you can potentially appear first at a much closer point even than the one at which they were reported because, of course, they were still moving during that load time.

MajorKong’s screenshot doesn’t immediately look like the situation I just described so it may be that there’s some kind of bug lurking in there as well. We will certainly be looking into that possibility.

That was a lot of detail but really I’m posting to let you know that we’re aware of the issues associated with invisible enemies and we’re working on finding both the root causes and effective solutions. I understand that these experiences can be quite frustrating but please rest assured that we do care and we are working on improving the experience.

Thank you for reporting your issues here on the forums and for your patience and understanding as we work to resolve them.

Also, MajorKong, that really was a great screenshot even if it does show a bug and bugs make me sad.

#173 - Oct. 5, 2012, 3:22 p.m.
Blizzard Post

Hi all,

I just wanted to pop in to mention that we haven’t forgotten about you.

We’re aware that this is a serious issue and we’re actively working to improve the experience. I can’t talk about specific work that we’re doing yet, but I can say that we’re attacking the problem on multiple fronts and working hard to get WvW into a better state. This is one of those issues that involves multiple systems interacting in sometimes unexpected ways and as such it’s tricky to address. I would love to be able to snap my fingers and fix it today (which would make me a wizard, so that would be doubly awesome) but unfortunately the changes we’re working on will take time to implement and test thoroughly. Our goal is to make WvW the best experience it can be so we want to be very sure that any changes we make won’t have unintended, negative side effects.

(Continued in the next post…)

#174 - Oct. 5, 2012, 3:22 p.m.
Blizzard Post

(Continued from the previous post…)

I’d like to take a moment to briefly address a few of the points of serious contention that have come up in this thread and hopefully clear up any confusion:

This is a multi-faceted issue that involves both reporting from the server to the client and client asset loading. Much like a super villain team-up these two parts of the issue are combining to make an unpleasant situation worse. We’re pursuing both parts of the issue and hope to see incremental improvements as we get fixes in and tested.

The reporting issue is really all about performance tradeoffs. Every decision that the server makes about what to report to which client consumes resources, as does the act of reporting itself. These resources (server CPU, network bandwidth, etc.) are finite and are the same ones that are used by every other aspect of WvW as well. How we make use of those resources determines the number of players we can support in a given map and how smooth the simulation feels. The system that we have in place now constitutes an attempt to strike a balance between a perfect simulation that handles all the details and makes them available to every client immediately and a simulation that supports a reasonably large number of players while maintaining smooth performance under most gameplay situations. This is a true dilemma because we really want to achieve both of those goals completely and simultaneously but that just isn’t possible at the moment.

Could we throw more hardware at the problem? Maybe, but the servers that we’re running on now are Serious Business™ and simply buying faster CPUs likely wouldn’t gain us even a linear increase in performance. With today’s hardware I believe that we’re likely to gain far more improvement from code changes than we would from slightly faster CPUs. As you might imagine the way that we manage client/server communication is pretty well core to the way our game works so making changes to that system is a tricky affair that must be undertaken with great care and much testing. Further, since we can’t really create any more resources (CPU, network) every substantial change involves making a hard decision about performance, scale, and completeness of the various aspects of Gw2. Some of the most robust, correct, and appealing solutions to this issue are also the ones that will take the longest to implement correctly, thus adding response time into the mix of factors we need to consider. In a situation like this, sadly, there are no easy answers. That said, we’re evaluating possible changes to reporting even now and are committed to making WvW into the best experience we can.

The client issue relates to the way that we load assets when preparing to display characters. WvW hits this more than most other parts of the game because players are pretty much the most complicated characters that we have and, especially at higher levels, they tend to be quite varied (so things like texture caching don’t help us as much as they might elsewhere in the game). WvW tends to have much higher player densities than the rest of the game so that’s why we see these issues coming up in WvW more than elsewhere. This asset loading issue will be influenced by client hardware (kind of like saying water is wet, I know) but we see this issue crop up on even high end systems so it’s clear that hardware is not the major determining factor. So, while better hardware may improve the situation a bit it won’t make the client issue go away completely. At this point we have a solid repro of the client issue and we’re aggressively pursuing fixes.

All of us who have worked on WvW (and many of those at ArenaNet who have not) are deeply invested in making WvW the best it can be. I personally have dedicated over a year of my life to developing this game type. Other have spent even longer. I know it can be terribly frustrating to deal with these issues (I’m a gamer too, I’ve been there!). I also know that frustration can make it tempting to believe that our silence on the forums means we’re ignoring issues with the game. Please believe me when I tell you that is simply not the case. We must always balance our time on the forums with our time spent working on the game. If we go silent for a while it’s generally because we’re busy working hard so that the next time we post we can have something substantial to tell you.

TL;DR: The issue is real, we’re aware of it, we’re working on fixes/improvements, the fixes/improvements are complicated and I can’t provide you an ETA.

Keep fighting the good fight and we’ll be back to let you know when we can share more details.

#183 - Oct. 5, 2012, 4:41 p.m.
Blizzard Post

Hi mcl,

Thanks for pointing that out! It was my intention to be clearer on that point but that seems to have gotten lost in my attempt to acknowledge that better hardware is better.

So, let me be very clear: better hardware is better and will generally allow the game to look prettier but the issue with asset loading is not hardware dependent so buying an uber gaming rig won’t really help with the invisible player issue at this time.