Guild Wars 2

lil devils x.6071:

MuscleBobBuffPants.1406:

Marmatt.8590:

Thank you everyone for your feedback! I’ve been taking notes based on everyone’s perspectives on this particular subject, and will be releasing a revised version of the report.
I know this has been mentioned a few times in this thread, but how would you feel about a “trail run” of said changes? Such as removing the white swords in WvW. Which change would you like see implemented first? Why?

I think trail runs would be great! I like that they also give a small bonus in return since we are also benefiting Arenanet by giving feedback on the changes. I think even a permanent WvW test map would be great, something that wouldnt affect the scores but still be a place for people to go and test new changes and tweaks.

I think the first change that would be nice, would be a kind of reward track like the PvP reward tracks. I think it would help somewhat with the population issue if people felt more rewarded doing WvW and felt like they had a goal. It might get more people engaged and in WvW, but at the same time also reward people for actively participating in their servers WvW. Maybe some of the reward track bonuses could be like an Omega Siege Golem blueprint in the champion boxes or something like that, and/or maybe like some of the WvW weapons could be earned through those reward tracks.

They have already been doing trial runs for what they plan on implementing in wvw, that is what EoTM is for. The forced server merge they were planning on implementing for wvw is what has been tested in EoTM, but it is the way they chose to do it is what needs to be redone. They would have to instead allow people to permanently merge by choice, and not randomly create temporary teams as it is currently done, since temporary teams do not strategically work together as permanent teams do .

EoTM IS where they currently do the trial runs, it is the testing ground.
The problem is if they made EoTM our wvw, many wvw players would leave the game all together since 1) most hate EoTM map landscape, and prefer a battlefield type map such as EBG 2)linear maps and chokepoints make roaming impossible, and 3)uncoordinated blob team mergers do not allow for strategy and cooperation. People randomly thrown onto a field with a random team just blob and do not really play effectively together. It dumbs down gameplay instead of enhances it.

The server merging they want for wvw was not implemented well in EoTM, randomly forcing teams to be together is not good for team building. What they planned on implementing and have tested thus far in their " trial runs" will cause more blob, less strategic gameplay.

Trials are not a new thing here, EoTM was created for this purpose as it is the testing grounds for wvw:

“Edge of the Mists serves as a testing ground for the new features that may be introduced to WvW”
http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Edge_of_the_Mists

That may be what EotM was originally intended for but it quickly devolved into the PvE map that it is today. It has nothing to do with WvW now.

What we’re talking about here is specific changes made in live WvW on a temporary basis like the PPK and No White Swords.

And I think griffyman’s point above is great. There’s got to be something for people to do when they’re getting pasted. Oftentimes its not even mid week, its Sunday.

I don’t know about NPC’s coming in but certain objectives like the following. And the objectives could pop up in the big yellow letters that they use for other type messages.

1. Take Jerrifers Tower for XXX bonus points and XXX bonus reward.
2. Take a T3 tower on the north half of Green BL.
3. Take Bay on Green BL.
4. etc.

These objectives could be for both the weaker servers in the case of one dominant server (which is usually the case).

And if one server is beating both by 75K points or more:

• Teq and Jormag spawn in the leading server BL and both of the other servers are invited to come assist in the total takeover of the BL. (Lol kind of kidding with this one but now that I think about it would be hilarious. Could even announce it in PvE.)

Increasing rewards, getting more people to WvW, none of this matters. These are the ideas of people who don’t understand the problem:

The only problem is that people transfer up tiers.

Lower tier servers can get more people, sure (the tournies are good for that). But it doesn’t matter because they will have bad days and people will transfer up tiers. Make it rewarding to transfer down tiers and bam, problem fixed. Or make it more rewarding to play on lower tiers (right now it’s more rewarding [gold wise, kill achievements, etc.] to play on upper tier servers). It’s that kittening easy.

Before Edge of the Mists, thousands of people would sit in tier 1 queues not playing WvW while tier 8 is empty. That’s why Guild Wars 2 is kittened up. Reducing population, getting more people to show up, none of fixes the problem. Population bumps are just temporary masks.

If every server had max population 100% of the time, it would still happen that the losing servers would lose people and the winning servers would gain people and 1 year later, we’d be in this situation again. There is no mechanic in place to fight this and this is why this game is kitten.

(excuse the bad language but this has been plainly stated since before the game launched and we still have these kitten ideas running about)

Edit: The expansion of course is going to provide a population bump and it’s goin to be an opportunity to avoid a situation where people are transferring because the transfers are too kitten empty. Instead the opportunity is going to be wasted and a year after the expansion, people are goin to be runnin around maps empty again/

Johje Holan.4607:

lil devils x.6071:

MuscleBobBuffPants.1406:

Marmatt.8590:

Thank you everyone for your feedback! I’ve been taking notes based on everyone’s perspectives on this particular subject, and will be releasing a revised version of the report.
I know this has been mentioned a few times in this thread, but how would you feel about a “trail run” of said changes? Such as removing the white swords in WvW. Which change would you like see implemented first? Why?

I think trail runs would be great! I like that they also give a small bonus in return since we are also benefiting Arenanet by giving feedback on the changes. I think even a permanent WvW test map would be great, something that wouldnt affect the scores but still be a place for people to go and test new changes and tweaks.

I think the first change that would be nice, would be a kind of reward track like the PvP reward tracks. I think it would help somewhat with the population issue if people felt more rewarded doing WvW and felt like they had a goal. It might get more people engaged and in WvW, but at the same time also reward people for actively participating in their servers WvW. Maybe some of the reward track bonuses could be like an Omega Siege Golem blueprint in the champion boxes or something like that, and/or maybe like some of the WvW weapons could be earned through those reward tracks.

They have already been doing trial runs for what they plan on implementing in wvw, that is what EoTM is for. The forced server merge they were planning on implementing for wvw is what has been tested in EoTM, but it is the way they chose to do it is what needs to be redone. They would have to instead allow people to permanently merge by choice, and not randomly create temporary teams as it is currently done, since temporary teams do not strategically work together as permanent teams do .

EoTM IS where they currently do the trial runs, it is the testing ground.
The problem is if they made EoTM our wvw, many wvw players would leave the game all together since 1) most hate EoTM map landscape, and prefer a battlefield type map such as EBG 2)linear maps and chokepoints make roaming impossible, and 3)uncoordinated blob team mergers do not allow for strategy and cooperation. People randomly thrown onto a field with a random team just blob and do not really play effectively together. It dumbs down gameplay instead of enhances it.

The server merging they want for wvw was not implemented well in EoTM, randomly forcing teams to be together is not good for team building. What they planned on implementing and have tested thus far in their " trial runs" will cause more blob, less strategic gameplay.

Trials are not a new thing here, EoTM was created for this purpose as it is the testing grounds for wvw:

“Edge of the Mists serves as a testing ground for the new features that may be introduced to WvW”
http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Edge_of_the_Mists

That may be what EotM was originally intended for but it quickly devolved into the PvE map that it is today. It has nothing to do with WvW now.

What we’re talking about here is specific changes made in live WvW on a temporary basis like the PPK and No White Swords.

And I think griffyman’s point above is great. There’s got to be something for people to do when they’re getting pasted. Oftentimes its not even mid week, its Sunday.

I don’t know about NPC’s coming in but certain objectives like the following. And the objectives could pop up in the big yellow letters that they use for other type messages.

1. Take Jerrifers Tower for XXX bonus points and XXX bonus reward.
2. Take a T3 tower on the north half of Green BL.
3. Take Bay on Green BL.
4. etc.

These objectives could be for both the weaker servers in the case of one dominant server (which is usually the case).

And if one server is beating both by 75K points or more:

• Teq and Jormag spawn in the leading server BL and both of the other servers are invited to come assist in the total takeover of the BL. (Lol kind of kidding with this one but now that I think about it would be hilarious. Could even announce it in PvE.)

EoTM has everything to do with wvw now, that hasn’t changed. Simply because most wvw players hate it does not mean that isn’t the direction Anet is still going with it. I think you are confused, as even Anet themselves has not stated it is no longer their testing grounds. IT IS, and from what they have stated thus far that they have in store for wvw as far as HoT is concerned, it sounds just like what they have been testing in EoTM. Anet has always brought PVE into wvw, and from what they have been testing, looks like they want more of it not less.

lil devils x.6071:

Johje Holan.4607:

lil devils x.6071:

They have already been doing trial runs for what they plan on implementing in wvw, that is what EoTM is for. The forced server merge they were planning on implementing for wvw is what has been tested in EoTM, but it is the way they chose to do it is what needs to be redone. They would have to instead allow people to permanently merge by choice, and not randomly create temporary teams as it is currently done, since temporary teams do not strategically work together as permanent teams do .

EoTM IS where they currently do the trial runs, it is the testing ground.
The problem is if they made EoTM our wvw, many wvw players would leave the game all together since 1) most hate EoTM map landscape, and prefer a battlefield type map such as EBG 2)linear maps and chokepoints make roaming impossible, and 3)uncoordinated blob team mergers do not allow for strategy and cooperation. People randomly thrown onto a field with a random team just blob and do not really play effectively together. It dumbs down gameplay instead of enhances it.

The server merging they want for wvw was not implemented well in EoTM, randomly forcing teams to be together is not good for team building. What they planned on implementing and have tested thus far in their " trial runs" will cause more blob, less strategic gameplay.

Trials are not a new thing here, EoTM was created for this purpose as it is the testing grounds for wvw:

“Edge of the Mists serves as a testing ground for the new features that may be introduced to WvW”
http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Edge_of_the_Mists

That may be what EotM was originally intended for but it quickly devolved into the PvE map that it is today. It has nothing to do with WvW now.

What we’re talking about here is specific changes made in live WvW on a temporary basis like the PPK and No White Swords.

And I think griffyman’s point above is great. There’s got to be something for people to do when they’re getting pasted. Oftentimes its not even mid week, its Sunday.

I don’t know about NPC’s coming in but certain objectives like the following. And the objectives could pop up in the big yellow letters that they use for other type messages.

1. Take Jerrifers Tower for XXX bonus points and XXX bonus reward.
2. Take a T3 tower on the north half of Green BL.
3. Take Bay on Green BL.
4. etc.

These objectives could be for both the weaker servers in the case of one dominant server (which is usually the case).

And if one server is beating both by 75K points or more:

• Teq and Jormag spawn in the leading server BL and both of the other servers are invited to come assist in the total takeover of the BL. (Lol kind of kidding with this one but now that I think about it would be hilarious. Could even announce it in PvE.)

It has everything to do with wvw now, that hasn’t changed. Simply because most wvw players hate it does not mean that isn’t the direction Anet is still going with it. I think you are confused, as even Anet themselves has not stated it is no longer their testing grounds. IT IS, and from what they have stated thus far that they have in store for wvw as far as HoT is concerned, it sounds just like what they have been testing in EoTM. Anet has always brought PVE into wvw, and from what they have been testing, looks like they want more of it not less.

Perhaps I am confused by what you are talking about because I really have no idea what you’re trying to say. What are they testing? Its been the same since it came out has is not (maybe not, I don’t know I don’t play it)?

If you’re saying that EotM map was the testing grounds for the new WvW proper map, perhaps. Given that Anet is glacial, no geologic, in their development it is possible that they took a year to create a map outside of WvW to test a map they planned to put in WvW a year and a half later.

But all that is irrelevant to what we’re discussing here. Anet created the Forum Specialist to take our ideas and report to them.

The idea is to have changes implemented into WvW proper on a temporary basis to test the changes and see their effect, see if they work, see if they’re fun. And do the tests frequently and now – not a year and a half from now.

@Johje Holan.4607

That sounds really interesting, extra special bonus objectives for taking and defending keeps in certain Borderlands. I could see one of those icons popping up in the middle of my homelands Borderlands and this huge zerg takes this random tower or random camp in the middle of it and actually fights for control of it as our server fights to recapture it. That would make for some fun battles!

I also love the spawning of the dragons in BLs lol. And I agree it doesnt need to happen always but when a big timezone gap occurs and servers start to completely dominate, that could help plug in the gap somewhat and give the other servers a fighting chance.

For Bonus rewards, I’ve always found it strange that WvW offers better EXP if you kill a player who’s been alive for a while but doesn’t reward you any different if you cap a keep that hasn’t been flipped for a long time.

Personally I think rewards for capping a keep should increase as time passes. At the same time, defending a keep would give you more rewards as time progresses. This would mean an desperate defense of your Borderland’s final Garrison would be highly rewarding (I’m speaking from silver league experience) instead of being heartcrushing and a final push from the attacker’s point of view would be even more rewarding.

Johje Holan.4607:

Perhaps I am confused by what you are talking about because I really have no idea what you’re trying to say. What are they testing? Its been the same since it came out has is not (maybe not, I don’t know I don’t play it)?

If you’re saying that EotM map was the testing grounds for the new WvW proper map, perhaps. Given that Anet is glacial, no geologic, in their development it is possible that they took a year to create a map outside of WvW to test a map they planned to put in WvW a year and a half later.

But all that is irrelevant to what we’re discussing here. Anet created the Forum Specialist to take our ideas and report to them.

The idea is to have changes implemented into WvW proper on a temporary basis to test the changes and see their effect, see if they work, see if they’re fun. And do the tests frequently and now – not a year and a half from now.

If only. The living story ate up all their manpower for over a year to the detriment of the exclusive WvW community. Combined with Anet’s ability to react dynamically (ironic I use that verbiage) to severe problems within the game being that of a sloth with arthritis, I’m not sure there’s going to be much to fix or implement when most of the WvW player base moves on.

Rewards scaling based on prognosis would be one thing.

Imagine the winning server winning with 20k, but based on past performance the game predicted they should’ve won with at least 40k. So their reward is crap because relatively they did poorly.
Equally a losing server, who got stomped, could still get rewarded very well simply because they beat expectations. Server thought theyd lose by 80k, but they “only” lost by 60k.

-The upside is that stacking on a server does not get you better rewards, as the server simply readjusts it’s expectations and winning alone is not enough to get rewarded.
-Servers wont be rewarded just for roflstomping servers that are weaker.
-It could promote people from switching to other servers to bring out better odds and defy expectations.
-Stacking is actively discouraged as hitting caps on maps with pugs would result in a weaker performance than filling a map with premade’s. Something more likely to happen with a lot of pugs.

-Downside is that those who care not about reward but just the stomping will not be affected by this, or any reward based system for that matter
-It’s not an easy system. A server calculating predictions and what not.
-Such a system needs to quickly adapt to prevent bandwagoning to low servers for to long. Imagine a massive migration to the lowest ranked server, and the system pretending for months that this server is the underdog while this sever is now dominating everything with ease.

Alteros.3019:

If only. The living story ate up all their manpower for over a year to the detriment of the exclusive WvW community. Combined with Anet’s ability to react dynamically (ironic I use that verbiage) to severe problems within the game being that of a sloth with arthritis, I’m not sure there’s going to be much to fix or implement when most of the WvW player base moves on.

You do not have the slightest clue what they have spent their man power on. For all you know, the manpower was spent designing the new WvW maps for the expansion and its new assets.

coglin.1867:

Alteros.3019:

If only. The living story ate up all their manpower for over a year to the detriment of the exclusive WvW community. Combined with Anet’s ability to react dynamically (ironic I use that verbiage) to severe problems within the game being that of a sloth with arthritis, I’m not sure there’s going to be much to fix or implement when most of the WvW player base moves on.

You do not have the slightest clue what they have spent their man power on. For all you know, the manpower was spent designing the new WvW maps for the expansion and its new assets.

Living Story just showed up by itself then.

Why not just one really really big map? Make the WvW map as big as one of the PvE zones. Put in random keeps and towers, and let people fight it out to their hearts content. Allow for “Waypoint Creep”, and watch the fun flow.

Kaiser.9873:

Why not just one really really big map? Make the WvW map as big as one of the PvE zones. Put in random keeps and towers, and let people fight it out to their hearts content. Allow for “Waypoint Creep”, and watch the fun flow.

Their servers can’t handle that many people in one instance

Life isn’t fair. Neither is WvW. Adapt. Personally I am happy with the game because I MOVED! Found a server that suits me. My friends moved with me. If your stuck on a server and it’s making you rage then MOVE! I am more proud of the people I fight with than I am the name of my server. People are real.

Thanks for the kudos. Here is the idea again basically in it’s rough form…

Currently there’s no incentive to really play in WvW if you’re server is losing by 50,000 points. Sure you can roam, and play because “I don’t care about PPT” but the vast majorities of people who see the score are going to be turned off from showing up and playing that week. Not everyone is in a WvW guild, and has the organization to make WvW fun when you’re losing.

The Siegerazer events were put into the game to help servers who were lacking in population have a chance to push out of spawn, and establish a small foothold on the map. It was put in due to players complaining about being spawn camped and not having even numbers. It was a direct response to the community (We need more stuff like this!)

My suggestion would be to add more of these events. Don’t make it a population dependent event, make it score related. If the other servers are ahead by a certain amount then certain events should trigger throughout the matchup. Let’s say a huge golem commander spawns at your BL map and slowly makes his way to garrison, or like others have suggested, offer better rewards and more points for taking an objective on the map.

I have been playing WvW since beta, I’ve seen some incredible come backs, but it’s rare for a server to be able to come back from a 50,000 point lead and it’s just silly that these types of leads can happen before the week has even started.

There’s currently no reason for servers with a huge population to “hold back.” Putting in these events, ones that allowed the losing servers a chance of actually competing would actually make the fights fun for both sides and even prevent the endless cycle of flipping empty maps over and over for fear of granting these bonuses to the losing side.

So for example, do you risk the ticking for too much in fear of granting the losing side a powerful buff, or play more strategically in what you take and hold but risk the score being closer?

Just to add to the topic:
Balanced matchups motivate people to play! As you can see we have queues for EVERY MAP even at monday, because players feel like it’s more fun to play if you have a chance to win! Against gandara or other matchups like that we barely ever even had ques.

Tseikk.9032:

Just to add to the topic:
Balanced matchups motivate people to play! As you can see we have queues for EVERY MAP even at monday, because players feel like it’s more fun to play if you have a chance to win! Against gandara or other matchups like that we barely ever even had ques.

I envy you and that match-up.

I know that I’m late to this conversation, but it is truly the scoring system, tied to servers, that creates these sorts of unbalanced matchups. Attempting to fix these matchups by introducing new wvw mechanics will only be treating the symptom, not the cause.

As has been mentioned elsewhere in this conversation, people will flock to the top arena of competition, or they will stack a lower tier server and see how high they can get it. Both of these behaviors are tied directly to the scoring system and perceived “success” based on that scoring system. If you want to be “the best” you compete against the best, those who are at the “top”. You can’t change this behavior in a person through mechanics.

So to fix this systemic issue, you need to change two things:

1. Remove servers as a method of “grouping” and find a new method of grouping such as the mentioned “Battle Groups”, among others.
2. Score those groupings in a way that anyone can see their progress/contribution and be rewarded cool points/bragging rights and be rewarded for ‘loyalty’.

Here would be my proposal

Grouping

No more servers. Just three “world teams” or whatever you want to call them. The teams:

Green Team
Red Team
Blue Team

These teams could then be included in the ‘mega server’ environment. When you log in, if you are green, you’ll get placed in a green team instance.

There could be some lore for these colors, but of course from a mechanics standpoint it isn’t needed. We humans seem to have no problems rallying around and rooting for arbitrary colors as far back in history as you want to go (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nika_riots).

How we initially get put in to these colors is beyond the scope of this post, but the initial mix could be done by server/pop/rank until each color had the right initial mix. New players would simply be asked to choose a side when first logging in to wvw. You could switch colors using similar methods to switching servers today, but there would be less reason to because:

Scoring:

The teams themselves are merely the space in which individuals and guilds compete for the top spots. Imagine three columns on a website scoreboard. Red, Green, Blue.

You organize by:

Top guilds by timezone (scoring based on things like length of tower/keep/camp claims, gvg events and amount of investment in victory (who invested the most in upgrades, siege, etc).

Top players (scoring based on individual k:d, individual investment, yak kills, etc).

At the end of a wvw season, the top few guilds of each team could compete in a GVG tournament, and the champions from each color would compete in a World Cup/Superbowl. This shifts focus from “worlds” and on to “guilds”. It still allows guilds to move about freely, and still gives everyone plenty of bragging rights on who’s best.

How to mega-group

Much like the megaserver tries to put you in an instance with people from your guild/friends list, the same could be applied to megamists. In addition, guilds could register who their “allies” and “rivals” are, and so the placement could also take that in to account.

Lastly, guilds could send out a “challenge” to rival guilds, and both could meet in a common instance right away to solve their differences!

Conclusion:

There needs to be some system of scoring that ties large scale combat back to guilds, not worlds. It needs to be some sort of system that will allow ‘mega server’ for constant population for any player, while still creating a sense of comradery and permanence among a group of people.

With Red/Green/Blue, even if “Red” is consistently the best grouping for some reason, that will only mean that Green and Blue become more viable destinations for your guild, because if you make it to the top of Green at the end of the WvW season, you’ll face off against those evil Reds and show them who’s really boss!

use the 3 orders, Vigil, Priory, Whispers…then whatever personal story and choice that toon made then that’s the WvW team they get when they log into that toon, maximum choice and makes personal story mean more by connecting it to the mists….so if ya don’t like whatever is happening with the Vigil battle in the mists just log in a toon that chose a different order.

Zepher.7803:

use the 3 orders, Vigil, Priory, Whispers…then whatever personal story and choice that toon made then that’s the WvW team they get when they log into that toon, maximum choice and makes personal story mean more by connecting it to the mists….so if ya don’t like whatever is happening with the Vigil battle in the mists just log in a toon that chose a different order.

And the toons who did not choose yet and order?
I have ~11 chars (lvl 80), I’m using almost all of them in wvw, I have ~3-4 which had already choose an order.. I mean most of my chars are on lvl 2-3 personal story step, why would I do pve-thingy to do wvw? I wanna kill stuff with brain not stuff with scripts..
And then we did not even discussed anything about “spies”, “server/community pride”, “wvw-guilds who wanna play together”, “wvw guilds who wanna fight each other”.
You shouldn’t use a PvE-thingy to determine a WvW-factor, wvw players wanna play wvw not pve!
(We already have to play pve ’cos rewards quaggans when you scout/upgrade/siege up… )

This should not happen.

And the last post by our wvw forum specialist was …8 days ago. I’d forgotten this thread even existed.

Is the first post going to be updated as the discussion goes on, or how will the ‘report’ be amended in light of people’s comments? How will people’s opinions be taken into account if nothing is posted in over a week? just asking…

grifflyman.8102:

the vast majorities of people who see the score are going to be turned off from showing up and playing that week. Not everyone is in a WvW guild, and has the organization to make WvW fun when you’re losing.

Perhaps if the vast majority of people showed up earlier in the match, they wouldn’t find the score showing such a big disparity.

Rimmy.9217:

Perhaps if the vast majority of people showed up earlier in the match, they wouldn’t find the score showing such a big disparity.

Perhaps there are not a comparable number of wvw players on the server to show up to make a difference in the disparity. I know from what I have seen in my own guild this influences people who do enjoy wvw to feel disinclined to join in for the week.

Rimmy, I’ve noticed most of your posts are confrontational, and typically use hypothetical confusions of what could happen in the future, while attempting to belittle a person’s view of what has happened in the past. Lets try more posts on fixing the problem, and less on targeting peoples views with unfounded tripe.

Victory.2879:

And the last post by our wvw forum specialist was …8 days ago. I’d forgotten this thread even existed.

Is the first post going to be updated as the discussion goes on, or how will the ‘report’ be amended in light of people’s comments? How will people’s opinions be taken into account if nothing is posted in over a week? just asking…

It will be ‘amended’ by updating features that the general populous have been asking for. Along with new quotes, thread links, and more accurate statistics. At the moment im waiting for Anet to give me a more “structured” form of how they want the reports to look. I have my notes ready to be inputted for the next report.

Thanks for the update, Marmatt. It’s good to know where the communication bottleneck is.

party buddy.4956:

Rimmy.9217:

Perhaps if the vast majority of people showed up earlier in the match, they wouldn’t find the score showing such a big disparity.

Perhaps there are not a comparable number of wvw players on the server to show up to make a difference in the disparity. I know from what I have seen in my own guild this influences people who do enjoy wvw to feel disinclined to join in for the week.

Rimmy, I’ve noticed most of your posts are confrontational, and typically use hypothetical confusions of what could happen in the future, while attempting to belittle a person’s view of what has happened in the past. Lets try more posts on fixing the problem, and less on targeting peoples views with unfounded tripe.

When people are stating things that are wrong, they need to be confronted. Personal beliefs and feelings aren’t fact.

But okay, here’s the problem that needs to be fixed that you brought up: you have witnessed in your own guild that there are people who won’t play WvW if other people haven’t already been winning the day for them. Is this accurate?

More so, you feel that the current YB/HoD/SBI matchup should never have happened, is this also accurate?

For the first – who cares? While winning is fun, it’s a result of playing – it’s not the actual reward. So why are people in your guild using the current score to decide if they’re going to play WvW or not? To compare, people with that sort of an attitude are similar to the people in PvE that show up for a world boss, sit where it’s going to spawn, and complain in map chat that “What, nobody is doing the pre?” without doing it themselves. If you (generic) are someone who cares about the score, then you have to try to score. Your efforts can’t be contingent on what other people before you have done. In fact, if the people before you have been contributing to the score, aren’t the fairweathers who sniff at the score and don’t bother to show up just demoralizing them? As in “We played for hours to keep our PPT over +100, and then nobody showed up and just let it all go for naught”.

This is a people problem, not a game problem. It’s even built right into the game – what do you get if you win? A couple of extra chests when you level the following week. So why exactly is their participation in WvW based on the score, pray tell?

For the second problem, how would you prefer the servers be matched? I don’t know how long you’ve been playing, but once upon a time it was based on your rank. 1 would always fight 2 and 3. 19 would always fight 20 and 21. Even back then, the matchup got stale. My own server got locked into a thirteen week matchup with the same guys.

So, we got the randomizer. That resulted (sometimes) in wildly ridiculous matchups, and so we finally got what we have now – it’s based on your glicko rating with a bit of a random factor in it. SoS in seventh place (with a rating so close to sixth you could spit a watermelon seed at it) got into the T2 matchup, and that meant that a T2 server had to be displaced, and YB ended up fighting in T3. So what? The T3 matchup looks not dissimilar to T5 and T6 this week, but what’s the issue?

Do you think YB is enjoying a total blowout? It’s completely boring to be on that side of it too. Even with all of the points they’re scoring, they’re only raising their own rating by about 10.

But do tell – how would you like the matches to be arranged? Without some radical overhaul where servers are combined or red/green/blue factions created – meaning keeping the essential shape of the servers as they are now – how would YOU like to see the matchups determined?

And bear in mind that nobody picks these, so please describe something that can be coded rather than one based on feeling.

party buddy.4956:

Perhaps there are not a comparable number of wvw players on the server to show up to make a difference in the disparity. I know from what I have seen in my own guild this influences people who do enjoy wvw to feel disinclined to join in for the week.

Rimmy, I’ve noticed most of your posts are confrontational, and typically use hypothetical confusions of what could happen in the future, while attempting to belittle a person’s view of what has happened in the past. Lets try more posts on fixing the problem, and less on targeting peoples views with unfounded tripe.

Your expecting someone with the word Troll in their signature to behave, what’s a good word, with civility?

Just ignore it. But I do agree it’s uncalled for, and we should be focused on solutions on how to herd cats, rather than assumptions and snapping at each other.

Rimmy.9217:

Perhaps there are not a comparable number of wvw players on the server to show up to make a difference in the disparity. I know from what I have seen in my own guild this influences people who do enjoy wvw to feel disinclined to join in for the week.

…….

But do tell – how would you like the matches to be arranged? Without some radical overhaul where servers are combined or red/green/blue factions created – meaning keeping the essential shape of the servers as they are now – how would YOU like to see the matchups determined?

And bear in mind that nobody picks these, so please describe something that can be coded rather than one based on feeling.

To start with, let T2 servers rotate with T1. The glicko disparity between #4 and #3 is less than it is with YB and SBI. Yet, T1 remains locked.

There have been lots of suggestions over the years about addressing population imbalances, but nothing of any value has been tried.

I’m on SBI. I play WvW a fair amount (been in the gold ranks for a bit); however, the things that are fun, even fights, roaming, taking an occasional objective, is totally blown out of the water when there are swarms of T2 members salivating to attack the few of us out there. Unless you join a zerg (ugh) or have a fair sized guild group, it gets old real fast getting swamped over and over. Most of us play for fun and the moment that stops, we’re not going to continue.

Yeah, its probably not fun for some YB either. But, having been on the other side of the swarm fest on occasion, I know which one gets older faster.

Rimmy.9217:

When people are stating things that are wrong, they need to be confronted. Personal beliefs and feelings aren’t fact.

But okay, here’s the problem that needs to be fixed that you brought up: you have witnessed in your own guild that there are people who won’t play WvW if other people haven’t already been winning the day for them. Is this accurate?

There you go again, attacking instead of contributing.

People are not quitting because we’re not winning, They’re quitting because when they go into a match, they get overrun with 7 to 1 ratio of players. We have people who enjoy doing many different things that wvw has to offer, but none of those objectives are available when you are out numbered by such a large margin.

There are things that could be done to improve the game play between servers, name one. ( read the previous posts if you need help thinking of one)

Coyote.7031:

Your expecting someone with the word Troll in their signature to behave, what’s a good word, with civility?

Just ignore it. But I do agree it’s uncalled for, and we should be focused on solutions on how to herd cats, rather than assumptions and snapping at each other.[/quote]

You posted sometime in the past week that you’ve only been playing for a month or so, so you wouldn’t know this, but there was a time when a staff ele would drop a meteor shower and then use the tornado elite – it would magnify the damage of the meteor shower tremendously. Lots of people called it a meteornado, but on my server we thought it was trolly so started calling it a trollnado.

party buddy is responding like that because he was just complaining in either this thread or another one, and I had a look at his post history and found that the bulk of his posts were exactly that – complaints. Not constructive ones, but “ANet isn’t giving me what I want” type posts and I remarked on it. There’s nothing constructive about “this should not happen” and a picture of a matchup.

If he doesn’t want confrontational posts, he shouldn’t be doing them to me either. And if he feels I’m out of order, there’s the option to report a post to the moderators.

party buddy.4956:

There you go again, attacking instead of contributing.

People are not quitting because we’re not winning, They’re quitting because when they go into a match, they get overrun with 7 to 1 ratio of players. We have people who enjoy doing many different things that wvw has to offer, but none of those objectives are available when you are out numbered by such a large margin.

There are things that could be done to improve the game play between servers, name one. ( read the previous posts if you need help thinking of one)

Actually, I’m quoted in the original post. Where’s your contribution, again?

Rimmy.9217:

party buddy.4956:

There you go again, attacking instead of contributing.

People are not quitting because we’re not winning, They’re quitting because when they go into a match, they get overrun with 7 to 1 ratio of players. We have people who enjoy doing many different things that wvw has to offer, but none of those objectives are available when you are out numbered by such a large margin.

There are things that could be done to improve the game play between servers, name one. ( read the previous posts if you need help thinking of one)

Actually, I’m quoted in the original post. Where’s your contribution, again?

I win, you lose – its ok to move on now.

party buddy.4956:

Rimmy.9217:

party buddy.4956:

There you go again, attacking instead of contributing.

People are not quitting because we’re not winning, They’re quitting because when they go into a match, they get overrun with 7 to 1 ratio of players. We have people who enjoy doing many different things that wvw has to offer, but none of those objectives are available when you are out numbered by such a large margin.

There are things that could be done to improve the game play between servers, name one. ( read the previous posts if you need help thinking of one)

Actually, I’m quoted in the original post. Where’s your contribution, again?

I win, you lose – its ok to move on now.

I’m glad you won’t be hijacking the thread to make it all about me anymore. Keep those constructive suggestions flowing.

Rimmy.9217:

You posted sometime in the past week that you’ve only been playing for a month or so, so you wouldn’t know this, but there was a time when a staff ele would drop a meteor shower and then use the tornado elite – it would magnify the damage of the meteor shower tremendously. Lots of people called it a meteornado, but on my server we thought it was trolly so started calling it a trollnado.

party buddy is responding like that because he was just complaining in either this thread or another one, and I had a look at his post history and found that the bulk of his posts were exactly that – complaints. Not constructive ones, but “ANet isn’t giving me what I want” type posts and I remarked on it. There’s nothing constructive about “this should not happen” and a picture of a matchup.

If he doesn’t want confrontational posts, he shouldn’t be doing them to me either. And if he feels I’m out of order, there’s the option to report a post to the moderators.

I assumed the Trollnado was about the elementalist’s elite, I may be new, but I get a few things. I also know the Engineer elite is similar, and it’s pretty trolly too. So many knockbacks…

But you are rarely constructive either. I’ve read many of your posts and they’re generally along the lines of “Well my server is awesome, we all boot straps ourselves up, and your server is just bad if it can’t do it either.” It’s not constructive either. It’s just stating, you don’t try hard enough.

And he’s right, that type of match up should never happen. It should never be allowed to be that one sided. That’s like doing a sPVP match and being the only one on your team, while the other team is full. There’s no recovering that. While you would argue it’s not constructive, I think it’s a very valid and concerning point.

How do we fix it? No idea. But telling people “try harder” or “learn to play like me” is not constructive. It’s just… not polite.

Except that I don’t say my server is awesome, or that people should try harder.

What I say is, for things to change someone has to be first. And if (generic) you’re concerned enough to be complaining about it, you’re as good a person as any to do it.

If you’ve read my previous posts, then hopefully you’ve read them in the threads they’re in. People complain “I go into WvW, we don’t own anything, so I just log out”.

So if what they want is to own some stuff, they can go flip the camps on a BL. Assuming they’re not the black sheep of their server, there are probably others than think like them, so if a camp or two flip to their colour, then more people like them will play, which will snowball the small modest original effort they made.

What I will always argue is the “I’m not having fun – change the game to suit me, regardless of how many other people don’t want it” style of complaints. Just like most of the WvW playing population – especially if they’ve been around for a while – I’ve been through riding high during a massively imbalanced matchup (it’s a clear sign you’re too strong for the match when your score is double the sum of the other two servers) and the bottom of the “let’s see how long we tick at +0” matches.

Had a server full of skilled people, had an empty server. Been high, been low, and have been trending higher again lately. And my experience isn’t unique.

If every one of my posts isn’t a handcrafted masterpiece that solves every problem in the original post, it’s because so very few of these problems are new. So when you’re posting in the hundredth identical thread that’s been started in the past six months, it gets a bit wearying. And while the search function for the server isn’t the greatest in the world, it’s not broken either

I do like my server, and I use what we’ve done there as an example to illustrate what I’m saying if it applies to the OP, but I’m not a shill for it. If it lets you, and it only occasionally lets me do it to other people, look at my highest rated posts. My constructive posts are all there, along with a couple of funny ones.

But I’ll promise you that if people stop rehashing issues that have been totally talked out and come up with new problems, you’ll enjoy my initial responses more. And if you’re around long enough to see the same posts, often followed by “The death of WvW” or “this will drive all the WvWers to quit” a few dozen times, you can chart the decline in helpfulness in my posts.

And if it really bothers you, report the post. Making this about me is doing a disservice to the purpose of this thread, and will kill dead any further debate that anybody wants to do.

Rimmy.9217:

What I say is, for things to change someone has to be first. And if (generic) you’re concerned enough to be complaining about it, you’re as good a person as any to do it.

I did for a bit, and it got old fast. I showed up to solo camps and help a small number of players to take towers and even our keeps back. The problem, we were being karma trained so as soon as we done a very large group just came in to take it all back. That’s the issue I think most people have. It doesn’t matter if you get a small group of rebels to do things if you are being karma trained.

Rimmy.9217:

If you’ve read my previous posts, then hopefully you’ve read them in the threads they’re in. People complain “I go into WvW, we don’t own anything, so I just log out”.

I’ve done this. I think I’ve admitted to it too. Why? Because I’m tired of being Karma trained, and karma training isn’t fun for either side. I don’t want to see my hard work destroyed in less time then I took me to flip them. And since I’m new, I don’t have the stores of gold and siege I’m sure many players do. This is speaking about my own borderlands though. I rarely go to other borderlands. Maybe after I spend some more time in sPVP honing my 1v1 skills.

Rimmy.9217:

What I will always argue is the “I’m not having fun – change the game to suit me, regardless of how many other people don’t want it” style of complaints.

But you argue for the same thing, calling for locked servers or forced destacking. And I’m in bronze now, thankfully. Destacking would help us, but I don’t want it. Because it’s forcing players to play the way I do against their will. If they want to play with massive populations and queues, that’s their business and anyone who follows them. That’s their fun, and I have no right to request it be changed. What I do want is better matching so I can have fun too.

Rimmy.9217:

… because so very few of these problems are new. So when you’re posting in the hundredth identical thread that’s been started in the past six months, it gets a bit wearying. And while the search function for the server isn’t the greatest in the world, it’s not broken either

This part frightens me! If this has been an issue for so long, why aren’t they addressing it?!! It’s clearly a hot topic and just getting worse as Anet neglects it further. HoT is coming and we will get some new changes, but we don’t even have a ball park of when it’s done or any idea of what changes will be made. We just get the answer “It’ll be finished when it’s finished.” Which is a terrible answer!

Rimmy.9217:

But I’ll promise you that if people stop rehashing issues that have been totally talked out and come up with new problems, you’ll enjoy my initial responses more. And if you’re around long enough to see the same posts, often followed by “The death of WvW” or “this will drive all the WvWers to quit” a few dozen times, you can chart the decline in helpfulness in my posts.

The “Death of WvW” does get old, but if people are bringing them up time and time again, it’s a problem that needs to be addressed. I think the doom and gloom in the stability thread is a good explain of this though. But players say that about every game and every change ever made. There’s an XKCD comic about it, but then again there’s a comic for everything :P

Rimmy.9217:

And if it really bothers you, report the post. Making this about me is doing a disservice to the purpose of this thread, and will kill dead any further debate that anybody wants to do.

Trust me if a post crosses the line, I have no problem reporting it. I think I’ve reported a dozen or more people for spamming in chat or inappropriate posts as well as block them. I ain’t got time for that crap. This is why I used the word “civility”. While you aren’t “polite” or “gently spoken”, you aren’t flat out offensive or cruel either. If you are a real troll, you’re a good one, dancing along the cusp while the rest of us get our feathers’ ruffled. Not that I’m stating you are.

Adjust the mechanics and make wvw an endgame, where we can only get super cool looking skins at par with legendary, maybe by then most server will have queues and people would stop bandwagoning on a winning server but instead they would choose to transfer to server with less population to avoid long queues

grifflyman.8102:

Rimmy.9217:

grifflyman.8102:

the vast majorities of people who see the score are going to be turned off from showing up and playing that week. Not everyone is in a WvW guild, and has the organization to make WvW fun when you’re losing.

Perhaps if the vast majority of people showed up earlier in the match, they wouldn’t find the score showing such a big disparity.

You’re saying that it’s a fact that I’m wrong about people not showing up? Have you played on tier 1 server? The maps are overflowing with people. EB will often be queued 20 minutes BEFORE a match resets for the week.

Compare that to a tier 3 or 4 server that’s lucky to get enough players to queue one map on reset at prime time. Most of the tier 1 servers are pop capped. You can’t transfer to BG but you sure as heck can transfer to a tier 3 or 4.

You’re statment is not only criticizing for no reason but also shows ignorance related to the topic. Even if my server had every player who WvWed show up this week we would still lose to YB. Its population based. YB has a higher population so they’ve got more players to pool into WvW.

No, I don’t think you’re wrong at all. I do think that structural changes to WvW shouldn’t be made for people who will look at the score and not bother to show up if their server isn’t winning due to the effort of other people.

Marmatt.8590:

Victory.2879:

And the last post by our wvw forum specialist was …8 days ago. I’d forgotten this thread even existed.

Is the first post going to be updated as the discussion goes on, or how will the ‘report’ be amended in light of people’s comments? How will people’s opinions be taken into account if nothing is posted in over a week? just asking…

It will be ‘amended’ by updating features that the general populous have been asking for. Along with new quotes, thread links, and more accurate statistics. At the moment im waiting for Anet to give me a more “structured” form of how they want the reports to look. I have my notes ready to be inputted for the next report.

Thanks for popping in and making a response. I thought the role was going to be a bit more pro active, but glad my prompting was noticed by someone (probably someone pm’d you reminding you that you are the wvw forum guy).

Sounds like you are about to become mired in that favourite way of ensuring nothing ever gets done, ie spending loads of time ‘structuring’ reports, ensuring the correct format is used, having committee meetinggs, focus groups, sub committes and all the other devices politicians and civil servants in particular use to pretend they are doing something whilst in actual fact achieving nothing (apart from piles of paper to pass to each other) and being able to deny any responsibility for any decision if one is ever made.

Given that people here can give you a list of 10-100 things that need to be looked at in wvw, if it’s going to take 2-3 months to get ONE report submitted (never mind read, considered, actioned, and something actually started to try and fix it), then this whole process looks just like the other smokescreens we’ve had regarding wvw.

The litmus test for their attention to wvw is the achievements- over two years and still nothing done to fix obviously broken targets, AP amounts rewarded. If they can’t be bothered to even fix that, why would anyone think that a report that takes 2-3 months to submit (about something that has been an issue since two years ago) is going to get any more attention and actual solid action?

I’m sure you mean well, but I think you’re in an impossible position (classic ‘appoint a fall guy’ politics).

Marmatt.8590:

It will be ‘amended’ by updating features that the general populous have been asking for.

I find this worrying. For every MMORPG I’ve ever played, it is a given that only a tiny fraction of active players read the forum, and an even tinier fraction post on it.

Change should not be done for change’s sake. Especially when that change gives no benefit beyond what already exists.

I’ve mentioned it before, but in my local community, a small group of 7-10 people successfully petitioned the local council to remove some large trees on an empty block of land. These trees are large and provide shade and shelter, not just for the local pedestrians walking on the adjoining path, but for various birdlife. The initial community meeting to discuss this issue was only attended by those who started the petition, thus it succeed and the trees were marked for removal.

It wasn’t until the last minute that the wider community caught wind of this and made a counter-petition to save the trees. Over 200 people living the the area where the trees are located signed this petition, which prompted the council to hold another community meeting, this time more members of the community attended and the trees were saved.

If it had not have been brought to the wider community’s attention, those who were happy with the way things were would have suddenly found that the beloved trees would be irreversibly gone, all because of a few disgruntled residents.

I hope the fact that the forums don’t necessarily represent the wider community is taken into consideration before any irreversible changes are made.

The thoughts posted on here should be preliminary ideas. The best way to reach the population of players is in game.

Perhaps there should be something similar to the voting of Gnashblade and Kiel where the outcome is decided by the players (1 vote per account, not by gold). If you want to hear the true thoughts of the GW2 players make an event out of it and have the ideas for WvW changes to be voted on.

This in game voting approach may get some former PvE people interested in WvW. It would be even more fun if the voting was done every once in a while to constantly change up WvW based on who (or what) won the WvW votes.

Woaden.9425:

I know that I’m late to this conversation, but it is truly the scoring system, tied to servers, that creates these sorts of unbalanced matchups. Attempting to fix these matchups by introducing new wvw mechanics will only be treating the symptom, not the cause.

As has been mentioned elsewhere in this conversation, people will flock to the top arena of competition, or they will stack a lower tier server and see how high they can get it. Both of these behaviors are tied directly to the scoring system and perceived “success” based on that scoring system. If you want to be “the best” you compete against the best, those who are at the “top”. You can’t change this behavior in a person through mechanics.

So to fix this systemic issue, you need to change two things:

1. Remove servers as a method of “grouping” and find a new method of grouping such as the mentioned “Battle Groups”, among others.
2. Score those groupings in a way that anyone can see their progress/contribution and be rewarded cool points/bragging rights and be rewarded for ‘loyalty’.

Here would be my proposal

Grouping

No more servers. Just three “world teams” or whatever you want to call them. The teams:

Green Team
Red Team
Blue Team

These teams could then be included in the ‘mega server’ environment. When you log in, if you are green, you’ll get placed in a green team instance.

There could be some lore for these colors, but of course from a mechanics standpoint it isn’t needed. We humans seem to have no problems rallying around and rooting for arbitrary colors as far back in history as you want to go (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nika_riots).

How we initially get put in to these colors is beyond the scope of this post, but the initial mix could be done by server/pop/rank until each color had the right initial mix. New players would simply be asked to choose a side when first logging in to wvw. You could switch colors using similar methods to switching servers today, but there would be less reason to because:

Scoring:

The teams themselves are merely the space in which individuals and guilds compete for the top spots. Imagine three columns on a website scoreboard. Red, Green, Blue.

You organize by:

Top guilds by timezone (scoring based on things like length of tower/keep/camp claims, gvg events and amount of investment in victory (who invested the most in upgrades, siege, etc).

Top players (scoring based on individual k:d, individual investment, yak kills, etc).

At the end of a wvw season, the top few guilds of each team could compete in a GVG tournament, and the champions from each color would compete in a World Cup/Superbowl. This shifts focus from “worlds” and on to “guilds”. It still allows guilds to move about freely, and still gives everyone plenty of bragging rights on who’s best.

How to mega-group

Much like the megaserver tries to put you in an instance with people from your guild/friends list, the same could be applied to megamists. In addition, guilds could register who their “allies” and “rivals” are, and so the placement could also take that in to account.

Lastly, guilds could send out a “challenge” to rival guilds, and both could meet in a common instance right away to solve their differences!

Conclusion:

There needs to be some system of scoring that ties large scale combat back to guilds, not worlds. It needs to be some sort of system that will allow ‘mega server’ for constant population for any player, while still creating a sense of comradery and permanence among a group of people.

With Red/Green/Blue, even if “Red” is consistently the best grouping for some reason, that will only mean that Green and Blue become more viable destinations for your guild, because if you make it to the top of Green at the end of the WvW season, you’ll face off against those evil Reds and show them who’s really boss!

This would probably take a lot of effort. That being said, I think this lays a good foundation to revamp WvW in the right direction.

Dhemize.8649:

This in game voting approach may get some former PvE people interested in WvW. It would be even more fun if the voting was done every once in a while to constantly change up WvW based on who (or what) won the WvW votes.

Voters who are uninformed but have an equal vote are detrimental to getting anything done. Since this forum in its entirety represents the ideas, complaints, issues and analysis of the player base that has cared to post, and is maintained by ANet, why would popping up a “Do you want this? Yes or no?” window to everybody in the game (out of which only a non-majority percentage actually WvW, if my impressions are correct) to decide about the intricacies of proposed changes?

Bartlewe.6432:

Woaden.9425:

This would probably take a lot of effort. That being said, I think this lays a good foundation to revamp WvW in the right direction.

+1

Rimmy.9217:

Dhemize.8649:

This in game voting approach may get some former PvE people interested in WvW. It would be even more fun if the voting was done every once in a while to constantly change up WvW based on who (or what) won the WvW votes.

Voters who are uninformed but have an equal vote are detrimental to getting anything done. Since this forum in its entirety represents the ideas, complaints, issues and analysis of the player base that has cared to post, and is maintained by ANet, why would popping up a “Do you want this? Yes or no?” window to everybody in the game (out of which only a non-majority percentage actually WvW, if my impressions are correct) to decide about the intricacies of proposed changes?

These “uninformed” people are the reason why WvW is so dead. If you’re not even going to reach out to the massive player base already here then this thread is already shot down. Nobody installs and goes straight to WvW and stays there. They all come from PvE at some point. Engage them and get that massive population into WvW.

Dhemize.8649:

Rimmy.9217:

Dhemize.8649:

This in game voting approach may get some former PvE people interested in WvW. It would be even more fun if the voting was done every once in a while to constantly change up WvW based on who (or what) won the WvW votes.

Voters who are uninformed but have an equal vote are detrimental to getting anything done. Since this forum in its entirety represents the ideas, complaints, issues and analysis of the player base that has cared to post, and is maintained by ANet, why would popping up a “Do you want this? Yes or no?” window to everybody in the game (out of which only a non-majority percentage actually WvW, if my impressions are correct) to decide about the intricacies of proposed changes?

These “uninformed” people are the reason why WvW is so dead. If you’re not even going to reach out to the massive player base already here then this thread is already shot down. Nobody installs and goes straight to WvW and stays there. They all come from PvE at some point. Engage them and get that massive population into WvW.

We used to, but then the megaserver system came into effect and it applied to cities as well. At that point, you had PvE-centric people who were aware of the names of WvW guilds on their server, and they either drifted in or not.

Now? People tend to tune out the flood of recruitment messages because so few apply to them and, despite the forums, new people joining WvW tends to be via word of mouth or happenstance (i.e. you see a tagless person in WvW and snap them up).

The in-game voting, even if it pops up when you first log in, isn’t going to be anything more than a how-do-I-click-past-this-so-I-can-continue-doing-what-I-was-going-to-do-anyway for people that aren’t concerned by it.

And you don’t reach out to people by putting them into a decision making position – why would you want someone who (presumably, since we’re talking about people who don’t really WvW and don’t read the forums) doesn’t know what they’re talking about making decisions that affect people who do? Your state or province might want money or people or resources from another one, but it wouldn’t give those people a say in your local elections, because they don’t speak for the people who are already there.

Now if you wanted to put a vote up when you sign into WvW, that would be something else. Even if the person doesn’t WvW at all and were only going there at the instigation of their friend or their guild or their server to try to sway the vote, at least they’d have been interested enough to press B.

So, after posting our opinions and experiences over and over and having had this information passed to Arenanet, what are we supposed to expect? My experience with Arenanet is mixed: They did make changes to the game sometimes, I won’t deny it, and occasionally one or two affected WvW;

• Nerf to Orbs (sadly necessary due to hackers – we miss you Orbypops ),
• Swapped quaggans for Bloodlust (not necessary, we miss you Quaggypops ),
• Breakout events (better than nothing),
• Nerf to absorb skills acting on siege projectiles (fair enough, but spoilsporty),
• Nerf to Resurrecting Lords with skills (spoilsporty).
• Matchmaking system that means mid and low tier servers get horrible unbalanced matchups (implemented because tier 1 servers complained about being matched together).

It does appear that WvW has been abandoned for fear of breaking it further. I hope something gets at least promised soon because I don’t want to lose my lovely server-community!

We really need more breakout events. If your entire BL map has flipped they should be spawning for every tower and keep.

A champion is not going to be “unbalanced” but it’s at least going to give each server something to do.

Running around and flipping kitten only to have it flip 5 minutes later because the enemy has so many more people then you is silly and boring.

Without a timescale for this report to even be submitted (or even to whom and in what form), I’m struggling to see the point of this thread.

With the best will in the world, I can’t see anything actually getting changed by this report system in the next six months due to the HoT release taking all resources.

More breakout events won’t help- the towers will still be reflipped 5 minutes later unless population is addressed. And the only way to encourage more people to play is for it to either have better rewards (and better than EoTM) or a total revamp of how matches are organised with much better mechanics (which isn’t going to happen).

I know this will probably be taken down, but Anet please watch this Video. Maybe you don’t understand what it is like to face T2 servers that have 6x your servers player base in WvW.

http://youtu.be/RvXblRDwaOo

I play GW2 and WvW every single day. This is not a i’m gonna quite because of XYZ. It’s just a post that says hey, please it’s been a long time find a way to fix it.

The only way us T3 servers can do anything right now is to blob our server into a 60+ man group and jump between EB and our BL. 1 Giant group fighting on multiple fronts while the larger server can put the same amount of people on every BL and not blink an eye. If we try doing smaller groups well. the video shows you what that looks like.