Guild Wars 2

That bleeping forum bug….. ugh!

DeWolfe.2174:

As I said in another thread, if you can’t muster a defense against 20 players, then you deserve to lose. It’s a 24/7 game mode and it’s been a 24/7 game mode since launch. If all you do is play for 3-4 hours and have no coverage the other 20-21 hours, then you absolutely deserve to lose.

Defense on EU at night: 2-3 people and 15-30 enemies who PvD.

ETA: And btw: These servers also have a prime time coverage. They tick with ~100 during that time, granted, but it’s impossible to get back the points they’re getting with their karma trains.

Btw. Dayra, please stop all the salt because of what Baruch Bay achieved. They have a superior force for 6 or so hours a day. It’s up to everyone else to match it or lose.

DeWolfe.2174:

Btw. Dayra, please stop all the salt because of what Baruch Bay achieved. They have a superior force for 6 or so hours a day. It’s up to everyone else to match it or lose.

No, neither nor, with the current scoring winning and loosing in WvW is as important as winning or loosing EotM, and 4h matches fit my preferences much better than 168h matches.

Imagine there is WvW and no one cares, ah, I forot, you don’t have to imagine it any longer
No I am only writing here to give the overhaul a chance to fix it.

Dayra.7405:

DeWolfe.2174:

Btw. Dayra, please stop all the salt because of what Baruch Bay achieved. They have a superior force for 6 or so hours a day. It’s up to everyone else to match it or lose.

No, neither nor, with the current scoring winning and loosing in WvW is as important as winning or loosing EotM, and 4h matches fit my preferences much better than 168h matches.

Imagine there is WvW and no one cares, ah, I forot, you don’t have to imagine it any longer
No I am only writing here to give the overhaul a chance to fix it.

So you’re trolling to try and turn WvW into EotM 3.0. F’n wonderful…..

Trolling? No I am really convinced that night capping and the resulting PPT don’t care is one of the major reasons why people play less (which has the same overall effect than less people playing) wvw.

Australia here. Please turn off PPT during NA/EU prime time, they’re nightcapping all my hard work. QQ

Night capping is not the problem, not having anything to balance low map populations is.

I cap at night, just because my work schedule doesn’t allow me to play at “primetime”.

Offair.2563:

I cap at night, just because my work schedule doesn’t allow me to play at “primetime”.

Do you really think all these servers steamrolling us at night deserve the success they have?

Dayra.7405:

Trolling? No I am really convinced that night capping and the resulting PPT don’t care is one of the major reasons why people play less (which has the same overall effect than less people playing) wvw.

I think this is true. For me at least, this makes the scoring system inherently pointless and not something an individual can care about.

The combination of what people call “Coverage wars” and “Night Capping” comes down to “The server with people capping empty towers at most hours wins (GG)”.

However I think there are many other reasons that are tied to this one that lead to diminished playerbase, like these:

• Rewards for capping (often empty) towers/keeps are higher than rewards for fighting
• There isn’t much “to fight for”: personal sense of achievement is rather low overall. Except for example when you manage to beat a big group with a smaller group, I always felt like that was the best feeling, but these days doesn’t happen much.
• The role of guilds, still feels rather redundant. The overpowered guild upgrades locked behind a grindwall are not a good step forward.
• Creating your own game only lasts so long: many wvw players have been playing all these years just creating their own game… but at this point a lot of us are just bored, we’ve stretched beyond the limits of self-entertainment.

If anything is done at all, it should be based off ratios of friendlies to enemies. The basic solutions of having points being reduced during off-peak times are silly. A 5v5 battle for a tower or keep should not inherently be worth less than 50v50. A 50v5, on the other hand… make it based on an improved ‘outnumbered’ mechanic.

Amurond.4590:

If anything is done at all, it should be based off ratios of friendlies to enemies. The basic solutions of having points being reduced during off-peak times are silly. A 5v5 battle for a tower or keep should not inherently be worth less than 50v50. A 50v5, on the other hand… make it based on an improved ‘outnumbered’ mechanic.

This would force people to balance themselves for your efforts will be worth less.

Amurond.4590:

If anything is done at all, it should be based off ratios of friendlies to enemies. The basic solutions of having points being reduced during off-peak times are silly. A 5v5 battle for a tower or keep should not inherently be worth less than 50v50. A 50v5, on the other hand… make it based on an improved ‘outnumbered’ mechanic.

A battle for a tower doesn’t give any PPT. The off-time PPT problem is caused by all these keeps and towers that generate points without anyone battling for them.

Amurond.4590:

If anything is done at all, it should be based off ratios of friendlies to enemies. The basic solutions of having points being reduced during off-peak times are silly. A 5v5 battle for a tower or keep should not inherently be worth less than 50v50. A 50v5, on the other hand… make it based on an improved ‘outnumbered’ mechanic.

Uuuh… You want to make it an improved “outnumbered” mechanic that change PPT based on the population differences during off-peak hours (ie when zergs of 10+ run around capping towers defended by no one), yet you think that the same exact thing with generic low population scaling is… silly? Say what?

Besides, the problem isnt the battle. Quite the contrary. Its what many people on the forum seem to despise (except when it comes to their server nightcapping of course). That would be PvE.

What should a 10v0 battle for a tower/keep/camp be worth? When its repeated 30 times within 2 hours? Just curious.