Guild Wars 2

Good to see that positive changes are being made!

All of these look good to me, especially 3 and 4. Blobs will have a bit less power when they aren’t as able to roll over their dead and have the backline res. Also, allied PUG deaths wont be quite as damaging to those of us who run with organized guild groups, since they can only rally one enemy each

Keep it up! Now that death is being made meaningful in a decent way, perhaps we can see some Desert BL improvements/downsizing?

Finally, these changes are fantastic!!!

I love the changes but I think the Rally/Res change has to be tested out before it’s made permanent

Squad Suggestion: Please create options to allow us to form tagless or non-public (publicly invisible) tagged wvw squads.

currently, to accomplish this, I tag up, form the squad, LEAVE the squad, then get invited back. a bit ridunkulous to have to do it this way, in my opinion. and my squad mates can’t see my tag any more.

one simple solution would be to put an option in the squad leaders UI to “hide commander tag”. there are some use cases for this. but perhaps an even better solution would be an option to allow use to set the commander’s tag to only be visible by squad members. this would allow for having the tag up — which the squad members often wish to see — but not publicly visible.

1st use case: keeping a squad small I mainly lead small roaming/havoc groups but I don’t want more than 10 players following me. being able to go “tagless” or invisible to others, would allow me to use the squad UI, control the subgroups, see supply, broadcast, etc. but not be publicly open or visible to anyone else.

2nd use case: guild-only wvw groups. there are many many times in the past that I’ve wanted to just play with my guild group — perhaps just for fun, or we’re practicing new comps, strategies or coordination — and we don’t want any random players tagging along. in this case the tag is important for the squad to see, but for random players outside the squad.

3rd use case: wvw guild missions. I’ve lost track of how many times a random player starts following us around and asks what we’re doing, then runs off when they hear we’re doing missions. I need to be able to form and control a commanded squad, but hide my tag so that it’s not distracting to other players who are expecting a commander is actually commanding regular wvw.

thanks!

PLEASE PLEASE GET BACK OUR OLD BORDERLANDS!!! Sorry to say but the new ones are terrible, the older ones were atleast enjoyable without all the PvE crap

Why are people asking for it not to be PPK but Points-Per-Stomp when it’s already a feature and in function? This really shows that people posting have played a little amount of WvW.

Gaile Gray.6029:

• Objectives upgrades will no longer be automatic based on time.
• Supply cost for all catapults are being reduced by ten supply.
• Points per kill will be turned on and kept on.
• The number of players who can rally off a single kill has been reduced from five to one.

All changes seem good to me – would like to suggest PPK be relatively high against the normal score tick, but for the moment the score tick doesn’t mean too much anyhow.

The catapult supply cost would not have been such a problem if the +5 supply guild upgrade were more reasonable to obtain – I’m somewhat concerned that you’ll need to revoke this once more guilds have access to it. But the difference of 10 supply isn’t going to break the game, so I’m not going to object to it.

Player rally/revive changes would be welcomed; keep in mind that dead can always waypoint back so it’s not as if they’re stuck there.

In regards to PPK, can you implement it so that its in favor of the losing server?

For example:
Winning Server: 1 PPK
Middle Server: 2 PPK
Losing server: 3 PPK

This would make the fights much more interesting and give a chance to the losing servers to catch up.

re: the Desert BL

I understand many people’s frustration over the new BL maps. i’ve talked to a number of players on my server, and i’ve read many of the comments on this thread and others.

as a roamer and small-squad leader, i personally really like many aspects of the new map, I like the keep layouts. I enjoy the more difficult lord/supervisor mechanics. I love how the keeps and towers are themed. I love the upgrade tiers. i love the benefits from the shrines. i love how enemy sentries mark us for a short while when we get close to them. i love how they look. I even like a number of the anti-zerg / blob-slowdown mechanics in place.

the only thing I don’t love — and this one thing would probably bring many of the population back on my server — is the travel time. even with swiftness and 25% movement speed on my characters, it still takes me a hell of a long time to get from spawn to the opposite side of the map. and that’s going N to S and even E to W.

this is clearly a function of scale, geographic mechanics and familiarity with the layout. my familiarity has increased alot, making me feel better about the map. but if either scale of mechanics or both were reduced — i’m not saying eliminate all the obstacles, they are strategically good and fun in some places/cases — I think these maps would see a much higher population then they currently are seeing.

oh…and for the love of all things WvW, please ensure that you gather the opinions and test play experience of small-squad commanders as well as players and commanders from low WvW populations servers. I feel the new map didn’t take into account enough feedback from these demographics before it launched.

thanks!

AJaZe.2943:

Why are people asking for it not to be PPK but Points-Per-Stomp when it’s already a feature and in function? This really shows that people posting have played a little amount of WvW.

Since I never really watched scores that closely: Do we still have points per stomp after bloodlust is gone?

Really happy to see the upcoming changes. As a regular roamer and small group player on a lower tier, each one has merits. Looking forward to seeing how it plays out. Thanks for the preview.

Here’s hoping we start seeing folks coming back. The borderlands have been too quiet for too long.

These changes are (mostly) great but they don’t address the primary problems that are brought about due to population imbalance. I’m also doubtful that they will address the problem of the overall lack of wvw population. So hopefully the unannounced changes will do something about those issues. Because if you can’t entice people to come and play the game mode there’s not much point.

So…wait…cata cost was a main complaint on this forum? Really? I think if we rank the complaints, it wouldn’t even hit the top 20 let alone be one of the top 5 that are being addressed. Sigh.

I’m not big into WvW, I just wanted to pop in and say thumbs up for getting feedback on the proposed changes.

Interesting.

I think it is a good sign that the changes are being looked at with an incremental approach as opposed to some huge overhaul all at once. All too often attempts to fix problems are approached with massive changes, buffs, nerfs, etc all at once.

Great changes that should be implemented asap.
Just be prepared to change/remove point 4 after implementation. I love it becouse im a guild player but we dont know how its gona work in practice.
Also glad to hear, this is not even part of bigger overhaul, since looking at these changes, overhaul is gona be awesome.
Anet u are begining to start to go in right direction for wvw.

It’s kinda funny that these minor changes which should not take them much effort/time to implement is just a sneak peak. They could at least tell us that they would remove the terrible desert borderlands, and that we would get new better battle oriented maps, designed for constant action or something. But no, just som lame easy to do things which should have been in the game from the start.

well there all good changes but they are changes that will do nothing to save the game mode or bring any one back or interest any one to play it

Xillllix.3485:

In regards to PPK, can you implement it so that its in favor of the losing server?

For example:
Winning Server: 1 PPK
Middle Server: 2 PPK
Losing server: 3 PPK

This would make the fights much more interesting and give a chance to the losing servers to catch up.

I’ve suggested giving benefits to whichever server is losing at any one time and it seems (from the tidbits they’ve said) they have problems grabbing the numbers from the scores, for reasons which bemuse the small-time programmer in me.

These changes look like a good idea, but may need some adjustments in the way they are implemented to avoid negative side effects. For example the PPK change could lead to people avoiding fights if they don’t think they can win, making it so your death doesn’t provide PPK if your server is outnumbered on a map or doubling the amount of PPK you receive on killing an enemy while outnumbered could help encourage people to keep playing even while losing. Also, to avoid the stale tower humping game-play some servers engage in, disabling PPK from a person who has received siege damage in the 20 seconds prior to their death and doubling the PPK received when spiking someone that was defending a tower or keep would help reward servers that actively try to engage the enemy even if they are unsuccessful in taking an objective.

First bit of feedback I wanted to say; there is far too little posts like this. I’ve read through most of the 7 pages (so far) and there’s great feedback here. And very little FLAME ON! There needs to be way, way more of this.

Auto upgrades was/is a bad change. A half hearted attempt to tweak and continue to justify the investment of this “feature” can make something bad, worse. Roll back the old system, remove the gold requirement. It makes player interactions matter. It makes the time investment in the upgrades matter. It brings players together to kill their fellow wo/man (virtually!).

Re-introduction of PPK is great. No idea why this was taken away. Great to see it back. For a game that had a really low death penalty and then went to no death penalty other than a small time sync, positive change. Also will benefit higher skilled/higher skilled smaller groups/pop shards.

Siege cost changes, to me, is a direct line to addressing the lower pop shards that those not in the top 2 tiers experience week after week. Positive change.

Have to agree with many others that the rally/downed propsals sound real nice on paper. This needs to be meta tested. Absolutely agree that pin sniping/focus sniping issues are not addressed in the brief outline so there are all kinds of “unintended consequences” that could trickle out of this.

While I would like to thank you for reaching out, looking for feedback, I will also echo many others here in saying that unless these changes are being planned in parallel stream to changes to the long standing issues, at the core of Dub-vee-Dub, than I too have to question the priorties of this game’s team leaders. Putting a slightly new shine on the same old thing, is just the same old thing.

P.S. +1 on bring back the old BL’s. New maps are nice and all. I’m sure some of you are really proud of your work. They just don’t function well as working, living medium→large scale PvP maps.

Anet thank you for finally responding us to with something now can you guys please change the reset back to Friday night!? Here’s the straw poll that I created awhile ago http://strawpoll.me/6190581 this straw poll clearly shows that more people want Friday night reset. Please do take a look at the results

I like the proposed actions as a hotfix.

CrimeMaker.8612:

Anet thank you for finally responding us to with something now can you guys please change the reset back to Friday night!? Here’s the straw poll that I created awhile ago http://strawpoll.me/6190581 this straw poll clearly shows that more people want Friday night reset. Please do take a look at the results

This poll doesn’t list every day of the week though.

misterman.1530:

So…wait…cata cost was a main complaint on this forum? Really? I think if we rank the complaints, it wouldn’t even hit the top 20 let alone be one of the top 5 that are being addressed. Sigh.

Cat cost change indicates they’re sticking with the desert BL. Even at the cost of unbalancing EB gameplay. It’s a good sign they’re not listening at all.

Xillllix.3485:

In regards to PPK, can you implement it so that its in favor of the losing server?

For example:
Winning Server: 1 PPK
Middle Server: 2 PPK
Losing server: 3 PPK

This would make the fights much more interesting and give a chance to the losing servers to catch up.

How would this work change effect player behavior? Wouldn’t it promote big zerg pushes and then hibernating inside structures?

Gaile Gray.6029:

Before we jump into the changes, we just want to make it very clear that the changes you’ll read about below are not a part of the big World vs World update that we’ve previously mentioned.

Is the “big World vs World update” being Beta tested before being implemented? Were there polling methods used to figure out what the “WvW community” would like or were they decided by these interviews? Reyana’s interviews, though good, are a very small sample size. I also noticed they are a bit slanted to paint a certain picture by asking specific questions to these specific players. As I said, they are good and I’ve watched all but two of them thus far. They just not very inclusive of the grander WvW community.

DeWolfe.2174:

Xillllix.3485:

In regards to PPK, can you implement it so that its in favor of the losing server?

For example:
Winning Server: 1 PPK
Middle Server: 2 PPK
Losing server: 3 PPK

This would make the fights much more interesting and give a chance to the losing servers to catch up.

How would this work change effect player behavior? Wouldn’t it promote big zerg pushes and then hibernating inside structures?

I don’t think so. I mean they do need to change the rewards, perhaps the rewards could encourage fighting instead of discouraging it.

Lord Kuru.3685:

misterman.1530:

So…wait…cata cost was a main complaint on this forum? Really? I think if we rank the complaints, it wouldn’t even hit the top 20 let alone be one of the top 5 that are being addressed. Sigh.

Cat cost change indicates they’re sticking with the desert BL. Even at the cost of unbalancing EB gameplay. It’s a good sign they’re not listening at all.

If 25 supply guild catas didn’t break EB, I don’t think 40 supply guild catas will either.

misterman.1530:

So…wait…cata cost was a main complaint on this forum? Really? I think if we rank the complaints, it wouldn’t even hit the top 20 let alone be one of the top 5 that are being addressed. Sigh.

yeah i agree, but it was definitely a needed change. they also address the autoupgrades which was one of the top complains. top one for me still is the new borderland map, but i think they wanna try to fix the map instead of just giving us the old maps back. thing is though, map is not fixable as it is a design problem and result of not communicating properly with us.
after beta i knew right away that this map would not work.

now anet has to either bring back the old maps: which they might try to give a little overhaul like getting rid of skritt and centaur and other unused space and put towers there (NOT shrines!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

or anet will try to fix the desert borderlands…: which would need to be a lot more simplified and most of the eotm/pve elements have to be removed.

or they come out with a brand new map they will design by working closely with the community.

I think the no hard ressing could work if it was a debuff applied by any player skill that did damage and prevented you from ressing.

If you can’t get ressed at wild creek because someone on the third floor of SMC is trebbing you, that really just isn’t going to be fun. (And does SMC really need another buff?)

The changes look pretty good. I really like the upgrade reversions and the PPK implementation. My instinct says restricting hard rezzing due to combat may be fight prohibitive. The goal is to keep people in the fight. I can live with the rally nerf though I would say it will lead to excessive pin sniping. I do have a suggestion for a solution for pin sniping. Give the commander a toughness buff for each player in his squad with at least 10 players that is alive and within a certain range.

that non combat revive…didnt see that coming doubt its what wvw need right now but we will see..
I also feel the rally is too punishing only 1 person for a rally. maybe reduce it from 5 to 3. Also non combat hard revives i would never have thought that was a big issues to begin with who hard revives someone during a big fight? very few if anything most have to run back.

Rhizo.5089:

The changes look pretty good. I really like the upgrade reversions and the PPK implementation. My instinct says restricting hard rezzing due to combat may be fight prohibitive. The goal is to keep people in the fight. I can live with the rally nerf though I would say it will lead to excessive pin sniping. I do have a suggestion for a solution for pin sniping. Give the commander a toughness buff for each player in his squad with at least 10 players that is alive and within a certain range.

Pin sniping is a player created problem that require a player created solution. Making a dedicated buff would be hilarious, since that was removed to help the issue (the tag originally showed as a buff, remember? Enemies could see the commander instantly).

We already have solutions for it anyway – stealth, tactics and backup commanders. Not to mention it would probably help if 90% of commanders wasnt the same exact Charr guardian with spiky hair and a huge backpack, but whatever.

Dolyak killing will have a whole new fanbase.

My fear however is that a blob can still k-train a border and if you have no defenders it will still upgrade to T3 by morning. 1 person can now mitigate this somewhat by taking the camps to prevent upgrades, but I would like to have seen a system whereby each upgrade tier still had to be physically started by a player. K-Train blobs are too lazy to take down siege these days, let alone come back and launch the upgrades, so no effort after a capture should mean no upgrades taking place.

Also I see nowhere in these changes that anything is being done to reduce the huge points discrepancy that can occur when a server with high out of normal hours coverage, can hold towers or keeps for many hours in the other servers downtime. Yes give them a point contribution, but not as much as when the other servers actually have players around to defend it. After all capturing / defending a tower against an enemy group is harder than attacking / defending against a single player or indeed nobody. Base the points the towers provide on a ratio of total players available on the servers. This way if a server chooses to focus on EB with many people and ignore it’s owner border, then tough you deserve everything that you get for not being organised or just poor strategy. But if you genuinely have no players around to defend, then the score ratio being lower would keep scores within reason.

This way you do not devalue the off peak players who should be allowed to play when they wish, or the contribution of the vast majority of standard hours players, whose contribution is currently made irrelevant by the huge off peak hours points discrepancy, which once gained is very unlikely to be redressed over the course of the match-up.

Contrary to… well, most people on this forum, my guild actually likes the new borderland. The ability to kill yaks to delay upgrades will help us in those times when a server likes to upgrade their structures (mornings/early afternoon NA).

PPK may cause some folks to not come out and fight. But, well, they aren’t coming out to fight us now… so not much will change.

I’d like to add something here as a request: A glicko adjustment. It’s boring as kittens up here with no chance at fighting a different server, and destacking alone isn’t enough to add permanent variation. If WvW is changing as drastically as you’re all hinting at, let us have some different matches while we wait!

People please stop as if anet did something fanstastic here. WvW got trown a tiny bone after years of neglect and most of you are jumping with joy as if it is the best thing ever.

These changes while some are needed and some are dubious are not going to change WvW at all for the most part.

(An afterthought)

Ditch the oasis event, dispose of the dinosaurs and flatten the area to essentially make an open battlefield with access points to the fire and air keeps still at the sides. The oasis event is from what I can gather universally disliked and seen as a chore rather than an enjoyable event. Creating a flatter area where large scale combat can take place would encourage groups that wish to fight to play the borderlands more, and waypoints in the 3 major keeps would give players that have been killed a way back to a battle which currently takes way too long to run. Consider this a reinforcement type of action. Intelligent servers would contest or capture the keep waypoints to make servers reinforcements take longer to arrive, giving a mix of combat and strategy.

can we get some reward track like in PVP plx ?

the rewards in the chests every rank are crap :/

some blue / green items zzzzz even in PVE u get better rewards and so on ….

Conner.4702:

People please stop as if anet did something fanstastic here. WvW got trown a tiny bone after years of neglect and most of you are jumping with joy as if it is the best thing ever.

These changes while some are needed and some are dubious are not going to change WvW at all for the most part.

We are trying to gauge the changes proposed and offer suggestions for the improvement of the game Conner not fan-boy. Please add something or give feedback if you can to help ANet and thus ourselves as a WvW community.

I like the reduced rally from kill, but not coupled with can’t rez while in combat. It should be either or, not both. I like to add in for the removal of the oasis event. It doesnt serve a purpose if you a) don’t have people on the borderland to complete it or defend it and b) it benefits the dominant server or the server with the most bodies to field during all times.

Tspatula.9086:

however I don’t think anyone can really know how the no res in combat and only one rally off of a kill will play out. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE do an event week with the rally and res changes BEFORE anything else right away

I agree for Tspatula.9086 post.
Anet must test before (I write “BEFORE” also, this point very very important!) anything else right away.

I feel that small changes for WvW are too late. How many people and guilds still like WvW. “Change for Revive” sounds like terrible idea ever for me, but I understand that WvW need major change.
I regret for WvW when I got invited for WvW stress test before HoT release. I did not enough played and nothing reported, in spite test showed many problems. I hope that WvWers and Anet can do well test play before major update on live servers.

This will greatly increase quality of wvw on my server, where since joining this game we just been fed to bigger servers, outnumbered 90% of the time. Finally i will be able to enjoy and have a bit of fun.

Sounds good! ……………………..

Interesting, even if I’m not sure about “Supply cost for all catapults are being reduced by ten supply”. We should not forget that the biggest guilds just begin to be able to give “at will” the “+10” (yes…+10 not only +5 if you look carefully) supply bonus to the structure they control…but we will see.

An old issue to address is the balance between servers due to their difference of population…especially during night.

Perhaps one simple way to resolve that issue could be to link the amount of points a server wins to its population really present on the 4 wcw maps at the moment of the calculation.

In such a system, we could imagine that only the less populated server should be able to mark 100% of the points for a structure it controls (and…why not…for a player kill).The two other servers could mark an amount of points inversely proportional to the delta between their population and the weakest at the moment of the calculation.

The calculation should be done considering the 4 maps and in real time or, if it’s technically too difficult to implement, for the next 15 minutes just before “the tic”.

As an example if a server has its population present on the maps representing 140% of the less populated server at the same moment, it should be able to mark…60% of the available points.

The ratio I propose are simple ones. Perhaps they should be mitigated by things as a floor value (as an exemple no points for anyone as long the 3 servers have less than 5 players each on the maps)
But regardless of the system chosen to address that issue, it should remain simple.

(Edit: formatting)

BEST winters day present EVER
this needs to be a thing

Gaile Gray.6029:

• Objectives upgrades will no longer be automatic based on time. They will upgrade based on dolyaks that reach them. Smaller groups can now prevent an objective from upgrading by preventing dolyaks from reaching that objective.

Borders will still upgrade to T3 cuz of the enemy nightcappers

Mitz.5741:

Gaile Gray.6029:

• Objectives upgrades will no longer be automatic based on time. They will upgrade based on dolyaks that reach them. Smaller groups can now prevent an objective from upgrading by preventing dolyaks from reaching that objective.

Borders will still upgrade to T3 cuz of the enemy nightcappers

Progress per dolly (or PPD, heh) is not a cure for nightcappers. Its to make it so that you can properly siege an objective with a few people and either stop it from upgrading (precursor to an assault no doubt) or draw the enemy out.

Nightcapping is a whole other matter, that’s all about exponentially increasing PPT scores vs no one at all. The fact that a border is T3 in the morning is little concern, you can always recap it. Trying to make up points by ticking 650 to 0 or so is harder, if not impossible… unless your server nightcap them.

Unfortunetly, I dont think PPK will reduce the importance of nightcapping either. If anything, it will make the wild score curves even wilder. Without a reduction to max PPT during low population times its irrelevant.

I try to propose something (4 posts upper) about population balance and the other main issue: nightcap (the idea of a floor value at the end).

Love all the changes! Except this..

The number of players who can rally off a single kill has been reduced from five to one. Players will also no longer be able to revive defeated players while in combat. You still will be able to revive downed players while in combat. Both of these changes are designed to help fights resolve and to give smaller, more skilled groups a better chance against larger groups.

Imo not being able to revive double downed players while in combat is a bad call because it might promote a driver sniping meta, whereby a group can be rendered helpless because their driver died to ridiculous sniping, and they’re stuck in combat and are unable to rez the driver, which might discourage groups from fighting one another, or promote driver sniping which equates to lesser fights all around.

Also the rallying mechanism works both ways.

An example: A smaller group might have 5 guys in downstate trying to rally off one guy from the bigger group.

Currently : Small group kills 1 guy, all 5 guys rally, and are able to have a chance to continue to fight the bigger group.

Proposed changes : Small group kills 1 guy, RNG will determine which player gets rallied, and leaves 4 guys from the smaller group on the floor, hence still putting the fight in the bigger group’s favor.

TLDR :

1) Driver snipe may become meta, leading to groups wanting to fight one another because of it.
2) Rallying mechanism changes favors bigger groups as well, and hence does not help smaller groups.

thebeaRRRRR.8640:

Imo not being able to revive double downed players while in combat is a bad call

You even quoted it

You still will be able to revive downed players while in combat.