Guild Wars 2

I was wondering if they changed how long points tally up for. Would ththat affect how servers get ranked or strategy. 7days is okay but maybe do 10 day’s. Or change reset night from Friday to Sunday or a middle of thE Wednesday. Mix things up a bit. Maybe it will changel server rankings and force servers to think differently on how they work on getting PPT.

anything regarding points will indoubtedly affect server ranking and strategy. Remember reset nights and weekends are the busiest times, so extending the week beyond that to 10 days would have a drastic effect on scores

But would changing reset night or extending it to maybe 20 days really mix things up in WVW enough to maybe push ranks or move servers up or down in WVW?
currently I’ve noticed that one server tends to take the lead and other two tend to be far behind but close to each other. Or three srevere far apart from each other in PPT. So I figured if this would mix things up for the better. Would we want this change to happen?

It really depends take a look at T1 (NA) pretty much its fixed in to ‘push’ weeks between the servers, (this stops T2 servers from bandwagoning’ up to T1, I’m pretty sure guilds were kicked from gw1 for that very same reason) Any way the top guys on TC BG and JQ have wrapped up T1, the only thing it would do for T1 is draw out a bigger score, for the server, who push week it was…..

Because currently all the servers seem to be staying put. No One Has Moved In Weeks on weeks. Same 3 servers always face off. Figured this might change that.

…………They wont T1 is fixed,

UnrealTravis.9016:

Because currently all the servers seem to be staying put. No One Has Moved In Weeks on weeks. Same 3 servers always face off. Figured this might change that.

Thank goodness. Because if match ups shifted, you would be right back here making threads crying that there is an imbalance. Say your server moves up, the tier above that has a server that is bumped down. Now you get totally dominated, and cry all over the forums about how that shouldn’t happen.

Everyone cries fowl, yelling that things are stale from fighting the same servers. When a change is made, then folks cry fowl, bashing the match up.

Well when this idea came to be I was on the lowest tier server. Now currently T1 so only place I could go was either up and right now down. On the lower tier it was always same 3 servers and on higher tier same 3. If you look at it. I’m sure the middle tiers also have been fighting same 3

Unless I am mistaken, it wasn’t always a weekly reset was it, wasnt the matchup for a month, man so long ago it seems.

X T D.6458:

Unless I am mistaken, it wasn’t always a weekly reset was it, wasnt the matchup for a month, man so long ago it seems.

I know for sure it was 2 weeks at one time. The forums were spammed with thread after thread demanding it was too long though. I can only guess that feedback prompted the change.

maybe it was 2 weeks I cant even remember at this point, yea either way it was way to long and matches got very stale.

What should be good is daily 2-3 map resets (not match, just reset maps)

McWolfy.5924:

What should be good is daily 2-3 map resets (not match, just reset maps)

Why? Punishes the team that takes a lead and spent the time to siege up locations?

Shorter match up please, not longer. 3 days max would be a good number.

Longer matchups would only make sense with a complete redesign of the sieging mechanisms to shift the strategy from flipping and leaving to taking and holding.

If a T3 keep can be flipped within 15 minutes, there is absolutely no reason to drag the matches any longer.

coglin.1867:

McWolfy.5924:

What should be good is daily 2-3 map resets (not match, just reset maps)

Why? Punishes the team that takes a lead and spent the time to siege up locations?

If a server can upgrade to full t3 and siege up it can do again. And this fortresses just ruin the good fights. A 5-10 min siege is more than enough.
I think wvw should evolv. Ppt is an old, boring system what promotes passivity. Sit in the full upgraded tower, drop a cow and laugh… What an exciting game. Ppt and upgrading is about avoid fights. Go to eotm if you want to wvw without fights

McWolfy.5924:

coglin.1867:

McWolfy.5924:

What should be good is daily 2-3 map resets (not match, just reset maps)

Why? Punishes the team that takes a lead and spent the time to siege up locations?

If a server can upgrade to full t3 and siege up it can do again. And this fortresses just ruin the good fights. A 5-10 min siege is more than enough.
I think wvw should evolv. Ppt is an old, boring system what promotes passivity. Sit in the full upgraded tower, drop a cow and laugh… What an exciting game. Ppt and upgrading is about avoid fights. Go to eotm if you want to wvw without fights

How does a 5-10 minute siege promote more fights? If anything, it means that in many cases the defenders won’t even get there (in numbers) before the tower/keep is flipped.

If sieges were made considerably longer and holding the objectives for a longer consecutive time more lucrative, it would bring a lot more depth to the sieging and actually promote more fighting. Not only around the target that is being sieged, but also in the supply camps. Especially if they did this change in conjunction with my suggestion of zeroing supply on map load, effectively preventing bringing off-map supply to the fight.

To facilitate this, the maps would have to be changed, though. The number of towers would have to be reduced, or alternatively the towers would have to be placed in more strategic locations where holding them would also allow control over a certain part of the map, maybe a supply camp, for example.

Not going to happen, I know. But one can dream.

I play wvw since the very begining but 1 of 10 when sieging is fun. Mostly defenders sit in tower, shoot with trebs, ac and thats all. Ahh… And sometimes linely heroes rush out to disable. And if 5-10 mins not enough to call people you deserve it.
Mostly the good fights comes when the wall/gate is down and the 2 army clash. Wvw needs population balance, not more face to face avoiding.

McWolfy.5924:

I play wvw since the very begining but 1 of 10 when sieging is fun. Mostly defenders sit in tower, shoot with trebs, ac and thats all. Ahh… And sometimes linely heroes rush out to disable. And if 5-10 mins not enough to call people you deserve it.
Mostly the good fights comes when the wall/gate is down and the 2 army clash. Wvw needs population balance, not more face to face avoiding.

I admit that in most cases the reason the tower/keep flips in 5-10 minutes is that there is no real reason to hold it (being non-upgraded or just far enough from tick that you can retake it).

This brings me back to the problem of the towers/keeps having no strategic value. Where real world fortifications were build to block passage into certain parts of the country, the WvW towers and keeps are both pathetically small and placed in the weirdest of locations.

About the best fights, I do agree. Of course the pre-wall/gate down is usually relatively uneventful, especially if you play a mostly melee character and all siege is taken. However, if holding a fortification would have real strategic meaning, such as flat out blocking the way to other fortifications, supply camps and/or other objectives the situation could be different. The ones being sieged would have to try to break the siege before they come through the walls (or at the very least when they do) or suffer the consequences.

So while I do agree that at the current setup of having meaninglessly small towers at strategically unimportant places, the game would not benefit for having longer siege times. However, if the map was redesigned so that the fortifications were better located and would seriously restrict movement into other parts of the map, the longer sieging would most likely bring more epic battles into the map.

This redesign would be a bit problematic for roamers, as their freedom would be severely restricted. I have a lot of ideas how they could still contribute and even some ways for them to get past the fortifications when there is no one watching, but that’s a whole other story.

WvW matches were originally supposed to be 2 weeks long!

They stuck with 1 week, but we’ve seen how zergs win and bandwagoners migrate to top servers.

What some have suggested are stick with a week long matchup, but break each day into 3 8-hour shifts.
You then average out the score from each shift from each day to get a slightly better score than the current one where night capping can help a server win even though they are really the weaker server.

Pinkamena Diane Pie.8054:

WvW matches were originally supposed to be 2 weeks long!

They stuck with 1 week, but we’ve seen how zergs win and bandwagoners migrate to top servers.

What some have suggested are stick with a week long matchup, but break each day into 3 8-hour shifts.
You then average out the score from each shift from each day to get a slightly better score than the current one where night capping can help a server win even though they are really the weaker server.

That would actually not be a very bad idea. It would of course disincentive the night crews, but I don’t think we want to incentive them any more than they are at the moment.

That would simply never allow anything to be upgraded and be the worst thing that could happen to the game mode. Every 8 hours the paper door/wall karma train will start, because nothing will ever be sieged up or upgraded.

coglin.1867:

That would simply never allow anything to be upgraded and be the worst thing that could happen to the game mode. Every 8 hours the paper door/wall karma train will start, because nothing will ever be sieged up or upgraded.

I don’t think he meant that anything should reset between the “shifts”. Merely that scoring during the night time would not count that much unless you would be also able to continue steamrolling through the day.

It’s been suggested many times that the points per tick would all get some kind of coefficient depending on the time of the day, with the ticks during EU/NA prime time being much more valuable than the ticks on off-peak hours.

That is a worse idea. On the weeks I am working night shifts, thus playing at night on my days off, my effort and those of my friends, have less value. Why is one persons time more valuable then anothers?

All this suggestion does, is favor those who work bankers hours, and punishes the efforts of those who work longer or later shifts. If it is that important, why not invest the time in wise recruitment, instead of pushing to punish those with a different schedule?

Tom Gore.4035:

McWolfy.5924:

I play wvw since the very begining but 1 of 10 when sieging is fun. Mostly defenders sit in tower, shoot with trebs, ac and thats all. Ahh… And sometimes linely heroes rush out to disable. And if 5-10 mins not enough to call people you deserve it.
Mostly the good fights comes when the wall/gate is down and the 2 army clash. Wvw needs population balance, not more face to face avoiding.

I admit that in most cases the reason the tower/keep flips in 5-10 minutes is that there is no real reason to hold it (being non-upgraded or just far enough from tick that you can retake it).

This brings me back to the problem of the towers/keeps having no strategic value. Where real world fortifications were build to block passage into certain parts of the country, the WvW towers and keeps are both pathetically small and placed in the weirdest of locations.

About the best fights, I do agree. Of course the pre-wall/gate down is usually relatively uneventful, especially if you play a mostly melee character and all siege is taken. However, if holding a fortification would have real strategic meaning, such as flat out blocking the way to other fortifications, supply camps and/or other objectives the situation could be different. The ones being sieged would have to try to break the siege before they come through the walls (or at the very least when they do) or suffer the consequences.

So while I do agree that at the current setup of having meaninglessly small towers at strategically unimportant places, the game would not benefit for having longer siege times. However, if the map was redesigned so that the fortifications were better located and would seriously restrict movement into other parts of the map, the longer sieging would most likely bring more epic battles into the map.

This redesign would be a bit problematic for roamers, as their freedom would be severely restricted. I have a lot of ideas how they could still contribute and even some ways for them to get past the fortifications when there is no one watching, but that’s a whole other story.

On this maps only waypoints have strategic value. In gw1 there was a wvw like mode with a very good map. Its name is fort aspenwood. The kurziks working on a super weapon what is progressing very slowly but can speed up the process with amber what can be mined on enemy territory. You can also use amber to repair gates. The main chamber is defended by one big gate but first you need to clear one of the 2 ways whats protected by 2 gates on each.
That was my favourite game mode and the real ancestor of wvw (and there was siege turtles and juggernauts what was awesome!)
Ppt is a boring mechanism. We need other, interesting ways to make points. For example bring the relics back but in a different way and/or make king of the hill events on a randem ruin every x minutes.
Everything can be fun if population is balanced and if no more time wasting t3 sieges

coglin.1867:

That is a worse idea. On the weeks I am working night shifts, thus playing at night on my days off, my effort and those of my friends, have less value. Why is one persons time more valuable then anothers?

All this suggestion does, is favor those who work bankers hours, and punishes the efforts of those who work longer or later shifts. If it is that important, why not invest the time in wise recruitment, instead of pushing to punish those with a different schedule?

And the current system favors the minority who work the “night shift” because they’re racking in points with practically no effort, while punishing the majority who got day jobs/school. Why should the majority of players be punished because of a small minority?

One solution could of course be to oust the regional servers and make all servers “global”. That should probably balance out the populations on servers throughout the day. No idea though how the pings are when playing intercontinental.

McWolfy.5924:

Tom Gore.4035:

McWolfy.5924:

I play wvw since the very begining but 1 of 10 when sieging is fun. Mostly defenders sit in tower, shoot with trebs, ac and thats all. Ahh… And sometimes linely heroes rush out to disable. And if 5-10 mins not enough to call people you deserve it.
Mostly the good fights comes when the wall/gate is down and the 2 army clash. Wvw needs population balance, not more face to face avoiding.

I admit that in most cases the reason the tower/keep flips in 5-10 minutes is that there is no real reason to hold it (being non-upgraded or just far enough from tick that you can retake it).

This brings me back to the problem of the towers/keeps having no strategic value. Where real world fortifications were build to block passage into certain parts of the country, the WvW towers and keeps are both pathetically small and placed in the weirdest of locations.

About the best fights, I do agree. Of course the pre-wall/gate down is usually relatively uneventful, especially if you play a mostly melee character and all siege is taken. However, if holding a fortification would have real strategic meaning, such as flat out blocking the way to other fortifications, supply camps and/or other objectives the situation could be different. The ones being sieged would have to try to break the siege before they come through the walls (or at the very least when they do) or suffer the consequences.

So while I do agree that at the current setup of having meaninglessly small towers at strategically unimportant places, the game would not benefit for having longer siege times. However, if the map was redesigned so that the fortifications were better located and would seriously restrict movement into other parts of the map, the longer sieging would most likely bring more epic battles into the map.

This redesign would be a bit problematic for roamers, as their freedom would be severely restricted. I have a lot of ideas how they could still contribute and even some ways for them to get past the fortifications when there is no one watching, but that’s a whole other story.

On this maps only waypoints have strategic value. In gw1 there was a wvw like mode with a very good map. Its name is fort aspenwood. The kurziks working on a super weapon what is progressing very slowly but can speed up the process with amber what can be mined on enemy territory. You can also use amber to repair gates. The main chamber is defended by one big gate but first you need to clear one of the 2 ways whats protected by 2 gates on each.
That was my favourite game mode and the real ancestor of wvw (and there was siege turtles and juggernauts what was awesome!)
Ppt is a boring mechanism. We need other, interesting ways to make points. For example bring the relics back but in a different way and/or make king of the hill events on a randem ruin every x minutes.
Everything can be fun if population is balanced and if no more time wasting t3 sieges

Again you say a T3 siege is “wasting time”. Why is that? Because the T3 keep has no strategic value other than the waypoint? Indeed. What if that T3 keep would effectively block the way for one third of the map, containing two supply camps and other interesting objectives that would give map-wide or temporary collectible bonuses (like the EotM objectives)?

I am starting to see a trend in your posts. You only enjoy open-field battles without walls and gates? If that’s the case, then I don’t think you should be speaking for what WvW should be, as in your case it “should be” without any walls or sieges at all. Am I right?

You’re obviously entitled to your opinion, but I don’t think WvW was designed to be just a big killing field.

Pinkamena Diane Pie.8054:

WvW matches were originally supposed to be 2 weeks long!

They stuck with 1 week, but we’ve seen how zergs win and bandwagoners migrate to top servers.

What some have suggested are stick with a week long matchup, but break each day into 3 8-hour shifts.
You then average out the score from each shift from each day to get a slightly better score than the current one where night capping can help a server win even though they are really the weaker server.

Just chiming in to try to explain this part, since it looked like 2 people misunderstood it slightly.

The main idea for breaking a day into 3 shifts of 8 hours each, is to reward each of those 3 times equally. But at the same time make each “shift” interesting without being overshadowed by a lack of coverage in another shift.

(numbers made up just to show effect) Say you get 3 points for winning a shift, 2 for second and 1 for last place. During a day you can get from 3 to 9 points, so if you have good Prime time you might win that for 3, but lose the night and morning and get 1 for each of those, for a total of 5 points.

It means that losing say for example the nighttime won’t cripple you so much as it does now, but still be worth the same amount of points as any other time.

Some great ideas!

In regards to the match lengths, how about simply this:
1 6-day match, the present Friday reset to Thursday at that same time. And then a 24-hour Thursday to Friday match for a bit more lax WvW, if a server wishes to do so. Or it can roll out another aggressive match. That 1-day match could be the one guaranteed way for a WvW addict to take a break from WvW and not feel the guilt of how close their server’s match may be.

I do fear for the day when WvW matches may be less than a 24 hour period, let alone several days. Alterac Valley used to be fun too, you know.