Guild Wars 2

Kir Sakar.3647:

Svarty.8019:

I posted my suggestion here:
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/SP-NA-Server/first

Make a server for NA [SP]

100x this. Fix the actual problem instead of the symptoms. The only reason BB’s night presence is so out of whack compared to all other EU servers is that somehow, American developers assumed languages other than English are only spoken in Europe. Turns out this is not the case.

Maybe that way PPT heavy servers such as BB or JS will try to improve their fighting skills

They are not even a PPT server (that would suggest some sort of strategy), they just mindlessly karma-train all maps by outnumbering the others 10:1 at night. The other two servers reliably loose ALL their T3 objectives every night, despite having a small presence at night of 5-15 organized players defending stuff.

Next day you can deal with breaking their completely sieged-up T3-keeps on all maps full of supplies to slowly gain back your tick, rinse and repeat. If they weren’t dropping lootbags in plenty, it would be completely unfun to play against.

Evening life in Spain is starting later then in the rest of EU and they staying up much longer then people from other countries. This has nothing to do with american players pouring into their server.
If you want to know why I suggest to read this article:
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/18/world/europe/spain-land-of-10-pm-dinners-ponders-a-more-standard-time.html?_r=0

khamsin.6709:

you mean like GH+vabbi+RoS were the losing side in the T1 matchup a few hours ago, and now GH is linked to Vabbi and UW and we are now rank 15? yea, please give us some more of that logic, Anet

Vabbi is now the host server (your population bandwagoned above that of GH). When relinkings happen the old glicko ratings come into place to sort the ladder. The last rating Vabbi had on it’s own was probably very low so you ended up now on rank 15.

The good news is in 4 weeks you are back in the t1 MU.
The bad news….4 weeks later is relinking and your rating is very likely not high enough to stay atop and the fun starts again.

Renniegade.3275:

Horrid matchup. In fact, matchups like this suck out motivation like Dementers suck out happiness. Nothing will change this matchup now – it just means a week off for many – but please adjust the ratings and shove Vabbi out of our tier.

If you would have thought about it before bandwagoning to Vabbi you wouldn’t have that problem.

XenesisII.1540:

Phoebe Ascension.8437:

Some servers i will not call, will remain ‘bandwagoned’, and remain the problem that plagues wvw. You can only balance a lower server against them to fill the bracket, and the lower server is screwed. And weirdly these ‘bandwagon’ servers often get a link when they don’t deserve it. Bandwagon servers should have a transfer lock (not just expensive) and a link disabled (not possible). As long as that doesn’t happen. Nothing will change.

Which servers are those?
Don’t think there’s been bandwagons lately, just some guilds moving around as usual. Bandwagon is technically people piling onto a server and moving it up in ranks, who’s done that lately? Unless it’s EU servers, in which case they have problems because of language specific servers, not much can be done there.

The current one in EU is Vabbi (international server).

McKenna Berdrow.2759:

The team has been looking at ways to improve the server identity within the World Linking System. We have come up with several potential solutions, and we’d like your feedback on them.

Solution 1: Alliance Names Proposal

Every time worlds are linked, an alliance name would be generated for the linked worlds.
• Names would be generated from a pool of names that we create.
• Once a name is being used it would not be used again until the pool ran out of names.
• NA and EU would not share the same names.
• An alliance name would be preserved until every name in the pool of names was used. For example, the linked worlds of Crystal Desert and Eredon Terrace would always share the same alliance name until all names in the pool were used.
• The alliance name would be used instead of the host world’s name in almost all areas of the UI. Specifically, it will be used as the map name, the name that shows up when something is captured, and the name on the mist war panel. On the mist war panel, the + would continue to list all the worlds in the alliance.

Solution 2: Guild Focused Proposal

Instead of having an alliance name, worlds would be referred to by their color.
• The borderlands would now be called Red Desert Borderlands Green Alpine Borderlands, or Blue Alpine Borderlands.
• The color designation would replace the “host” world’s name in almost all areas except within announcements.
• When objectives were captured, the name of the guild that contributed most when capturing the objective would be displayed. For example, “Objective Captured! [Guild Name] has captured [objective name].”

Solution 3: Some Guest Names Proposal

In areas where there is more player involvement, such as capturing objectives, guest world names may appear.
• When objectives are captured it would now display the guest world’s name: “Objective Captured! [Guest World Name] has captured [objective name].”
• The map name would remain the host world’s name.
• We would not display guest world names to enemies because we believe that would make fighting enemies more confusing since it would be harder to tell which world you were fighting.

Questions:
1. Which proposal is your favorite?
2. What, if anything, would you change about any of the current proposals?
3. Is there another proposal you think is better?

Solution 1: given I love my server and never moved I would realy like to keep my server tag.

Solution 2: would be problematic for smaller guild groups that are focused on capturing stuff in enemy territory because it would be too easy for defender to figure out how strong that group is (those guilds are known). It would only lead to constantly swapping to alt guilds. Fighting guilds don’t care for that option at all.

Solution 3: doesn’t sound realy logic tbh

Other proposal: Why not bind the outgoing messages to the homworld of the client?
For example: a player from (linked) Desolation sees his server tag on capture messages while a player from Vabbi (linked with Deso) does see his (and all map names).

Another proposal: while you working on those messages….could you make them optional or at least the UI movable? They are always in the way and popping up in a moment you realy don’t need them.

McKenna Berdrow.2759:

We could achieve more balanced competition in a world-versus-world setting if we had more pieces to join together with the World Linking System. It currently is not possible for us to establish an “equal” number of players on each link/world with the current world sizes. You may recall this initially was mentioned by Tyler a few months ago.

For example, world populations currently look something like this:
• World 1: 95%
• World 2: 82%
• World 3: 81%
• World 4: 60%
• World 5: 30%
• World 6: 10%

Since our final world total needs to be divisible by 3 because we need a team for each color—Red, Blue, and Green—we either need to avoid linking any of the worlds, or link some worlds even if the result is that they have the advantage of a larger population.

• Worlds 1+6: 105%
• Worlds 2+5: 112%
• Worlds 3+4: 141%

After linking, the difference in population between the highest and lowest teams is much narrower, but the third rank server still has significantly more population than the server that previously was ranked first. Also, the result of this theoretical world linking is that all worlds are now above our goal population cap, and probably have moderate to heavy queues.

If we instead had twice as many worlds, but if each had about half the population, it would be much easier to create linked teams with similar populations. This would lead to better matchups for everyone, and encounters would be less predictable. In this scenario, we would allow players free transfers to the new empty worlds for a period of time. These worlds would start out linked so that they wouldn’t begin in an empty state in a match-up. We would lower the player population cap on all worlds so that more worlds would become and stay “Full.” The result would be that guilds that want to expand would have an excellent option to do so with a move to these new open worlds.

Having outlined some of the thinking behind this proposal, we’d like your feedback on these three topics.
1. How do you feel about this proposal?
2. What, if anything, would you change about this current proposal?
3. Would you be interested in transferring to a new free world?

The idea to create more worlds is OK but you have to built in some limitations in order to make it running smoothly and not getting rigged like it is going on currently.

- Free transfers on start: only allow free transfers OFF current worlds to newly created worlds. Better close old worlds for transfers in that time frame.
- Population cap: needs to response faster then nowadays (at least in the free transfer periode) otherwise some “VIP’s” will call out the new fotm server and mass transfers will happen.
- Transfer costs after free transfer periode: linked worlds need to share costs with the highest populated world in that specific link. No cheap backdoor option please.

Saying that I never have and never will move to another server (to answer your last question).

Be very careful with those free transfers. If you bodge this you might blow out that game mode finaly.

lmperdigao.2567:

I like this suggestion. I also like the more PPK while outnumbered too, similar to the bloodlust ruins buff.
Both are small chances that doesn’t create a toxic behaviour and doesn’t require huge mechanical or system changes.
Outnumbered buff could have a bunch of interesting effects but as it looks like we are not getting anything, these small changes at least are something.

Guilds fighting on that map will be very happy (….not) about changes to downstate or any stat changes while one side is outnumbered.
Regarding suggestions for artificialy changing the score while being outnumbered (bonus ppk/ppt etc..). If a server is low populated that server might not be in correct tier/matchup.

Caedmon.6798:

Aezyr.5304:

Caedmon.6798:

Weli.4568:

EremiteAngel.9765:

They beat the other servers and went top.

You mean they got paired with two other servers and had population way larger than anyone else?

Funny how you mention that but forget to mention that the rise to the top was happening Before we got linked with 2 servers.

It costs only 500 gems to transfer regardless if you got linked with one or two servers. Or do you realy think the natives on those servers do play a role in how the parent server is doing?

I didnt make a comment about transfering..Please re-read my comment and the comment i was replying on.

If you check the position history of FSP you will see the server rising in ranks since about 4 months ago. Thats when linking started. However the original (native) population on those servers is so low they don’t play much of a role.
Instead a caravan of bandwagoners using the 500 gem “exploit” simply joining the current FotM.
Guess how many known players from deso and sfr are on my server now since we got linked….

Caedmon.6798:

Weli.4568:

EremiteAngel.9765:

They beat the other servers and went top.

You mean they got paired with two other servers and had population way larger than anyone else?

Funny how you mention that but forget to mention that the rise to the top was happening Before we got linked with 2 servers.

It costs only 500 gems to transfer regardless if you got linked with one or two servers. Or do you realy think the natives on those servers do play a role in how the parent server is doing?

Lord of Rings.5371:

Jayne.9251:

you never saw anyone from Deso on the forums complaining.

You might not see anyone complaining on the forum because some posts are deleted by censorship such as a thread by a Deso PUG Commander with 8K game time who came to this forum a few days ago to complain, quitting and thanking for the fishes.

His thread and all of its posts just total disappeared.

Ins complained AFTER deso got unlinked.

Giving incentives to not play a map (or leaving it) will fix WvW for sure.

Ansau.7326:

Dayra.7405:

That BB with its night-only force doesn’t like the skirmishes not really surprises me

With the old system, Far Shiverpeaks would have 36% more PPT than Baruch and 44% more than Kodash. And BB would be 6% ahead of Kodash. 73000vs53700vs50800.
With the new system Far Shiverpeaks is ahead of BB by a 46% and a 65% of Kodash, with BB being 13% ahead of the germans. 38vs26vs23.

As you can see, Kodash is the most punished server, Baruch is affected a little, but not so much for what it could be, and FS is getting a free win.
Just like the system was supposed to work…

In fact, this new system helps Baruch. Before, at nights we had to hurry to recover what we lost during the morning and early afternoon. Now we can relax during nights (we still win) and don’t give a kitten during our off hours (we lose the same if we care or if we don’t).

It will only affect us in the long term. As the only server not eligible to be linked in the entire game, we are condemned to recess. Things will sustain until we reach the point this new system bullies us, like any other low tier server.

You could also simply throw that kitten overboard Franco introduced…..
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/18/world/europe/spain-land-of-10-pm-dinners-ponders-a-more-standard-time.html?_r=0

Tongku.5326:

I do not see how these skirmishes will help with run-away score due to off hours coverage.

Any server dominating a tier / match score due to coverage, will dominate it just the same for the same timeperiods regardless if its sliced into 2 hour slices or not. They will just get multiple 2 hour victories now instead of a single weekly victory. Nothing changes in the total.

Nothing will change whatsoever unless there are dynamic score adjustments based on each sides total players present in WVW. Unless there is some form of such an adjustment going in to work along with the 2 hour timeperiods.

Otherwise what am I missing here ? How exactly and precisely is this supposed to bring the scores closer together ?

It is directed to servers with a realy high off-prime time coverage. Those servers (like BB did in the past) ticking very high in a small time window while you can’t catch up during prime time because they will always have people to backcap quickly.

Subscription based models slowly dieing out. Even EVE online opens up now a (limited) ftp option:
https://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/introducing-clone-states-and-the-future-of-access-to-eve-online/

Xillllix.3485:

It’s the stability changes really that is responsible for the gameplay we have today.

Because you cannot rely on stability anymore the group with the most amount of ccs automatically wins the fight, so the larger groups are almost guaranteed to win.

For example you could once fight and win a 12v25 before the stability changes and rely on skills like Armor of Earth for 6 seconds of stability. Today I sometimes get the 10 stacks of stability removed in less than 1 seconds because there are so much ccs around.

If you get your stabilty removed in a fraction of a second you certainly got corrupted. Through CC you can only lose one stack each 0,75 seconds.
https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Stability

Leaa.2943:

Ben K.6238:

Leaa.2943:

I still ask were all those voters are, because i never see them on a dbl map. And i have accounts in both EU and NA and every server that have dbl are struggling to get people on it. So were are you voters? You have your chance to really shine now and pick up dbl and make new tactics, tag up and run your thing and enjoy your map. But i never see you, i only see the outnumbered buff on each server i check.
So were are you?

The outmanned icon should have given it away. We’re on the other servers.

Well that means you are on the alpine map, so ofc you have more players on it, that is the whole point of the post -.-

If your server is outnumbered on the desert border it means the opposite servers have at least the tripple amount of players on that border. You wont get the outnumbered buff when they playing on one of the two alpine maps

Tongku.5326:

zinkz.7045:

Jayne.9251:

Factions will reduce identity. Loss of identity means less attachment to game. Less attachment to game means players fairweather to other games,

Without community, identity, population balance becomes moot. Because there will be no players.

Not really, for example EVE Online is based on player made alliances and has a far stronger, far deeper community than the rather superficial WvW communities will ever have, and as for WvW “communities” please, you are in the minority, most veteran WvW players (those that have not quit) have swapped servers multiple times. (including a fair number of “loyalists” that make up your little community)

Jayne.9251:

There’s a reason games like WoW and EQ franchises are still chugging along with paid monthly subs after 10-plus years.

As does EVE Online, and in all 3 games there are a myriad of reasons why they are still chugging along, claiming that it is down to using an individual server based system in two of them is laughable.

Jayne.9251:

Couple that with the fact that ANY rework of faction/server is useless without resolving bandwaggoning (aka community building/attachment), will result in the same scenario we are in today. Factions in no way will magically fix anything. It will only serve to alienate the loyalists and drive them away.

To quote a pointy eared chap ‘the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few’.

If you think the only way to have “community” in a game is fixed servers, you are misguided, if your “community” is any sort of “community” worthy of the word then it would cope fine with adapting to another system. (not that you need worry, this Anet, they only do band-aids, not actual fixes, which is why WvW is in the state it is in)

And yes factions / alliances of guilds, etc do fix things, because they more flexible systems, you can create balanced matchups far more easily because you are dealing with smaller units, or even if factions are imbalanced you can deal with it better by doing things like campaigns so even the weakest faction can stack a campaign or two and play on an equal footing in those, unlike the joke that is WvW where for most matchups over the course of this game they have been foregone conclusions over by Monday morning simply due to imbalanced numbers or where players have to take a week off because they are in a dead matchup.

Do I need to remind you that it took CCCP a few years and a COMPLETE overhaul of the whole sov mechanics just so that everyone in the game was actually able to fight against goons ?

Where is the equivalent of that here done by A-Net ? Where is the equivalent of a complete and total system overhaul so that the rest of us can fight off the “alliance” and the other bandwagon groups here ?

Show me what has been done here, because the last time A-Net actually tried and put their foot down and locked the bandwagon servers, so many of these guys started logging in their alt accounts and posting here that A-Net finally caved in. CCCP in Eve Online did not fail like A-Net did here. +you are comparing apples to oranges. Eve Online is a single server game with between 20-40k active players on it at any given time, whereas WVW in GW2 can have a total of around 12k players IF all the maps were qued on ALL servers, which they arent. The number goes up and down with timezones and given weeks, months, but it seems to me to hover around 1/3 that.

The developer of EVE online is named CCP.

The complete overhaul of the sov mechanic you speaking of isn’t undisputed. It costs CCP active subscriptions and therefore money. It’s also not the first “complete overhaul”. CCP introduced Dominion, the successor to Pos spam, as new sov system. It took them 6 years to rework it.

zinkz.7045:

Aezyr.5304:

EVE online isn’t “population” balanced.

I didn’t say it was, I was using it as an example in response to the notion that you can’t have community or identity in other systems that don’t use individual servers.

You are right but even a faction based system (instead of servers) will not solve the population issue.

zinkz.7045:

Jayne.9251:

Factions will reduce identity. Loss of identity means less attachment to game. Less attachment to game means players fairweather to other games,

Without community, identity, population balance becomes moot. Because there will be no players.

Not really, for example EVE Online is based on player made alliances and has a far stronger, far deeper community than the rather superficial WvW communities will ever have, and as for WvW “communities” please, you are in the minority, most veteran WvW players (those that have not quit) have swapped servers multiple times. (including a fair number of “loyalists” that make up your little community)

Jayne.9251:

There’s a reason games like WoW and EQ franchises are still chugging along with paid monthly subs after 10-plus years.

As does EVE Online, and in all 3 games there are a myriad of reasons why they are still chugging along, claiming that it is down to using an individual server based system in two of them is laughable.

Jayne.9251:

Couple that with the fact that ANY rework of faction/server is useless without resolving bandwaggoning (aka community building/attachment), will result in the same scenario we are in today. Factions in no way will magically fix anything. It will only serve to alienate the loyalists and drive them away.

To quote a pointy eared chap ‘the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few’.

If you think the only way to have “community” in a game is fixed servers, you are misguided, if your “community” is any sort of “community” worthy of the word then it would cope fine with adapting to another system. (not that you need worry, this Anet, they only do band-aids, not actual fixes, which is why WvW is in the state it is in)

And yes factions / alliances of guilds, etc do fix things, because they more flexible systems, you can create balanced matchups far more easily because you are dealing with smaller units, or even if factions are imbalanced you can deal with it better by doing things like campaigns so even the weakest faction can stack a campaign or two and play on an equal footing in those, unlike the joke that is WvW where for most matchups over the course of this game they have been foregone conclusions over by Monday morning simply due to imbalanced numbers or where players have to take a week off because they are in a dead matchup.

EVE online isn’t “population” balanced.

Deniara Devious.3948:

Mean while on Desolation, no queue even to EBG! Yippee!

Good luck to FSP and their linked servers: bandwagoners incoming

and that from a full server who enjoyed links for 5 months ;-)

Balthazzarr.1349:

You did this last time too… where are the NA linkings?

When you learn to read.

Rapsod.4629:

msalakka.4653:

Not only do we get the same unskilled zombie horde servers week after week, but now the indefensible desert map too. Much wow.

only ones unskilled are gandaras trying to dodge us……

You mean the whole 40 of you….

Celsith.2753:

Straegen.2938:

For those that say the dredge tunnel was defensible, how? Trebs from LL can’t hit in there. Balistas built to hit in there are open to Ele wall fire. ACs fall short. Catas cannot hit far back in there since they either hit the ceiling or fall short. The mortar is completely useless.

The Cannon can hit right into the back of the dredge cave. There’s also bali spots that are right on the edge of aoe range. You could also flash build bali’s right in front of their faces to make them leave the catas while a group hit them from behind. Lots of tactics. The new wall is just.. happen to pass by with your eyes open, summon blob, or hop on smc or wc mortar :/ Too easy to defend against a smaller group, almost impossible to defend against a very large blob that places their catas in the nook behind.

I’ve played this change both as green dominant server and as red undermanned server now and my opinion remains the same. This is a bad change that harms smaller groups, discourages red when they’re already undermanned and helps enormously whoever has the largest force on the map (usually green).

The cannon can’t reach the end of the tunnel where the catas got placed. The ballista was pointless when 30 people were standing in front of the catas. Add in shield gens and an attempt on WC from dredge side was always successful unless you walked into the tunnel to wipe the zerg and destroy the siege.

For everyone voting yes…keep in mind that Golems are also classified as “Siege Weapons”. Have fun when the enemy zerg is at your garri with a dozen Omegas and the rest with repair hammers (until the wall/door is down).

Hesacon.8735:

I’m on the fence, but I don’t see the harm since most siege that gets hit is not going to survive very long. AoEs knock out arrow carts and balistas in seconds.

One compromise that could be made is like reviving a dead teammate, repair hammers couldn’t be used while in combat.

In addition at least exclude Alpha and Omega Siege golems from it’s usage.

Ask the other 751 that are talking about it 5 rows below your thread……

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Gift-of-Battle-Feedback-merged/page/16#post6231388

Threather.9354:

Well yes these servers are strong but I wouldnt say theyre much.

Servers like Kodash and Piken can get queues on 3-4 maps on primetime, gandara and deso can cover maybe 1 map.

They just have active playerbase that plays outside primetime so they got linked, as linking is based on numbers of active players, not how many hours are covered. Maybe just make your server “more fun” and organised to play in so the people would cover more hours instead of just logging in for a few hours a week? Gandara and Deso both have Active/working community guilds so they dont have trouble gathering numbers, how is your servers community guild faring?

Anyways, Vabbis got active because they were linked to Deso, RoS is getting active now because being linked to Deso. Its just up to which server is fun to play in.

Piken has eventualy a queue on EB and/or one border IF there is a big name commander is tagging up. There wasn’t any queue on 3+ maps since after the week we got alpine back.
However we have people playing outside of prime time.

Rajani.4895:

I can’t understand this decision. All my characters are in Southsun Cove to mine the Orichalcum node there. It is more time spending to travel to a city for crafting.

Please give us an alternative who satisfied all people, as example in the guild halls.

A good example on why the removal was justified. Crafting stations in the guild hall would be OK i guess as a substitute.

Dal.5872:

Aurora Glade has full status and yet doesn’t have enough population even after linking to compete with anything above low bronze servers. So why is this 1 of 3 servers listed as full?

Desolation and Gandara I can believe, Aurora Glade? No way is this a full server.

I think Anet needs to review it’s metrics for the world linking decisions. Current metrics are obviously being skewed by something.

Linked servers have their server cap reduced by (I think) 50%. This is intended.

OriOri.8724:

Aezyr.5304:

TallBarr.2184:

Aezyr.5304:

- Mixed Borderlands – no thank you. DBL needs further tweaks (position of towers, shrine buffs, lords).

- World Linking Schedule – 3 month is too long. Linked servers need to be locked at least half into the scheduled time.

- Deployable Mortars – no thank you.

- Deployable Cannos – no thank you.

- Repair Hammer – no thank you.

Position of lords and shrines?

But you are fine with invurnerable trebs pressuring north towers in alpine from keep making them irrelevant?

Locked worlds less than 3 months “looks at signature” Piken oh nvm.

You think it is healthy that via linking we have now a even more cheap way to stack on a specific server? The bandwagoners we got a cupple month ago are now on Vabbi and Deso (your server I assume) got influx from SFR too (again via Vabbi). This bandwagon train will choo choo again when the links getting shuffled.

Lords: Don’t have a problem with the position of those lords but their “special” abilities. We have realy good fights in keeps/garri now again but on DBL the attacking team is on a disadvantage.

Towers: That goes both ways. You can preassure garrision from those towers too. If you were talking about trebs in invulnerable positions in citadel then I agree those need to get removed. It’s imho an exploit.

Your sig: EotM much?

That’s kind of the point, no? The attacking team should be at a disadvantage when trying to take a tower or keep. The whole point of having an upgraded tower/keep is that as defenders you don’t need a zerg the size of the attacking force or larger to successfully defend. You should be able to defend with a smaller force if your players are any good.

In this thread the only real complaints I have seen against DBL is that it actually forces people to play differently. It doesn’t let you hide your trebs in a keep and attack other towers safely or vice versa, its less conducive to giant zergs (which not all WvW players enjoy) and its harder to just faceroll a Lord to take a structure. Its just complaints from people that don’t want to have to adjust their style of play.

Thats why you have walls and gates but I don’t realy like to fight an enemy zerg inside lords room while our entire attacking group is getting feared constantly into lava.

TallBarr.2184:

Aezyr.5304:

TallBarr.2184:

Aezyr.5304:

- Mixed Borderlands – no thank you. DBL needs further tweaks (position of towers, shrine buffs, lords).

- World Linking Schedule – 3 month is too long. Linked servers need to be locked at least half into the scheduled time.

- Deployable Mortars – no thank you.

- Deployable Cannos – no thank you.

- Repair Hammer – no thank you.

Position of lords and shrines?

But you are fine with invurnerable trebs pressuring north towers in alpine from keep making them irrelevant?

Locked worlds less than 3 months “looks at signature” Piken oh nvm.

You think it is healthy that via linking we have now a even more cheap way to stack on a specific server? The bandwagoners we got a cupple month ago are now on Vabbi and Deso (your server I assume) got influx from SFR too (again via Vabbi). This bandwagon train will choo choo again when the links getting shuffled.

Lords: Don’t have a problem with the position of those lords but their “special” abilities. We have realy good fights in keeps/garri now again but on DBL the attacking team is on a disadvantage.

Towers: That goes both ways. You can preassure garrision from those towers too. If you were talking about trebs in invulnerable positions in citadel then I agree those need to get removed. It’s imho an exploit.

Your sig: EotM much?

People always kitten about stacking servers when they are on the other side of the coin. Would you be kittening if u were stacked and linked and deso werent? I doubt so.

You do realise there are administrive work for servers to organise right? Deso was outnumbered before the linking, people got back and some transfered to vabbi. But at that time deso needed linkign yes, Piken and SFR were the biggets bandwagon servers and were steamrollign veerything, Deso was at a 7th place. Yes, they shouldve closed Vabbi or done something to prevent people from transferring there so cheap, but they didnt.

If people didnt transfer vabbi Piken and SFR would still be steamrolling.

Donno, I like myself some challenge and the annoying lords are, 1111 a lord is not very fun. Atleast the dbl lords got annoying cc fields and whatnot.

People used to pressure keep from towers yes, but since Alpine I havent participated in a single “treb from tower pressuring garri” moment but that doesnt mean people dont do it, But I think the arguement is pretty kitten, people just use catapults at wall anyway. People seem to focus on dbl north towers placement but dont kitten about the trebs at spawn.

I had a very pleasant time in eotm in the good ol days. That map outlay is much more better than alpine and argueably desert aswell, but dbl is still bae.

Before this is getting into a gw2wvw.net MU-thread….we are kinda happy that the bandwagon choo choo train buggered off towards somewhere else. However they will return and that is something that needs to be fixed before the next linking.
Our server is already preparing (and debating) api bot registration for our ts. So yes, we will come into the same situation like you are now.

TallBarr.2184:

Aezyr.5304:

- Mixed Borderlands – no thank you. DBL needs further tweaks (position of towers, shrine buffs, lords).

- World Linking Schedule – 3 month is too long. Linked servers need to be locked at least half into the scheduled time.

- Deployable Mortars – no thank you.

- Deployable Cannos – no thank you.

- Repair Hammer – no thank you.

Position of lords and shrines?

But you are fine with invurnerable trebs pressuring north towers in alpine from keep making them irrelevant?

Locked worlds less than 3 months “looks at signature” Piken oh nvm.

You think it is healthy that via linking we have now a even more cheap way to stack on a specific server? The bandwagoners we got a cupple month ago are now on Vabbi and Deso (your server I assume) got influx from SFR too (again via Vabbi). This bandwagon train will choo choo again when the links getting shuffled.

Lords: Don’t have a problem with the position of those lords but their “special” abilities. We have realy good fights in keeps/garri now again but on DBL the attacking team is on a disadvantage.

Towers: That goes both ways. You can preassure garrision from those towers too. If you were talking about trebs in invulnerable positions in citadel then I agree those need to get removed. It’s imho an exploit.

Your sig: EotM much?

- Mixed Borderlands – no thank you. DBL needs further tweaks (position of towers, shrine buffs, lords).

- World Linking Schedule – 3 month is too long. Linked servers need to be locked at least half into the scheduled time.

- Deployable Mortars – no thank you.

- Deployable Cannos – no thank you.

- Repair Hammer – no thank you.

World linking is probably fine but you should look at solutions about cheap (500 gems Vabbi) stacking of a T1 server. Maybe you should think about changing the link more often (for example 3 weeks instead of 3 month).

Jong.5937:

Yes, I’m not sure why they said the tournaments were damaging in the long term. I really can’t think of a reason for that. Anyone?

Look at your server?

Sylvyn.4750:

This lack of credit for loot is apparently true for all condition damage in WvW, of which necro marks appear to be 100% condi damage with bleeds, horrors, poison, etc.

:facepalm:

lil devils x.6071:

TheGrimm.5624:

PPT creates the environment for PPK.

How do you create an area for conflict. You need to have something in that area for someone to control and it needs to have value else why control it. That’s PPT. Why do I want to fight you for it, because if I don’t you win. Therefore I need to take it. We need incentive to want to hold and upgrade these objectives and that’s what the increased PPT for upgraded structures means. This is also what gives yak kills and escorting more meaning, as well as scouting, sieging, scribing and guild upgrades. Those all tie together. If a structure has no value then all of that is moot and a waste of time.

Now PPK should score as well since the point of having something someone wants is to create a reason to fight. PPK needs to be rewarded and probably adjusted for other reasons. Such as fighting on objectives and in cases of being outnumbered. Not having PPK makes fights have less value and favors PvD which is bad. The idea that level 0 structures have very little value also makes sense since you don’t want to favor K-trains.
So fights, attacking and defending at objectives needs to score well for both types of actions and be rewarding to encourage that.

You can’t just have an empty map and expect people to find and engage in the fight, they need to have that sense of ownership and something to fight over. There are people that enjoy the fight for the fight, people that enjoy the capture, people that enjoy the support, people that enjoy the build and defend. Scoring needs to be address all of them and work for the 24 hour clock.

Not everyone can be on at the same time. The fight is interesting since it is 24 hours. So you don’t want to remove that but you can’t let that decide the match. That’s why the slices make sense. Again I am cautious of the action level and would want to see some weeks without that. A compromise might be that PPK should be worth more during times when there is more of a balance of players on all sides to offset empty captures. At the same time if a side can muster people off hours to take and control they shouldn’t be penalized for it either. People need to adapt to the fights. ANet has already said we can not mix EU/OCX/SEA/NA severs but that would have been the best solution here. Maybe there are still options of combing score at least across servers in different server farms. Have server alliances across these server groups that combine score to help offset off times but still allow people to add value in off peak times.

Other aspect is that if a scoring element creates an environment that does not generate “fun”, it needs to be adjusted sooner rather than later if the point of scoring changes is to create an environment that retains players, brings back older ones and creates a desire for new ones to start to WvW.

PPT isn’t necessary at all for Objective based PPK.
In objective based PPK:

• Owning the objective ( tower, keep, camp, ect) does not give score by itself, however it gives higher chance of rare LOOT to the individual and increase PPK for fighting over it. This makes the objectives MORE valuable than they currently are so you still want to own them but they do not do anything by themselves to affect the score. Their value is based on players fighting over them instead. Owning them ensures you have the best loot drops in the game mode when you fight over them. You create the conflict over who gets the most loot, and owning the objectives you are fighting over are how you do so. Currently players do not care about the score and there is less conflict due to that and the lack of personal rewards involved. This corrects that.

• You only get loot or PPK from fighting other players without the use of siege over objectives under attack. Defending team gets slightly higher loot and PPK than attacking team. This encourages players to own the objectives because they get the bets loot and pPK for doing so as well as blocking the K train by rewarding those for defending. This encourages players to fight over the objectives rather than run around in the field instead by personally rewarding them for doing so.

• The score is only increased by fighting other players rather than a tower just sitting there doing nothing, ye they will e fighting over the tower instead.

• The score cannot be run up if there is no one to fight.

It is pretty easy to understand and it no longer rewards afk, PvD or siege humping and yet makes the objectives more valuable and will have more players willing to fight over them than the current system. If players only get loot and PPK from killing other players while fighting over objectives, they will fight over the objectives to get the most loot and PPK.

If the population issues are worked out, you will not have empty maps and will always have people available to fight over objectives to be able to score.

Sry but your system based on PPK will be gamed the second it comes out.

How about you check the api? PPK is enabled.

TheGrimm.5624:

….The upgraded structures having more value is an important feature in this plan and is nice to see included. Its helps in creating values to defend.

Increased PPK is a good thing. There still might be some tie-ins to increasing that value if a side if outnumbered as well to encourage people to keep coming back, but it would need to be if a number is percentage higher than the bottom force versus just a 1 player difference……

I’m just worried that those two changes could lead to bunkering in behind walls and ac’s.

Alpine borders getting much more played than the desert borders.
Before the switch it was only EB and desert was deserted. Thats in T1 EU btw.

Once in a moon he comes with another glorious idea….

Stick with EotM if you realy like that megaserver idea.

TheGrimm.5624:

style.6173:

@OP: You have no clue what you are talking about. A vocal minority?

Forum posters are a minority of the players that actually play the game. Do you really think that there are more people that post on the forums then play the game? Really?

A lot of people didn’t even know about all this until it went live. Most people don’t use the forums.

He actualy stated the situation from the live servers.

TheGrimm.5624:

Sich.7103:

Because BL with 3 side will fail… They have try this with DBL… Remember that the side keep WP only work for 1 team at the begining.
I want a home border, where my team can control all the map and feel like home… Not a 3 side map… I hate EB for that !

Sich, I was thinking about you when I was trying to get around the home BL bit and find a solution for it. I admit I was watching for others about the Home BL but you are the only (so far) that I saw consistently in threads about wanting an individual home BL. Still don’t have an answer there yet. So to you, whats the difference in defending your third versus a full borderland that you call home?

He isn’t the only one. Since HoT most action was on EB and we are finaly, with the reintroduction of alpine, at a point were the borders getting more active played (and the vet commander bother to tag up there instead of Eb).

The first time in ages that there wasn’t a queue for EB in prime time on Piken.
That wasn’t a thing since HoT and shows how alpine is welcomed.

Svarty.8019:

The campaign starts NOW!

The Alpine maps are too small, simple and boring. Please can we have the Desert maps back?

No I don’t want that border back. Desert got a bit better with the fixes it received but it’s still miles away from any fine gaming experience in my opinion.

However I would have no problem with anet developing new maps to put into a rotation. But those need to include the feedback we gave from the last 7 months. No gimmicks, easy to maneuver, enough open field with only a few chokes. In other words: KISS – keep it simple stupid.

Angel Heart.6739:

Sorry halo guild on SFR is going to EBG until there is active map-rotation, the map is exactly the same as the one we got bored with 2 years back, it has no added value atm. except for the new keep, tower and camp upgrade system.

If the change would be based on actively including more maps in WvW we would continiue to stay on the borderlands as for me now it is pointless.

Offensive potential has been reduced to offer zerg/blob warfare and perma-thief tagging a chance that is not an improvement, but a reduction of the offensive action diversity, map options and in my opinion a missed chance to make from change a ++ situation.

I wonder if 186 players start complaining wether to bring back Desert borderlands it would be a representative vote for Arena-Net to bring DBL back on the total amount of thousands of players representing WvW evry day.

I played Alpine 2,45 years after 5 minites of it i’m totally bored of the way it looks, it doesn’t offer anything new, it would work in a map-rotation but not as it is now.

So Angel Hearts Clan my guild will go EBG now.

Informing the Seafarers Rest server now

Take care :-)

who?

Cygnus.6903:

I was very disappointed to see this poll without anything being said about alpine. Honestly, they should do NOTHING for wvw but bring back alpine, before doing anything else. If it would be back tomorrow then that’s half a year too late.

why asking when it’s already decided?

If it’s red it’s dead (or me :p)

Anyway I repeat my question from page 1: What is the actual reason to duel in EB instead of, lets say Os?

TheGrimm.5624:

Yeah, but you are telling me you are happy to have to have 2 Masteries to do this with? Why wasn’t auto-loot already working from the Mastery that was added. Why was a separate WvW track added for this? Call a spade a spade, this was a cope out. We do need more options to use WvW ranks for, but this should already have worked and now adds some ill will versus good will.

take your rant somewhere else

k thx bye

FogLeg.9354:

Are you talking about our big SM fight in EB? Because yea, from GH+FoW side, lag was horrible too. Also, our comm dced like 3 times and because of queue could not get back.

He did at least two times?

3 way fights were always laggy.