Guild Wars 2

Zoso.8279:

Taking into account Ascended weapons being able to be crafted Legendary weapons are more of a skin then anything else so I don’t see a problem with them being able to be bought with gems other then being able to change stats i.e power/precision/conditon etc.

And even being able to be bought the price might push some to just work on other things till pre courser pops up.

So if I decided to put $400 of my pay into gems (Yeah, good luck…), bought Twilight, etc. outright… You would consider that a “Legendary”?

How about in game gold? If I put loud music on, my eyes glaze over from farming champions for 10 hours a day, legendary?

Earning an item through meaningful game-play would be “Legendary”. Deciding I had no better use for a portion of my paycheck would not be.

Could pretty much implement a bunch of challenges quite easily without creating additional content..

As a very poor example: Finish every path of every dungeon without a single member of your party dying. Participate in all major meta event world bosses without dying. (yourself). Complete x event, y event, z event chain without failing, or without x % of NPCs dying.

You get the picture.

“I did all this, and this is what I have to show for it. It was challenging, and whilst it took some time, it was far more entertaining than 2300 hours of champion farming.”

Chris Whiteside.6102:

So i was thinking maybe we could have a CDI next week about the logistics (Methods, format, etc etc) of better communication on both sides?

thoughts?

Chris

I feel as though, from past CDI’s, there should already be an abundance of resources and insight into what this community wants. Looking back, reflecting on these things… in some ways, seems better than opening up a number of “new” CDI’s that will likely result in wires being crossed.

I’m in the design industry, unrelated to gaming, but design regardless.
From my perspective… CDI’s are essentially like the “interview” process we have with our clients. From here, we receive a brief. (i.e. key points of contention, requirements for the job to come into fruition, a basis to work from)

We develop a “program”. This covers everything from who will be on the job, “expected” time taken, detailing the different stages of design from conceptual & design development, to practical completion. Order dates, expected delays… you get the point.

My point is, it feels like we’ve been ramming our heads against the wall “briefing” the “deisgner” for months… and months. It’s almost as if we’ve given you the brief, (CDI’s) you’ve said yep, great. We’ll take this on board and be working toward improving ____x feature__.

Monday morning, 8:45 AM. We’re the disgruntled client yelling at you over the phone, asking where our schematic designs are. You’re telling us you require another meeting before you can get started.

Das it mayne. Das it.

I should have probably edited the OP to talk about all the weapon scaling problems in this game.

There are far too many awesome skins that are made meh/disregarded because for some inconceivable reason, the blade/head/feature portion of that weapon is made tiny.

i.e. Every hammer/Axe in the game.

So, I was re-visiting the hall of monuments skins with the addition of the new wardrobe… and was reminded of how horribly the Stygian Axe is scaled in Guild Wars 2 versus the original.

Compare the pair.

Good effort Arenanet, you were close.. but no dice.

Guild Queued world bosses – Spot on…. having these occur in the open world? BA BOWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW.

Instanced raid-difficulty content scaled for ~ 20-40 players. Ty.

Why don’t you just implement guild halls, as a place in which players from all servers can be universally together.

From there, utilize guild halls to implement NPCs which trigger various activities in an instanced, universally accessible to all guild members ‘form’ . Instanced Raid-tier world bosses (teq etc.), guild-missions, or even whole versions of a map.

We’d get 1) Social Hubs for the guild 2) A clear distinction between Guild Activity and the rest of the game. 3) The rest of the game is still there as it is in it’s current state, we just get BONUS guild activity. – Sorry, not bonus, we ACTUALLY GET guild activity.

But really, I don’t even care about the above.

Guild Halls and GvG pls.

Celtus.8456:

Regarding Asmodeus/FrizzFreston: I agree and I think ArenaNet should:

1. Consider scaling back the amount of players allowed in each zone (to preserve difficulty…though this wouldn’t be effective if they decide to zerg up anyway).

or

2. Finally work on properly scaling content up for larger quantities of players. So that “zerging it down” isn’t the best and favorite solution on the minds of the majority of Gw2 players.

1. will never be able to happen, though. As long as you can have near 80 people on a map, zerging will always be the only option.

They would need to instance or limit a player cap to ~ 40 max, to be able to consider balancing larger content properly. Strictly balanced for X players or Y players, making content fun and challenging.

The current “automatic scaling” based on # of players etc is just trash calculations that increase HP or activate a couple of additional mechanics. All of the effects of their auto-scaling are simply mitigated by the non trinity, combined with spam for loot.

Justin ODell.9517:

Olvendred.3027:

Then why make a distinction? If PvP can happily go along with players getting 12/13 traits per line, why add an extra layer of frustration and difficulty instead of giving them 13/13 traits per line? It’s obviously nothing to do with easing new players in.

If it were only an additional trait, you’d more of a have a point, but we’re introducing this system with the future in mind. I can’t speak for the Skills and Combat teams long turn plans, but I know I would be disappointed if we stopped with just these new traits.

Olvendred.3027:

Horizontal progression is a nice concept… but it’s one that I’ve never seen mentioned on the PvP forums, only the PvE ones. If you want to get more players in to PvP, somehow I don’t think keeping back build options is the way to go about it.

Horizontal progression is very common, even in PvP games. Personally, I think one of the reason’s PvP rewards seem somewhat hollow is that we have no real progression beyond looks. I think you would be hard pressed (outside one-off games like most FPS and RTSs) to find a successful game without progression. As a PvP player, I love this change (disclaimer: I had no design input) and can’t wait for the 15th.

What about League of Legends?

Skins aka aesthetics are a massive part of the game and it’s appeals for those who aren’t LCS mega pros.

PvP rewards feel hollow due to the simple fact that you were rewarded with aesthetics and skins in PvP that are obtainable in PvE.

Do you know why many games have people who live and breathe for PvP and never stop? PvP specific rewards. Take Aion, disregarding the simple fact their PvP gear had PvP % damage/defense, PvP skins had their own unique look and were a sign that this person was a total kitten and not to be messed with.

Guild Wars 2…. I can PvP for a week straight and I might finally obtain a skin that I could just get from doing like, three dungeons.

This point was perhaps LESS relevant when there was PvP only armor, now it’s going to become a huge thing with PvE skins available in PvP.

I feel as though you guys may be hurting the sense of progression more than you’re fixing it.

tldr; PvP specific skins, weapons, armors etc. would have been the way to go, not combining PvE/PvP and trying to create a sense of progression by gating runes/traits etc.

Scraps>Tickets is idiotic. Grinds my gears. If you’re not going to just give the weapons straight up from a BL chest, at least give the god kitten tickets.

If only these actual good skins were at the ends of some juicy content, not 100% gem store. What’s the point of adding great skins to the game if I can spend $10 and then look like a kitten. I want to earn at least SOMETHING other than a backpiece in this game.

style.6173:

Baels.3469:

Probably because the ‘Red’ servers are technically supposed to be the weaker of the three colours. This is also reflective of the Overlook keep in EB. Definitely the hardest of the three keeps to siege.

If that was the case, then why is green the easiest to defend?

Number one server, in a perfect world… would be getting attacked by both of the weaker sides in attempt to take them down?

Needs a stronger defensive footing to last against two opposing forces.

ColinJohanson.2394:

………SNIP

There exists a plethora of league/ladder systems in numerous successful games (and e-sports alike), actual real life tournaments, etc. which would surely serve as some great precedents for your design team.

If I were on your design team, I would be pooling as many of these precedents as I could, and determining what may or may not work for Guild Wars 2. It’s never a designers desire to directly port over or copy something… and that’ll generally get us in trouble… but you’ve got to look somewhere for inspiration, outside your own four walls.

At the end of the day, our opinions and posts are only worth so much. You have the vision for your game, you’ll decide what does or does not work for your vision. What the “playerbase” (as represented on the forums…) desires has been well documented both within this CDI thread, and innumerable threads on the forums. I’d start looking for methods to get the communities ideas to become a reality, swiftly.

Probably because the ‘Red’ servers are technically supposed to be the weaker of the three colours. This is also reflective of the Overlook keep in EB. Definitely the hardest of the three keeps to siege.

The response to this CDI seems underwhelming compared to not only previous WvW CDI’s, but also other currently active CDI’s.

I’m not being snarky, but to an extent, I think this is reflective of the lack of attention we have received as World versus World players.

Perhaps CD: Edge of the Mists is the wrong name for the CDI thread? Many may misinterpret that this CDI is about improving EOTM, as opposed to transitioning ideas/mechanics from EOTM into the regular WvW maps.

On server pride..

Lets not disregard the importance of server pride, but lets also not overstate it’s importance.

I’ve been in the same WvW orientated guild since the earliest days of Guild Wars 2. We’ve shifted homes from SoS to Blackgate, and spent considerable time on both servers.

There was a time when SoS was the dominate T1 server, winning nearly every week. It was our home since beta and was also the server most “oceanics” went to. We were strong, really strong… until a number of North American guilds decided to leave, leaving us with an incredibly weak North American guild presence. We tanked, SBI and JQ rose to power. We showed up week after week, trying our best and putting in stupid hours to try and compete… but we’d lose it all during our off hours. There was no server in T2 that could beat us, yet we were no competition for the new T1 champions. Guilds started to leave the server.

Our guild, an oceanic guild; we left. Yes, we left not only our home server, but the player designated “Oceanic” server. Why? Because we valued competitive gameplay over “server-pride”. Guess what? Within one day of being on Blackgate – we already had a new sense of server pride.

Yes, server pride is important – but having fun whilst playing the game, and being able to have a sense that you can actually achieve victory is too. This is the reason major WvW guilds are disappearing now.

We need to be careful that once again, that we aren’t hand holding community x whilst disregarding community y.

Assigning servers to a colour isn’t the answer
…nor is sticking random servers together in a sticky taped alliance. What would significantly boost competitive gameplay whilst allowing us to maintain ‘server pride’ would be but one thing: a re-vamp of the scoring mechanics.

Why change scoring?
Population. Dominance. Lag. Static Match-ups. Skewed Match-ups. These can all be alleviated in some sense, by an alternate scoring system.

But what is the answer?
Who knows? I’m sure as a community, we could come up with something. What isn’t the answer is to simply change the length of the match-ups. It goes deeper, to the core of the way points are awarded. Match-up length may alleviated some of the issues caused by skewed population, but at the end of the day, it’ll be the same.

Why so big?
Why do the match-up scores have to be so large? i.e. 180k vs 165k vs 150k. Why can’t the point system be reworked in a way where the winning server has a score of ~100, ~500 or even ~1000? The difference between winning and losing would be far less – and you’d always feel like you were in with a chance.

Rewarding points vs Denying points
What if holding objectives on your home borderland awarded your server no points, but was a measure of DENYING the enemy server points?

My point is, the current scoring system in World versus World is essentially the catalyst for a vast number of issues which constantly feature as complaints. It directly promotes population imbalance>increasing server lag on overly-populated servers>creating disinterest and frustration>etc.

DevonCarver.5370:

A short recap of the first few pages of discussion.

I just want to go ahead and say… Please, please. Be daring, be bold.

Make changes, don’t sit and deliberate whether it fits this ‘vision’ or that ‘vision’. Whilst I’m 1000% appreciative of the iteration process as a designer, you’ve got a digital canvas to work with.

If a change is received negatively, it can be reverted. If everything is left to hypothetical scenarios and what-ifs, nothing will ever get done to improve this game. A little bit of trial and error never hurt. Additionally, testing things in-game gives the players a sense of involvement and contribution, something that we sort of get in these threads… but not really.

Quickly addressing match up length: 8 hours is too little, the weekend/weekday split is ‘okay’ – but not ideal.

I wouldn’t mind the idea of having three 2-day match ups, and one days ‘rest/warm-up’ which did not count to the score. The ‘day off’ could also be an automatically scripted to completely alter a random mechanic in World versus World – creating a fun and different experience. For example – for that one day, all keeps have no gates, or no siege can be placed on any map.. or, all keeps cannot advance past tier 1 walls. etc.

Moving on, I want to talk tactics and complexity.

One thing I consider to be a major issue with the World versus World format, it doesn’t know what it is. If it is a PvP format that focuses around the capturing and holding of objectives – in all honesty; it does it badly.

These talks of increasing the difficulty and complexity of capturing Stonemist are great- but need to be applied accross the board, hand in hand with various balancing/fixes.

What seriously killed the tactical edge of World versus World was the increased accessibility to Alpha Siege Golems, and subsequently, Omega Siege Golems. Additionally, the buff to arrow carts… and superior siege in general. It would honestly not phase me if Golems were removed from World versus World – or were capped to 2-3 per MAP.

Blobbing didn’t kill tactics – siege did. Siege buffs also gave birth to blobbing. Back in the good ol’ days, whilst blob x assaulted an objective and fought blob y, a 10 man havoc group could assault one of the blobs objectives with great success – now, 2 superior arrow carts will completely thwart that attempt. Good scouting is one thing, but those scouts not needing the enemy force to back them up when they’re out numbered at a ratio of 10:1 etc. is a wrong.

When one of our important objectives were being sieged, we used to be able to go and hit the enemies important objective. This would be a tactical manoeuvre, in order to force them to come defend their keep – turning an offensive strike into a defensive move. Now it’s more – ENEMIES, SOUTH GATE HILLS – ~25!! ….But don’t worry, we have 6 superior acs, 4 trebs behind the gate and cannons. Continue striking their objective.

World versus World needs to embrace it’s potential. Tactics make World versus World fun. Open-field battles are great fun, my guild lives (or lived..) for them – however, that was simply because we had lost all interest in the ‘World versus World’ game type. Why? That word tactics. They’re there, don’t get me wrong – just not on the level they used to be.

World vs World should feel like a game of chess to commanders, not a game of “hide and seek” or “total annihilation”.

I would rather see attempts at balancing rolled out way more frequently.

Even if the professions I love get drilled into the ground and becomes as relevant as a rangers pet, If the frequency of balancing patches increases, i’d be okay with that. The game may break, but eventually it’d get to a good place.

If something game-breaking arose, that’s when you react swiftly and fix it. It currently feels like, despite the scale of the issue, we have to wait months and months for fixes.

Rigorously testing everything and running profession balance CDI threads is one thing, but actually making frequent changes that we can give feedback on and you could then re-work would, in my opinion, be far better.

Your PvP QA/Balance team may be xx people… but you have hundreds of thousands of players at your disposal. Use them, instead of disappointing them.

This is my personal opinion, not what should be done, the gospel.. etc.

Honestly, you would literally need to re-design a significant portion of the game and the way it plays.

AI, skills, mechanics, profession balance.

Guild Wars 2 will never be in a place where sets outside of Berserker will be as effective. Why? Because Arenanet aren’t daring enough to make drastic changes to their game. Everything is run through 157.5 different CDI threads, and then probably goes through 615 iterations that are not even reflective of community input.

I’m nokitten Arena-Net here, but they really need to get ballsy. It’s like profession balance, if they spent more time rolling out constant changes; we might get somewhere. I think they need to break the game, before they can fix it. Hell, it’s already broken.

Wait, some Warriors actually die to thieves?

It’s because WvW is as dynamic and changing as the brick wall behind my monitor.

Wow… GW2 china looks better than the current GW2! CYA GUYS!

…Santa Kodan and … I don’t even.

Best… Fan? Art NA.

You and I have very different notions of ‘content’.

From a WvW and PvP perspective, being ignored for the larger part of 18 months does not help.

Additionally, catering to the solo player through LS severely hinders our ability to tackle challenging content as a ‘guild’, in this great game: ‘Guild’ Wars. (yes, yes.. I know it’s name is #franchise and in the original was #lore)

Living story for example, is created on the back of a series of design schedules that appear to be some sort of ‘cookie cutter’. Variation comes in the story, characters and only recently: boss fights. The core rewards, achievement process and many of the event formats have been repetitions… noted in many, many threads.

No idea why they wouldn’t just hand the localisation of GW2 China off to a third party like every other MMO ever has done… if what I’ve been reading is correct and we’ve been seeing absolute lacks of content being produced as they’ve been spending all their time and effort trying to get GW2 ready for a China release.. that’s really poor.

No emphasis on ‘guild’ content other than World versus World… and then Guild Missions that came a ways after release. No emphasis on challenging content at that.

Result: An alienation of guilds.

Open world bosses? Not exactly “challenging” guild content.
Dungeons? No, not really. + 5 people.
Fractals? Again, not really. +again, only 5 people.

Is there raiding? No.
Is there GvG? No.
Does WvW provide any sort of recognition to your guild in game? …Not really, no.

Naz.2607:

Complete disregard of Guild organization features. I.e. guild panel info & options.
(And I DON’T want some stupid API. I want a functioning guild panel >.<)

The ability to be in multiple guilds. Worst idea I’ve ever come across in an mmo. Completely strips guilds of any sense of community & loyalty. Also, makes it 100xs more difficult for 100% rep guilds to build a desired environment AND keep track of it at the same time… call me old fashioned if u must >.>

Terribad UI options. I should be able to move AND size everything on my screen….

incredibly unrewarding loot

This also goes hand in hand with my complaints.

Thanks for the uh… constructive replies. If I wanted to put in a tldr, I’d have put in a tldr.

Jure Simich.6154:

You will see the problem, when you see your guild die due to people leaving for other games wit the years: all that new content put out is group only, and you can’t do it.

GW1 was, for me, a nice single player game with optional chat and multiplayer. I wish GW2 were too – but everything looks like it won’t.

What is it with people and assuming that when one type of content is release, that is the ONLY content type that has to be released? I wasn’t aware that every other MMO EVER released exclusively group content, or exclusively solo content…

Guild Wars 1 was both great for solo players AND guilds. Why? There were guild orientated activities.

1) UW and FoW were challenging to the point that being in a guild run was often that much more fluid/faster.

2) GvGs

3) Urgoz/The Deep took 12 people, and were often very hard to find PUGs for, particular in the later period of the game.

4) More than one PvP mode, which everyone could enjoy.

Guild Wars 2 has…

1) WvW

2) …….

3) Guild Missions

Good evening friends and the like,

Guild Wars 2 has a number of fantastic open world encounters with bosses that would make the most seasoned raider froth at the mouth… Problem is… the fights leave quite a bit to be desired.

Raiding is frequently shafted by certain players, due to the common perception that they’re inaccessible; among a number of other ‘issues’.

Additionally, people seem to jump to the conclusion that for ‘Raid’ versions of bosses like the Shatterer or Claw of Jormag to exist, the open world boss would be removed. This is not necessary at all.

Raiding and open world encounters can co-exist where there is a desire for the content. The open world encounters can remain, whilst the raid encounters provide Arena-net designers and writers the chance to create an environment that could provide not only some back-story to each boss; but new and challenging content for guilds. They could tie both lore and game-play together beautifully, filling any story gaps and provide little easter eggs of lore that would otherwise be unknown.

Raiding tiers could progress with in the same chronological order of the current open world bosses. i.e. Behemoth>?>?>Shatterer>Teq>Jormag, etc.

Unlocking, or accessing raids could open up a number of fun ‘pre-requisite’ events/story lines that could be done as a guild.

The bosses are there, the lore is there (I assume), the desire from the player base is there and the design team is there. Why not provide something that adds another dimension to your game, as opposed to repeating the same formula?

Raiding is something that is difficult to implement within a game that has gone in a direction other than the trinity, but definitely not impossible. After playing an up and coming MMO which I shall not name for I am not allowed, I believe that raids could definitely work in Guild Wars 2. It’s a challenge. Personally, as a designer in a completely different field, I always seek challenge and try to find ways to make things work. I feel as though, it would really give the team something awesome to work on, to try and get right, and ultimately to provide a new piece of juicy content. Something different to the current LS cookie cutter formula.

The “But what about solo players” complaint. Rest easy, Guild Wars 2 is a game of cosmetics, should you be unable to ‘solo’ raid content (which you definitely should be unable to do), you’re only potentially missing out on cosmetics. If you don’t want to miss out, I’ll quote the devs of an up and coming MMO; find a guild or deal with it.

Personally, I feel that there is so much emphasis on being friendly to the solo player… that guilds are in fact the ones that are suffering. You can join multiple guilds, solo nearly all content, and outside of World versus World, Missions (which are essentially a guild wide grind for ascended or consumables) and maybe running a ‘Tequatl’ “raid”… there is literally no reason to even be in a guild. What about the long standing guilds I ask? We’re all jumping ship, even if we don’t want to… there’s nothing left.

Thanks for reading.

I’ll tell you exactly what it is.

Too little, too late.

RIP my interest in WvW. Some time 6 months ago.

Apparently having a few capitalised words is grounds for an infraction, well what do you know.

Okay, I’ll say it in lower case.

New WvW map, sweet. EOTM finally! Oh… Scarlet… Oh….

Not sure why they couldn’t just leave out “Scarlet”. Sure, at this point I just have a personal bias toward her; but she’s taken away from the aspects of the game I care about for far too long. How dare she actually invade them now.

Ruined before it began.

ESO and DAOC will take many RvR and ESO lore loving players.

WildStar will take the players thirsting for challenging raid content and PvP.

Some of these players will come crawling back to Guild Wars 2 when they’re bored of those new games. Guild Wars 2 will probably have the features it’s been lacking by then, maybe. Guild Wars 2 is B2P. This is it’s advantage.

Many Guild Wars 1 vet’s played it alongside another MMO, or went back and forth. It was always the games pull. The same is already true for it’s successor.

Not saying I don’t think ArenaNet should pull their heads out of their ………. though. Wouldn’t mind actually seeing something of substance added to WvW in the next 37 years.

Honestly, it’s dying a slow death even in Tier 1. At least outside of the NA time zone.

Whether it dies or not, it’s already dead to me.

It’s my personal view that many of the problems that come with the current version of World versus World stem from the way the scoring system works. I believe this is the catalyst for not only server imbalance (read: population stacking), but a number of other issues which contribute to a lessening desire to participate in the ‘PPT’ game.

I feel that with this disinterest, tactical gameplay has flown out the window. World versus World was once about controlling the map, tactical strikes etc. Now it’s about taking an 80 man from map to map, bullying your way into vacant objectives whilst your enemy does the same.

Whether you agree or disagree with this sentiment, I’m posing a question to see what we could come up with.

So as the title reads: If you could change the scoring mechanic of World versus World, how would you change it?’

Think outside the box, not simply something like reducing the match-up duration, time between scoring ‘ticks’ etc.

Grumpdogg.6910:

I can’t believe Arenanet officially endorse that cesspit.

Means one less forum for them to manage, probably.

Josh Davis.6015:

melodey.4652:

Snip.

I understand where you’re coming from. Heck, the ‘shower of responses’ on the sPvP forums is probably from me.

WvW is an incredibly complex game-type that caters to individuals with a wide array of interests, whether that’s coordinated large-scale guild groups, havoc groups, small-man roaming, roaming alone, zerg surfing, and whatever else floats your respective boats. I’ve been spending a considerable amount of time reading through threads in this forum – the good, the bad, and the ultra ugly. Getting your finger on the pulse of WvW can be difficult when there’s multiple perspectives on every issue. This is on me to sort through, and I want to make sure I do right by you guys.

In the meantime, please continue to provide feedback. This is essential. In case you’re wondering what I want for Valentine’s Day: I like lists, break-downs, and bullet points.

It is complex, and there a wide array of perspectives. But there is one thing that needs to happen.

A new scoring system and or complete overhaul. Sit down for a day, a week, a month. Come up with something that doesn’t rely on total server domination. Shorter scoring rotations, complete scoring overhaul. etc. Drastic. Open up a test server EOTM styles. Trial it. Not ready to talk about it? Why not let us in on the creative process. Spend less man hours umm-ing and arr-ing and let us give it to you direct. We know you guys have/had a vision for WvW, and don’t want to abandon those core elements – so don’t. Work with us on this one.

WvW is so uncompetitive, despite what the ‘numbers’ might represent – actually no, they show that it’s uncompetitive too. The vast majority could give two baby cats about the outcome. This has seen a decline in anything that could be called real time tactics, and the rise of… “Where’s the blob pls?”

Originally I thought of WvW like a game of chess – hit them where it hurts, tactics and intelligent plays everywhere. Control the map, have cross map awareness. etc. But, alas…. I have no more incentive to do so. It’s no longer ‘fun’. Win or lose, we’re getting….. ? We’re contributing to…… ?

The rise of GvG guilds wanting an arena to GvG is because ‘fighting’ became the primary mode of entertainment in WvW, as opposed to the game itself.

Yes, WvW has it’s moments. There are some real epic moments here and there – Yes, there are some good fights/sieges… but with time and a growing disinterest in the current format…. rarely.

Again, the numbers may reflect that there are people in WvW all the time – which there are, and many enjoy it. But there are WvW players, and there are “WvW” players. It has the potential to be great, but at the moment, I can too easily liken World versus World to a Frostgourge champion train.

Whole heartedly appreciative of the two CDI threads we had on server balance/commander system – but no amount of server tweaks, culling changes etc. will address the balance. I feel like a complete overhaul of some of the ‘core’ ways WvW plays out could address many, many, many issues – whilst keeping to the fundamentals that make WvW what it is, or rather; what it should be.

What I’m reading is…… Do you want coordination, an actual skill cap and challenging gameplay to be added to the game?

Y/N?

The obvious answer is yes. The nay-sayers are just saying no for the sake of it… or they have no comprehension of how such a system could be put into the game without ruining the game for ‘them.’ (How it would, I simply cannot even-…)

Zerglings and players thirsting for a challenge can co-exist. Surely.

I’m not sure why people are jumping to the conclusion that the fight becoming playable in an ‘instanced’ version would instantly cause them to cancel the scripted event version. Both can simply co-exist – taking up the same daily reward. If you’re happy standing there spamming one button, do the usual. If you wan’t a challenge – do a heroic mo kittening raid with your guild.

Remember, some of us play games for a challenge – not for ‘loot’.

SonicTHI.3217:

Open world raid content would work if designed properly – with scaling and spreading out the players.
They d also have to replace the stupid overflow system with a district system from GW1.
Proper testing would also be a good idea.

It will never work properly. It will never be balanced and fine tuned without creating the same thing for each boss fight. You can’t limit a raid and balance it for 30 players, when the map cap is significantly higher. To make raid contents ‘properly designed’ they’d need maps to cap at like.. ~30.

“I’m against instanced raid content too”

Please think of helpful and thought provoking solutions. Not blind shut-downs.

What about:

Provide both options. Turn ‘Instanced Raid’ content bosses into an optional mode of content, perhaps with alternate horizontal progression rewards – such as ‘guild orientated’ or ‘collaborative’ titles. These encounters could be activated via guild influence, in order to time gate them effectively – maintain the same actual rewards.

Keep the open world stuff running for those who enjoy it.

Our guild, for one, and many other guilds who are perhaps focused on WvW due to it’s more coordinated gameplay do not participate in any of the open world events collectively – and rarely individually. We have no interest in that play-style. Of “mass” coordination, auto attacking and what not.

Taking my example; it provides us with some potentially challenging content and pleases at least two different ‘player bases’.

Locuz.2651:

Valento.9852:

These NEW telegraph marks on the floor reminds me ALOT of Wildstar telegraphs. #justsaying

I think the telegraphs are great and a first step in the direction of what might be proper endgame content.

Taking a leaf out of WildStar’s book on those telegraphs clearly. WS seem to have a lot of good ideas… both Carbine and Arenanet are with NCsoft.. cough in-house sharing please.

So new, so edgy, so unique.

IT’S SO NEW, AND EDGY, AND UNIQUE. WURMS? POWDERED KEGS? OMG FRESHEST AND BEST IDEA I’VE EVER SEEN.

Now add content to WvW please.

BAITness.1083:

PPT doesn’t suck, not having enough coverage for all servers is what sucks. It is incredibly awesome to be able to log on at any time and have good large scale battles in WvW.

Hopefully either GW2 starts to attract more players or anet starts to attract more people into WvW so more servers can have this experience.

No, PPT does suck. Well, suck is the wrong word.

When you utilize a PPT system that runs 24/7, there will ALWAYS be coverage gaps.
There are many, many ways to have a scoring system that a) doesn’t rely on coverage + population and b) maintains the same feel as the current ‘PPT’ system does.

Think of how many guilds there are that run untagged and simply go looking for fights. Our guild is one, and there are definitely many others. We haven’t touched an objective for a month, and yet Blackgate still wins because of it’s population. We just log on and look for fights. If we played for PPT it would be even more lopsided during OCE/SEA.

We’ll see what EOTM brings us, and what Arenanet is learning from that. They have around 4 months before most competitive WvW guilds jump ship to Wildstar or ESO for a ’ new ’ PvP experience. That’s all we want. Something new.

Cheechglg.8734:

Dont think that at all Baels

Cheechglg.8734:

A possible solution – Get rid of localisation, make international server’s and merge Eu and NA server’s for a 24 hour player base on all server’s

this solution would solve the issue for the ausies americans and europeans

Whilst completely screwing over either Americans or Europeans as one or the other would be forced to play on the other continents server.

#next.

Hold off on choosing a stat-direction if you’ve not got the resources to multi-spec. Up coming sigil, rune and armor changes will see some slight shifts.

The only mention of WvW that I’ve seen was in that particular interview with Colin that said ~(Paraphased/rough): “Until we fix the issues with WvW, season 2 of the leagues won’t begin.”

Given the CDI threads on WvW discussing the commander/server population/etc, and this statement… at least we know there is some intention to address some ‘issues’. As for time frame, well yeah. April is definitely too far away.

When Australians sleep, North Americans and Europeans are ‘night capping’

When North Americans sleep, Australians and early Europeans are ‘night capping’

Don’t be so conceited as to think you’re the only relevant player base in the game.

There’s your constructive.

Have everything ready for the final craft, and then realise you don’t care to grind enough gold for the precursor.

15k? A killshot warrior in EB hit my Guardian for 18.7k. Was only on 2.7k toughness, but still.

Wait, there’s still cross server rivalry and people haven’t unified to QQ until Arenanet fix this dying game type?

O-o-okay

Additionally, I can’t believe people still care about winning.

10/10, you won the Internet.

Let’s hope that they’ve actually identified these issues, and for the purpose of marketing/pr, they’ve chosen a ‘lesser’ issue to be the community scapegoat in place of the larger one(s).

http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/File:Runic_Blade.jpg

..We have infinite light… but no base skin version.