Guild Wars 2

Why are there no safe havens on any of the maps you can go to, to prevent yourself from getting attacked while momentarily AFK? Everyone says just log out, well I think that is a bit lame tbh. What if you are queued up for WvWvW while at the same time running hearts on a map, and you momentarily need to go afk? Do you then log off losing your place in queue, or do you bite the bullet and accept the repair cost on your armor when you come back finding yourself dead?

I agree with this message.

Rigultru.3597:

anzenketh.3759:

There was a big discussion on this BWE2 and some in BWE1 even less in BWE3. I think that due to it is available in the trading post now most people do not mind that it is character unlocked. Thus why It has not changed. There are a few people that would still like it account bound.

Also if they do make them account bound they will have to pull them from the trading post to keep there value. Meaning that everyone will be forced to get all dyes to get the dye they want. Yes it is technically possible for them to be account unlocked and still in the trading post. But may not be the best for the economy.

Personally as they are available in the trading post I am having more fun with them that way.

It creates more of a market for them this way. Kind of like guild wars 1, the more demand for a dye in game, the more the merchants sold for as well.

This way people can create their owns dyes and make a sub profession of it. Personally I think it would be cool if it was more like GW1 where as the dye was consumed on use and if you wanted to dye again you had to buy more. Also, to add to this, it would be sweet if we could mix colours to create our own colours like in GW1.

I understand this, but it’s a stupid method to artificially create a market this way for dyes.

agreed, dyes should be account wide.

CaveSalamander.9150:

How abouts pet names?

I like my Rich Gold Vein raven. I’ve also seen a Lawn Moa, a spider called Peter Parker, a drake named Godzilla Jr, Headcrab the devourer and a pig known as Bacon Mc Oink

I named my wolf, Woofy Settle Down, and my Jaguar, Come Here Stupid.

I’m tired of having to get into my e-mail every godkittentime in order to log into the game. WTF is going on with this garbage?

Sky.9347:

I think implementing some sort of “comeback mechanic” that would give trashed servers HOPE that they could maybe make a comeback would help solve the un-fun psychological issue while not taking away the unbalanced, unfair, no holds barred environment that W3 is.

Just something that gives a trashed server a chance to get a temporary but important buff of something – if of course they manage to complete some objective that doesn’t involve trying to break through the siege contain at their gate.

Just a thought.

or we could just address the real issue which is the fact that the high ranking servers are getting overpopulated due to the rankings, and free transfers.

mcl.9240:

Bellok.4180:

mcl.9240:

Bellok.4180:

No, I don’t think you do understand me. There is PROOF that it has hindered the game. Yet you dismiss it like the arena net fanboi that you are. I’m not saying the sky is falling, I’m just stating a fact, this system has, is hurting this game.

You want to change or eliminate the matchmaking system. Why? Because you think it’s hurting the game.

Please tell me if I stated that correctly or not.

Working from the supposition that I have, in fact, stated that correctly, let me then say:
You are calling for a change based on a system that is at the beginning of a process whose outcome you are ignoring. That outcome is fairly-matched server groupings. In order to get to fairly-matched server groupings, you have to go through a series of poorly-matched server groupings.

A matchmaking system like this one works on the basis of incremental improvement. I will admit that the continued existence of free server transfers confounds the ability of the matchmaking system to work as effectively as it otherwise could, and I’ve said so in other threads on this topic. However, that doesn’t mean it’s not working.

You’re simply mistaking process for product, and seem unwilling or unable to let the system finish.

Either way, I don’t know how to explain the system to you any more clearly than I already have. If you still can’t understand that you’re reacting to something that’s still very much in flux and will not continue to resemble what you see today, there’s nothing more that I can do to help you, and will simply ignore any future comments you make on the matter because you are clearly incapable of addressing the product of the system you seem intent to rail against because you don’t like the intermediate stages of its pursuit of the final product.

All of that and you still havn’t a clue.

I see you’ve opted to ignore what I’ve had to say. Sadly, I’ll simply return the favor from this point forward, as you refuse to listen to reason.

Just do me a favor and read, and then reread what I’ve been writing. There is 1 important thing you seem to be missing, unless you are purposefully dismissing it.

mcl.9240:

Bellok.4180:

No, I don’t think you do understand me. There is PROOF that it has hindered the game. Yet you dismiss it like the arena net fanboi that you are. I’m not saying the sky is falling, I’m just stating a fact, this system has, is hurting this game.

You want to change or eliminate the matchmaking system. Why? Because you think it’s hurting the game.

Please tell me if I stated that correctly or not.

Working from the supposition that I have, in fact, stated that correctly, let me then say:
You are calling for a change based on a system that is at the beginning of a process whose outcome you are ignoring. That outcome is fairly-matched server groupings. In order to get to fairly-matched server groupings, you have to go through a series of poorly-matched server groupings.

A matchmaking system like this one works on the basis of incremental improvement. I will admit that the continued existence of free server transfers confounds the ability of the matchmaking system to work as effectively as it otherwise could, and I’ve said so in other threads on this topic. However, that doesn’t mean it’s not working.

You’re simply mistaking process for product, and seem unwilling or unable to let the system finish.

Either way, I don’t know how to explain the system to you any more clearly than I already have. If you still can’t understand that you’re reacting to something that’s still very much in flux and will not continue to resemble what you see today, there’s nothing more that I can do to help you, and will simply ignore any future comments you make on the matter because you are clearly incapable of addressing the product of the system you seem intent to rail against because you don’t like the intermediate stages of its pursuit of the final product.

All of that and you still havn’t a clue.

Agreed with whoever said every single mission is this way. There is no need for specifics. It’s every mission, and the hero’s AI accompanying you is freaking stupid. You might as well accompany me with a short bus full of those people to help me complete these missions. It would be better.

mcl.9240:

Bellok.4180:

mcl.9240:

Bellok.4180:

mcl.9240:

SoPP.7034:

Bellok.4180:

mcl.9240:

TC and Maguuma do seem to be a good match. The problem is finding a third server that’s on equal footing. Hopefully after this week we’ll drop down in the rankings and have a more evenly-matched fight.

I just find it funny how the likes of you think the ranking system is going to fix all of this. It makes me giggle each time you say it. I hope I’m wrong.

Bellok is right.

Server ‘balancing’ will not solve the current problems. This will happen again next week. 1 server will dominate 2 others, the fundamentals of WvW clash with human personality. People will quit once it’s obvious they are losing………. the people that aren’t on the forum are silently thinking WvW blows and looking for something else to do.

People should just ‘ctrl+c’ what I just said cause you can use it next week too.

You have no proof of this. You don’t know who the servers will be paired with next week.

Yes, one server will always win, two will always lose. The problem isn’t the matchmaking. If you want to insist that it is, wait until the server groupings have stabilized. If this still happens, THEN you can blame the matchmaking. But when we’ve only seen 10 of 120 possible groupings, it’s far too early to blame the matchmaking system. We need to go through at least 20 before the system will begin to settle.

There’s almost certainly a computational model for this, probably in the simulated annealing area. But I have better things to do than develop a simulated annealing model to prove my claim, when all I have to do is wait.

Where is your proof that the ranking system is going to equalize all of this? The problem is the ranking system does not compensate for the fact that there are OVERpopulated servers that really should be evened out amongst all other servers. If the server populations were more evenly distributed you would find it that these fights would in fact be MORE competitive than it is now.

My proof is in the pudding. You simply wait and see whether or not it works. It’s an empirically-answerable question.

You, on the other hand, are claiming it does not work, after only 10 of 120 possible server groupings, based primarily on your poor experience with a handful of matches.

You’ve made it clear in numerous posts here and elsewhere that you have an unreasonable bias against how WvWvW currently works, so I don’t expect you to listen to reason. But all I’m suggesting is that people wait and see whether or not the groupings the matchmaking system eventually stabilizes on are reasonable, whereas you want to gut the system before it’s had a chance to work, on the basis of nothing more than your dislike of the system.

You are not getting me. What I am concerned is the fact that the ranking matching system does not address the already apparent issue of certain servers being overpopulated. In fact you can argue that it has, coupled with free transfers caused certain servers to become overpopulated. The problem is the match making system has already caused most of the problems we are seeing right now. Which is partly why I do not really want to give it much more of a chance to further damage the game.

I get you very clearly. What you aren’t hearing is that the matchmaking system hasn’t had a chance yet to stabilize. You’re working from the premise it never will, without proof. I’m simply advocating letting it run for a few months and at least try 20-25 total groupings before claiming it’s broken. Running around and claiming it’s never going to stabilize now is like jumping off a cliff and claiming you’re never going to hit the ground immediately after jumping, because all you’ve felt is a falling sensation.

No, I don’t think you do understand me. There is PROOF that it has hindered the game. Yet you dismiss it like the arena net fanboi that you are. I’m not saying the sky is falling, I’m just stating a fact, this system has, is hurting this game.

mcl.9240:

Bellok.4180:

mcl.9240:

SoPP.7034:

Bellok.4180:

mcl.9240:

TC and Maguuma do seem to be a good match. The problem is finding a third server that’s on equal footing. Hopefully after this week we’ll drop down in the rankings and have a more evenly-matched fight.

I just find it funny how the likes of you think the ranking system is going to fix all of this. It makes me giggle each time you say it. I hope I’m wrong.

Bellok is right.

Server ‘balancing’ will not solve the current problems. This will happen again next week. 1 server will dominate 2 others, the fundamentals of WvW clash with human personality. People will quit once it’s obvious they are losing………. the people that aren’t on the forum are silently thinking WvW blows and looking for something else to do.

People should just ‘ctrl+c’ what I just said cause you can use it next week too.

You have no proof of this. You don’t know who the servers will be paired with next week.

Yes, one server will always win, two will always lose. The problem isn’t the matchmaking. If you want to insist that it is, wait until the server groupings have stabilized. If this still happens, THEN you can blame the matchmaking. But when we’ve only seen 10 of 120 possible groupings, it’s far too early to blame the matchmaking system. We need to go through at least 20 before the system will begin to settle.

There’s almost certainly a computational model for this, probably in the simulated annealing area. But I have better things to do than develop a simulated annealing model to prove my claim, when all I have to do is wait.

Where is your proof that the ranking system is going to equalize all of this? The problem is the ranking system does not compensate for the fact that there are OVERpopulated servers that really should be evened out amongst all other servers. If the server populations were more evenly distributed you would find it that these fights would in fact be MORE competitive than it is now.

My proof is in the pudding. You simply wait and see whether or not it works. It’s an empirically-answerable question.

You, on the other hand, are claiming it does not work, after only 10 of 120 possible server groupings, based primarily on your poor experience with a handful of matches.

You’ve made it clear in numerous posts here and elsewhere that you have an unreasonable bias against how WvWvW currently works, so I don’t expect you to listen to reason. But all I’m suggesting is that people wait and see whether or not the groupings the matchmaking system eventually stabilizes on are reasonable, whereas you want to gut the system before it’s had a chance to work, on the basis of nothing more than your dislike of the system.

You are not getting me. What I am concerned is the fact that the ranking matching system does not address the already apparent issue of certain servers being overpopulated. In fact you can argue that it has, coupled with free transfers caused certain servers to become overpopulated. The problem is the match making system has already caused most of the problems we are seeing right now. Which is partly why I do not really want to give it much more of a chance to further damage the game.

mcl.9240:

SoPP.7034:

Bellok.4180:

mcl.9240:

TC and Maguuma do seem to be a good match. The problem is finding a third server that’s on equal footing. Hopefully after this week we’ll drop down in the rankings and have a more evenly-matched fight.

I just find it funny how the likes of you think the ranking system is going to fix all of this. It makes me giggle each time you say it. I hope I’m wrong.

Bellok is right.

Server ‘balancing’ will not solve the current problems. This will happen again next week. 1 server will dominate 2 others, the fundamentals of WvW clash with human personality. People will quit once it’s obvious they are losing………. the people that aren’t on the forum are silently thinking WvW blows and looking for something else to do.

People should just ‘ctrl+c’ what I just said cause you can use it next week too.

You have no proof of this. You don’t know who the servers will be paired with next week.

Yes, one server will always win, two will always lose. The problem isn’t the matchmaking. If you want to insist that it is, wait until the server groupings have stabilized. If this still happens, THEN you can blame the matchmaking. But when we’ve only seen 10 of 120 possible groupings, it’s far too early to blame the matchmaking system. We need to go through at least 20 before the system will begin to settle.

There’s almost certainly a computational model for this, probably in the simulated annealing area. But I have better things to do than develop a simulated annealing model to prove my claim, when all I have to do is wait.

Where is your proof that the ranking system is going to equalize all of this? The problem is the ranking system does not compensate for the fact that there are OVERpopulated servers that really should be evened out amongst all other servers. If the server populations were more evenly distributed you would find it that these fights would in fact be MORE competitive than it is now.

mcl.9240:

Bellok.4180:

mcl.9240:

TC and Maguuma do seem to be a good match. The problem is finding a third server that’s on equal footing. Hopefully after this week we’ll drop down in the rankings and have a more evenly-matched fight.

I just find it funny how the likes of you think the ranking system is going to fix all of this. It makes me giggle each time you say it. I hope I’m wrong.

Yes, I think the ranking system will fix it. I find it funny that until this post you thought I was on one of the servers that has a highly-organized nighttime team.

I find it funny that you expect me to suddenly know that kind of information about you. /sticks hand in hat pulls out paper. LOOKS LIKE WE HAVE SOMEONE ON A NON HIGHLY-ORGANIZED NIGHTTIME SERVER! DING DING DING!

mcl.9240:

TC and Maguuma do seem to be a good match. The problem is finding a third server that’s on equal footing. Hopefully after this week we’ll drop down in the rankings and have a more evenly-matched fight.

I just find it funny how the likes of you think the ranking system is going to fix all of this. It makes me giggle each time you say it. I hope I’m wrong.

The poster does not get it, the reason he doesn’t get it is because he is on a server that HAS 24/7 coverage. Therefore he has no way to relate to others, and apparently it looks like he could care less. All I know is he is basically calling everyone else foolish due to his own ignorance to how it actually feels to be on a server without 24/7 coverage. This in my opinion disqualifies him from even commenting on the matter.

I thought the point of deleveling a character was so that someone of a higher level doesn’t come into an area and massacre everything with one hit ruining the game for others. My question is how does deleveling apply to a personal storyline quest if noone is involved but you?

Jeffrey V. I am tired of trying to run this mission because of the escort part not working. I want you guys to progress me past this, along with the rewards and approximately 12 silver for armor damages while trying to run this trash of a quest.

Well now you guys are taking this to the extreme here. If all servers were at 0 how would anyone get in with a system like this? That is of course there was a hard minimum like 10-20. So I’m not saying no one can play if any given server has 0, I’m just saying there does need to be a limit on how much more a server has in WvW compared to the others.

mcl.9240:

Bellok.4180:

mcl.9240:

Preventing people from playing during certain hours isn’t a punishment? Perhaps only because from your point of view, you would gain an advantage from that situation.

Nobody is doing anything “bad”. The developers made free transfers available, and in their judgment they decided to leave them available even after changing the match times from 24 hours to 1 week.

EVERYONE can use those free transfers, yourself included. You chose not to. This is one of the consequences of your choice. At least until the ranking system settles. 3 weeks of matches (with only one week of 1-week matches) isn’t long enough for it to have settled. You’re complaining about a situation that will be fixed by the matching mechanism over time. The situation will not exist once the matchups have settled to a more stable state.

Well we’ll see wont we. I doubt the ranking system is going to equalize this mess.

Whether you doubt it or not, lobbying for changes before it’s had a chance to be proven one way or another is pointless. Three weeks isn’t nearly enough time. Six months is more reasonable. I’m sure the devs have some timeframe in mind in which they will have considered the rankings to have stabilized.

What you fail to see is that this game will be much more competitive if the international guilds were more spread out amongst the other servers, instead of being horded on the highest ranking servers.

It’s not preventing people from playing for one thing. If someone wants to play in WvWvW and they have long queue times due to the fact they moved to a higher ranking server they have just as much ability to transfer to server that is less busy. It is generally wrong when you have only a few servers fielding the bulk of international players, it needs to be evened out. You’ll find that there will be much more competition amongst the servers this way, and probably a lot more fun to boot. However I have a feeling you are afraid of competition, that is why you greatly oppose this idea.

mcl.9240:

Preventing people from playing during certain hours isn’t a punishment? Perhaps only because from your point of view, you would gain an advantage from that situation.

Nobody is doing anything “bad”. The developers made free transfers available, and in their judgment they decided to leave them available even after changing the match times from 24 hours to 1 week.

EVERYONE can use those free transfers, yourself included. You chose not to. This is one of the consequences of your choice. At least until the ranking system settles. 3 weeks of matches (with only one week of 1-week matches) isn’t long enough for it to have settled. You’re complaining about a situation that will be fixed by the matching mechanism over time. The situation will not exist once the matchups have settled to a more stable state.

Well we’ll see wont we. I doubt the ranking system is going to equalize this mess.

mcl.9240:

Bellok.4180:

mcl.9240:

If your server won’t field enough WvWvW players, actively recruit more people in your server to play WvWvW.

If your server won’t field enough players during certain times of day, actively recruit more people in your server to play during those times.

I will not believe that any server (except perhaps the very last one in the rankings) has so few people on the server itself that it can’t manage to field competitive numbers.

I suspect the more realistic scenario here is that people look at the WvWvW score, see that their server is losing, and don’t bother to play. Or that they are in WvWvW, get killed a lot, and quit.

In this case, you need to find some way to motivate the people on your server to stop giving up so easily. You MIGHT still lose if everyone goes in and tries their hardest. You’ll DEFINITELY lose if people don’t bother to try.

You can’t FORCE people to play WvWvW. But forcing people NOT to play WvWvW is ridiculously unfair.

So you think that it is fair for all of the international guilds to flock to the highest ranking servers for free, and then own every other server because they have 24/7 coverage and the others don’t. Then proceed to mock other servers for “not preparing properly” because said guilds moved.

Yes. Because you have the same opportunity to change servers they do. Equal opportunity == fair.

You also have the same opportunity they do to motivate more people on your server to play, and the same opportunity they do to recruit people who play during non-prime hours on your server.

Punishing others because you failed to take advantage of the opportunities before you just doesn’t make good sense.

It’s not a punishment. With heavy populated servers you have long queues anyways. Having longer queues should be the norm. Taking advantage of free transfers to the highest ranking servers is not good sense. It’s actually bad behavior in my opinion, and it’s not in the best spirit of the game.

mcl.9240:

If your server won’t field enough WvWvW players, actively recruit more people in your server to play WvWvW.

If your server won’t field enough players during certain times of day, actively recruit more people in your server to play during those times.

I will not believe that any server (except perhaps the very last one in the rankings) has so few people on the server itself that it can’t manage to field competitive numbers.

I suspect the more realistic scenario here is that people look at the WvWvW score, see that their server is losing, and don’t bother to play. Or that they are in WvWvW, get killed a lot, and quit.

In this case, you need to find some way to motivate the people on your server to stop giving up so easily. You MIGHT still lose if everyone goes in and tries their hardest. You’ll DEFINITELY lose if people don’t bother to try.

You can’t FORCE people to play WvWvW. But forcing people NOT to play WvWvW is ridiculously unfair.

So you think that it is fair for all of the international guilds to flock to the highest ranking servers for free, and then own every other server because they have 24/7 coverage and the others don’t. Then proceed to mock other servers for “not preparing properly” because said guilds moved.

Odaman.8359:

I don’t think this idea would work without kicking people already in the bg. Say server a,b,c have 90 to start. Servers b and c lose 30 people. Server c has noone to replace them putting the cap at 60. Server b has the people to replace the 30 they lost, but can’t field more because it’d take them over the cap.
While server a has 42% of the population (worst case scenario being 100%).

When you start kicking people out of battlegrounds when they’re already annoyed by the long queue times you’re going to lose players and noone wants that.

I just wanted to point out one of the flaws in a bad solution, since you can’t seem to see the problem with it yourself. That said the server match ups won’t work well unless relatively equal servers come in 3’s which doesn’t seem to be the case. Even if they did then you would have people moving up and down the ranks, just to get stomped or dominate.

On the other hand it honestly is the best solution for the problem without ostracizing most of the player base. At least it’s not like daoc where your faction was stuck with overpopulated opposition for years upon years.

If you don’t like the long queue to get into WvW, roll onto another server.

AXLORD.2045:

This idea is like trowing a gigantic middle finger to every WvW player who can only play at night.

“This is the only fair way to do it.” Yeah. Sure. For you, at least.

Plus players will find a way to exploit that, either “Hey ! We’re dominating, quickly, everyone DC so the enemies can’t have more people capping back !” or “We’re losing, better surrender, quit, or do jumping puzzles, enemies will have fun fighting doors.”

The only thing I see ANet could possibly do without spitting in anyone’s face is switching the Orb/Outmanned Bonuses.

Yes it is throwing* a middle finger at you guys. Instead of relying on server rankings, and free transfers and packing on every international guild on the highest ranking servers, this will force you guys to even things out a bit.

Temper.7265:

Am I reading this right ?

Are you saying that server population (PvE and WvW and PvP) should be based off of WvW numbers ?
If so,

How many people do you want to allow in at your night time hours cap ? 15 ? 50 ? 100 ?

So a 200+ member night capper guild should do what exactly ?

Uproot with no compensation because you failed to recruit foriegners into your insert regional guild here ,or make alliances and pacts with strong night capper guilds ?

I’m not seeing any of the night capper guilds complaining,or there allies,so I’m gonna take a stab in the dark and say that maybe the people not happy with the situation didn’t plan ahead real well.

Having said that,it’s not too late to start planning and or taking action to rectify your problem and before the server transfers are disabled for free/infinite use,there may be a slight shift in night capper distribution anyway,due to some NA free loader activity that was inevidable.

You are so right, I should have planned for the people who left my server due to free transfers, and server rankings being posted. Totally my fault sorry.

Rodarin.6058:

I said that before and repeatedly it gets shouted down, most people on here dont have the logic or reasoning capability to understand the concept, or they are on servers that dominate because of numbers and dont want to see it changed.

Exactly this. To say that the ranking system is going to fix this, and to wait for it to “kick in”(whenever that will be) is simply a stall tactic to keep from adressing this issue with real solutions that work.

ecwoodrow.7034:

No. It is not. Server rankings will sort this out eventually.

No it wont.

The population cap needs to be variable and based upon the server that has the least amount of people in WvW. The system should evaluate all server populations in WvW every minute and block entry to new people, and maybe even dump some people on a server that is significantly more manned than others while competing in WvW. This is the only fair way to do it. If people want to play night crew and do not like the queue to get in they should look for undermanned servers during the night time to transfer to. This is the only fair way to do this. Period.

I really don’t see this as an issue. Both sides can do this.

ahh, okay thanks.

Yuji.7312:

Missmatched?
Take that.
http://www.imagebanana.com/view/9whavll4/gw2.jpg

That is pretty bad too. Looks like my server should be fighting you guys instead.

Naurthoron.3291:

Also defeated enemies can tag targets on other players they can see. Not sure this is intended.

This is the bigger issue……

Adjust server caps accordingly to the amount of people in WvW for the server that has the least amount of players in each zone. Have the system audit every minute or so and adjust the cap accordingly. This is the only fair way to do this. It is unfortunate yes, however it will also make it an incentive to have people move to lesser populated servers if they do not like the long wait to get into WvW.

This is not fun, they are camping the spawn areas with ballistas for heaven sakes. Is this intended?

You simply cannot have free transfer and start week long matches in WvW. Unless I am mistaken and free transfer is already done.

You are right, any moron dies fast in WvW. You just need to l2p your class. Quite like I need to l2p my arrowcart that is not a frontline weapon, forced to fight on the frontlines of a fort.

I disagree, and agree with the op. What I disagree with is that siege weapons need to be nerfed. I also disagree with the targeting. Everything else I somewhat agree with. Here is my personal opinion in dealing with zergs.

If a group is much bigger than yours then it should for the most part overwhelm your group. Of course this changes when you are facing a fort. Forts are there to allow significantly less people to control an area against a significantly more amount. Currently this isn’t so, and I think I have the answer as to why this is. Arrowcarts cannot be safe behind a wall. Many things contribute to this, like AOE’s ignoring line of sight right now, which should be fixed soon. The bigger underlying issue however is the fact that camera control, and the fact that your zoom while operating the weapon is significantly limited. Therefore you are being forced to place a weapon intended to be in the back supplementing the frontline, onto the frontline itself. If we can have more options in the placement of such weapons it would greatly increase the difficulty level of taking a fort. It might actually force the invading force to build up siege weapons of it’s own to take a fort, which I think is how it should be in the first place. Especially if a fort is reinforced with heavy walls, and a heavy gate.

Perhaps the bigger underlying issue is really camera management for arrowcarts so that you can place them in more strategic areas. Although it does seem like some of you are in denial about meteor shower. I guess we’ll see in the long run whether it gets nerfed or not.

The arrowcarts advantages go away when it comes to large zergs. They are fine when it comes to small groups. The real advantage should be the fact that you are behind a fortified wall, however you cannot take advantage of this because you cannot place an arrowcart in a fort without placing them in a spot that is easily accessable to the enemy for attack. This is wrong on so many levels. Arrowcarts are meant to be in the back, while the frontline, or wall holds the enemy abay until you can dispatch them. Right now due to the zoom and camera control you are forced to place these weapons on the frontline.

I havn’t had very many problems with retaliation to be honest. MCL, aim better? That is your answer? That doesn’t even address the problem that I’m talking about. I’m talking about the fact that you can only zoom out a certain amount causing you to be more limited in where you place your arrowcart. It has nothing to do with aim whatsoever, it just feels like you are skimming through what I’m writing, and then posting something that is slightly insultive and not on subject.

mcl.9240:

Bellok.4180:

“Do you think that a fort with siege weapons and upgraded defenses should literally be invincible unless someone builds a catapault or trebuchet?”

Yes I do actually. If a fort is reinforced then it should take siege weapons to damage it. Battering rams are a proper solution, however you can’t typically attack one if your wall is spammed with AOE’s. It literally just takes away the point in holding a fort imo.

So you want people and equipment on the walls of forts to be completely unassailable. Got it.

It’s not going to happen, but it’s nice that you’re being more clear about your intent now.

Wrong, they will still be attack able by other siege weapons. Like trebuchets hitting the walls of a fort. Right now AOE’s can be used on the sides of the walls to impose damage on siege weapons on top of the wall. It doesn’t matter if the weapon is on top of the wall behind a wall, it still is attackable. I guess the bigger root to the problem is the fact you cannot zoom the camera out enough, thus leaving you very little options to place your weapon without placing it on the frontline that is subject to AOE’s on the wall.

Creslin.1758:

Bellok.4180:

“Do you think that a fort with siege weapons and upgraded defenses should literally be invincible unless someone builds a catapault or trebuchet?”

Yes I do actually. If a fort is reinforced then it should take siege weapons to damage it. Battering rams are a proper solution, however you can’t typically attack one if your wall is spammed with AOE’s. It literally just takes away the point in holding a fort imo.

I’m just not sure what your expectation is here…do you expect to be able to beat a massive zerg by yourself just because you have an arrowcart?

If your wall is so overwhelmed by AoE that you are helpless, then that obviously means that you are facing an overwhleming force and you are going to lose unless you get help. Not sure what the problem is here…

Also, there are plenty of keeps that let you build a siege weapon in a place that is out of range of infantry skills. Like the aforementioned ballista on a tower…that will make short work of any ram.

Why is everyone assuming that I’m always there by myself? No I’m not there on my own. I’m there with other people, who are manning several other siege weapons. The point of a fort is to have the ability to withstand large armies with much fewer people.

I have no problems with siege weapons getting destroyed. I have a problem when said weapons are easily dispatched in no time when they are placed within a reinforced fort by AOE’s that are bugged in the first place. As far as Meteor Shower goes, the problem is it can cover more than half the top of a wall causing siege weapons to be compromised. One of two things need to happen really that will fix this problem, and that is allow the person operating arrowcarts to zoom the camera out more. Or you can nerf the range on Meteor Shower. Coupled with fixing AOE’s and finally have them respect line of sight.

Dyno.9467:

Bellok.4180:

mcl.9240:

The problem with siege weapons is line-of-sight bugs on the walls, not elementalists.

Elementalists need buffs, not nerfs. If you can’t properly place or defend your siege weapons, or accept that all siege weapons are ultimately temporary, let someone else buy them.

There we go with the properly placing siege weapons again. That’s all you guys have, no we aren’t going to fix the problem in game, we are going to force everyone to place their arrowcarts in some obscure position on a fort to accomodate the whiney elementalists because meteor shower is the only thing going for them right now.

How is Meteor shower the only thing going for us right now? I can beat alot of players 1 v 1. I would slaughter you as well 1v1.

Tell that to the 5 billion elementalists whining on the elementalist forums.

“Do you think that a fort with siege weapons and upgraded defenses should literally be invincible unless someone builds a catapault or trebuchet?”

Yes I do actually. If a fort is reinforced then it should take siege weapons to damage it. Battering rams are a proper solution, however you can’t typically attack one if your wall is spammed with AOE’s. It literally just takes away the point in holding a fort imo.

Retaliation may be op as well, especially when los should be involved. Notice how I did adress that issue passively by stating that los is bugged right now. Usually when I see the big pink shield I don’t shoot at it.

Creslin.1758:

SideStep.1347:

The money, time, supplies and people you need to get building one of those is a headache.

Maybe, but that’s the way it should be. As it stands now, well placed siege weapons are ridiculously powerful. One ballista up on top of a tower, or a hard to reach hill, can easily turn the tide of a battle.

And really, they aren’t that much of a pain to set up. I think a ballista is a whopping 30 supply. Big deal, that’s 3 players, or 3 supply runs if you’re doing it alone.

Do you really think forts should be zulnerable to zerg teams? Especially when they incorporate reinforced walls, gates, canons, boiling pots, and siege weapons? I would think that at a minimum, a zerg team should be forced to use their own siege weapons to take a fort. Otherwise what is the point in getting all of these upgrades when the next random zerg is going to take it anyways. This shows that there is something very wrong with WvW right now.

This is really a collection of problems:

1. AOE’s, and line of sights are bugged in game.
2. You can only use arrowcarts in areas considered frontline areas on a fort due to weak camera zoom, and control.
3. Meteor Shower is over powered.