Guild Wars 2

Thanks, NTDK

Checked several pages in this forum and couldn’t find the subject matter, so:

We currently have to use skill points to buy the book at the forge to create superior siege. Since sp’s are going away with the expansion, what will the new currency be? Will the hero points takes the place of the sp’s for this? (Seems unlikely, but possible I guess.)

And, since sp’s will apparently be converted into masses of materials which I may or may not need, would it be a better investment for me to go ahead and convert them all now and just stockpile superior siege?

I play in in EOTM a lot, for both the k-train and the fights. The most fun times are when we have a commander on who’s interested in both. It’s keeps the “train” fresh and also often turns into a blast for the train-runners who discover that, yes, wvw can be fun!
As someone else said, any location is only as important as the players make it. I’ve heard many inexperienced wvw players say how surprised they were at the fun they had fighting the other color’s zerg. (We’re talking pugs on both sides, not organized guilds.)
I’ve sometimes sieged up inner keeps, whatever color we were, and had pugs come help defend when enemies attacked. We’ve wiped many times, won a few, but either way, most of the pugs would comment in chat or whispers about how much fun it was.
If we all realize that sometimes the map just isn’t going to be interested in taking and holding stuff, and sometimes the map IS interested in fights here and there, and we all always remember IT"S JUST A GAME, then maybe we can stop arguing about who’s playing EOTM the “right way.”

Ritterherz (JQ)

@Jerus…Nice! I like your thinking. It IS a wvw zone and would be great if people actually did some fighting there. Perhaps “baby-steps” are the way to go.

The server imbalance is what I what I felt would be addressed by having high pop servers coupled with lower populated ones. Perhaps it would never be truly balanced, but having servers coupled by more than last week’s finish might help. If “green” always wins, perhaps that’s because servers are now coupled by the previous week’s finish…so, all 1st place finishers are put together exacerbating the problem. Anet has the data to look at that more intelligently than I do and could surely find a way to even the numbers somewhat.
In addition, I think how a color finishes depends a lot on which commander’s on the map. Commanders who are focused only on karma hunting never pay attention to the score. I’ve seen others, from lower tier servers, who obliterate the map by going for objectives and playing defense when needed. Clearly it’s not the server reward that motivates them and their zergs.
Of course, as I mentioned, I don’t think my ideas are anywhere near something useable at this point; they’re just conversation starters.

Once season 2 ends, make EOTM an integral part of the weekly match-ups.

Yeah, I realize this idea is totally nuts but think it could foster some discussion that might end up being useful.

First off, EOTM is almost nothing but a karma train anymore, dramatically reducing its usefulness as an area where new wvw mechanics and concepts can be introduced and tested. You can’t blame the players as there’s absolutely no reason other than the joy of fighting others to actually, well, fight others. Karma and double rewards from the NPC bosses far outweigh any such pleasure.

“Winning” an EOTM match does next to nothing to help one’s server. A few hundred supply at one’s BL spawnpoint is just cheesy.

Expending siege blueprints on anything other than attacking feels like a waste when the match is going to end quickly so hardly anyone bothers.

If EOTM provided more rewards for one’s server it might just stop being another pve zone and actually be a place where people are more interested in fighting than karma hunting.

I’d suggest EOTM reward flipping a keep or camp or tower with rewards similar to regular wvw.
Have EOTM points, somehow, count for regular wvw scores. Yes, I know it’s cross-server…but it’s not cross-server with your current opponents.
Have EOTM populations balanced not by scores from the previous week, but tiers. Ie, each color includes a cross-section of tiers. Blue, could be servers 1, 4, 7, 10, etc. This would help lower tier servers raise their scores and make weekly matches more competitive.
Having EOTM count for something would make more heavily populated servers spread their forces out more, reducing, one hopes, the lag fests on tier 1 servers.

I haven’t played wvw nearly as long as many others and am already bored to tears by the same three borderland maps. At the same time, imo, GW2 combat is some of the most enjoyable I’ve ever seen in an MMO and I’d like to see it thrive. EOTM, when there’s actual wvw going on, is a lot of fun and if integrated properly could add a new dimension to the current system.

Use your ’hero" panel to switch weapons.

I know I’m late to this party but wanted to drop a couple of ideas which are not completely thought through; especially since the thread seems to be winding down.

First, and probably the most controversial, is the scoring system. EOTM scoring actually rewards teams for holding objectives by having the PPT “tick” every 5 minutes instead of every 15. This is HUGE and means people who scout, build siege, and defend actually have a major impact on the score. Not sure how this could or should be implemented in WVW but it would definitely have a major effect on strategies.

Towers in EOTM are much better placed than WVW, period. They actually provide some control over the chokepoints in their areas and represent the concept of towers much better than those in WVW. It’s also much tougher for a small team to ninja an EOTM tower and even larger groups can be held off by a well-sieged and manned tower…at least long enough for a relief force to arrive. It’s absolutely insane that a tower in WVW, sieged and manned by 5-10 people, will just melt within a minute or two to a larger force of 30-40. Scouting becomes useless if you can’t respond fast enough no matter what, thus encouraging zerging. Multiple entrances to towers also encourage defenders to help, again making it fun to participate and at least have a chance to defend something, rather than being forced to run through a 40-man zerg to get to a door.

EOTM line-of-sight constraints work better. You can’t just slap down arrow carts and rake an entire area. Platforms (weirdly placed), columns, etc all get in the way. So, it’s not just a case of throwing down siege…defenders have to put some thought into things as well.

NPC’s controlling some siege in EOTM was a great idea. When you’re the only one in a tower and suddenly hear a “boom” from the other side, you at least know something’s going on. Now, if we could just get them to avoid repairing walls that are being trebbed, heh.

Some folks have suggested the supply node change and no yaks was a good idea. I tend to disagree in that if getting a yak into a tower or keep actually counted for points, we’d be encouraging commanders to assign yak escorts, thus reducing the zergs a touch.

I realize most of my comments have focused on defensive aspects while most commanders and zergs seem to want to roam through maps unimpeded. I could write more about EOTM open field combat, using open spaces and chokepoints and open-field siege, but I need to leave for now and hope this gets the conversation going on some other aspects.

The JQ Citadel Treb

I’m the one who helped build that and then operated it for the short time it took to take out the NE tower walls. I had no clue this was considered “griefing” and certainly won’t do it again.

Kudos to the BG who managed to storm citadel, though. Was an awesome rush by you guys to take out the treb. I didn’t realize it was even possible to do that!

Ritterherz

(JUGs)

Incorrect. I finished Sunday and got 10 laurels…had 17. When the re-set happened, my laurels dropped to 7. I now have 9.

I completed the re-set monthly last night but didn’t receive the 10 laurels. My task bar shows the monthly as “completed”, so finishing additional achievements would not seem to be an option.
Thanks for any help.

The PVE gamers seem to love titles…“Southsun Stalwart” is one of the chessier ones that comes to mind. Let them know, if they WvW and progress, they can call themselves “Raiders, or Colonels, etc”. I know I run with no title because most of them are, well, meh. Plus, they get the added bonus of showing they’re not “afraid” of pvp lol.

Create ribbons, just like military medals, to go under their names and display their wvw prowess.

Add another informational category to their wvw achievement panel…wvw deaths, separate from the total number that comes up when /deaths is typed in. You already list wvw kills so this shouldn’t be hard.

Create gear, or at least skins, that can only be purchased with badges and can be used in pve. (To boost revenues, make it so they can also be bought with gems. Although, that might dilute the effort to have them wvw.)

Make WvW commander tags a different color. Not sure what kind of qualifications there should be for, say, a black tag, but start ‘em off blue and let them earn the wvw commander’s tag somehow. (Not to mention, this would help the rest of us know who the less experienced commanders are.)

Control the number of players per server allowed on any given map. WvW newbies can get discouraged very fast if they find themselves vastly outnumbered. Several of my guildies have tried wvw and will never be back. This would also have the effect of forcing more skillful play and strategies into action. It would also shake up the rankings quite a bit, I’d think.

Just some thoughts.

I browsed through a lot of the topics to see if any of these ideas have been suggested and didn’t see them…so:

We can whine all we want about the lag fests we’ve been seeing on some maps during certain match-ups (I’m on JQ) but demanding that Anet hire more programmers or upgrade hardware or whatever is, well, unrealistic. What I’d like to suggest may also not be possible (I’m totally unskilled in this field) but I’m guessing it’s possible. Simply put, Anet probably has a pretty good idea at what level a given map becomes unplayable; so, lower the number of players for that map to a manageable level.

Let’s assume that level is 90 players. Limit each server to a third of that number. Hence, 30 per server can be on a given map at any time. That should go a long ways towards eliminating skill lag. The (downside) is some servers with high pops would see extensive wait-times to get onto maps. I say “downside” because this would, I believe, lead to many guilds migrating to lower population servers in order to avoid the lines.

To keep it fair to the guilds wanting to move, Anet should offer the free transfers for a set period of time. Before I start getting slammed, I believe my guild would move voluntarily, although I can’t speak for everyone in it.

The result would be more server balance and a greater balance in the battle for points. If BG, SoR, or JQ truly has the best commanders and soldiers, they’ll remain at the top…but I’d bet we’d see some other servers grabbing top tier spots within a couple of weeks.

I’m sure there are flaws in my ideas but the basic idea of limiting each server to “X” number of players per map seems like a starting point for discussion.

(I’ll be gone for a few hours, so if I don’t respond to things right away, please be courteous.)