(edited by Ebisun.9682)
Showing Posts For Ebisun.9682:
Ok, so let’s take 2 different professions.
The first one has 2 skills that do damage:
- Skill A, does 50 damage, has a 10 second cooldown.
- Skill B, also does 50 damage, and also has a 10 second cooldown.Now the other professions, sadly has only one skill to do damage with.
- Skill C, which does 50 damage, and has a 5 second cooldown.Clearly, the first profession in this example is stronger (overpowered), because it has twice as many skills.
A more correct example would be
Profession A:
- Skill A, does 40 damage, has a 8 second cooldown with a 2 second cast time.
- Skill B, does 40 damage, has a 8 second cooldown with a 2 second cast time.
- Skill C, does 40 damage, has a 8 second cooldown with a 2 second cast time.
- Skill D, does 40 damage, has a 8 second cooldown with a 2 second cast time.
Profession B:
- Skill E, does 50 damage, has a 4 second cooldown with a 2 second cast time.
- Skill F, does 50 damage, has a 4 second cooldown with a 2 second cast time.Clearly Profession A is better…. wait a minute
If that would be correct, we could make the best burst in the game, and that is not the case. There are classes with a lot better burst damage than us and more survival going zerker, and they have more base armor/health than us.
That is ONLY for the zerker spec. We outlast any other class when we go cleric or celestial.
correction I guess it also counts for any condition spec but I’m not sure since I haven’t tried condis on my elementalist yet. Guardians are supposed to be pretty bad at them too though.
I am only saying that what they said is not true, there are more things to take in mind for saying something like this.
We can go celestial, but because we can stack might pretty easy, so we can make the damage that we need to take them down before us. This not support what they said either.
What i am trying to say is that having more skills wont make you make more damage, the output damage come from autoattacks and skills plus traits, and our autoattack sucks in some elements, we have to take traits that don’t help to make damage, so if they punish us this way, why punish us also with lesser survival stats?
Ok, so let’s take 2 different professions.
The first one has 2 skills that do damage:
- Skill A, does 50 damage, has a 10 second cooldown.
- Skill B, also does 50 damage, and also has a 10 second cooldown.Now the other professions, sadly has only one skill to do damage with.
- Skill C, which does 50 damage, and has a 5 second cooldown.Clearly, the first profession in this example is stronger (overpowered), because it has twice as many skills.
A more correct example would be
Profession A:
- Skill A, does 40 damage, has a 8 second cooldown with a 2 second cast time.
- Skill B, does 40 damage, has a 8 second cooldown with a 2 second cast time.
- Skill C, does 40 damage, has a 8 second cooldown with a 2 second cast time.
- Skill D, does 40 damage, has a 8 second cooldown with a 2 second cast time.
Profession B:
- Skill E, does 50 damage, has a 4 second cooldown with a 2 second cast time.
- Skill F, does 50 damage, has a 4 second cooldown with a 2 second cast time.Clearly Profession A is better…. wait a minute
If that would be correct, we could make the best burst in the game, and that is not the case. There are classes with a lot better burst damage than us and more survival going zerker, and they have more base armor/health than us.
Commander Visibility
- Ability to limit visibility to a sub group, party, guild, ect..
First sorry if i say something that have already been said, i just read this post, i missed the fixed top posts of the forum, my mistake.
I am more interested(if there is something more you can say about this) about the visibility of the tag and if you could customize it to only be seen for your guild and other commander tags or if you could only limit it to your guild for example.
In my case for example i’m on one server where normally we have a public commander with the tag on, and a few guilds raiding along the map with the typical mark of CTRL+T to not attract the no-guild raiding players, but sometimes this method have some problems to know where are the other guilds or the public commander to know where are all the guilds raiding, so we end at the same spot to take supplies for example or sieging the same build at different spots(yes, I know it sound absurd).
Questions:
1.) How important is it to see your squad members as a different color and always visible on your map like party?
For the commanders that place scouts at builds, i think this is very important to know what builds have someone and what builds not, to know with who he really can count on battles,… But for some people who fight with a eye on the minimap I think it can be too annoying.
2) I’ve always felt the best commander organization tool would be the ability to create events. Like drop a siege and the commander can set this is a build event then everyone gets Ui like build this flame ram 0/50 supply needed. Or Destroy this gate <show gate health bar>. Lets assume for this discussion there are no rewards to the events just a communication tool. Thoughts on commander created events?
wow, I really like this, but i think that if the way of fixing a events is too tricky at the end nobody woud use it. It would be more easy to write “build that siege” or “attack X gate” or say it with the voice program if you have one than create the correct event.
If you can create some event like “take X supply camp” on the wvw map for ppl like roamers, while you can siege a tower but you need this camp to take away the entry of supplies for example, I think can be more helpful and this way you have more control on the map.
Sticking to the lines of transfers, what are reasonable restrictions to place on players after they transfer? No WvW for the rest of the match? No WvW for 24 hours? Would that help any or would it actually exacerbate the problem?
Zero impact in my opinion. The ppl would transfer on the last day and no problem. But what is the point to punish someone after a transfer? in theory, transfer to a lower server is not anything bad. I think is better to try to encourage ppl to make transfer to less populated servers.
Im on a guild that have transferred on a few servers (haven been in top tier, and less populated tier), and we have discussed some times(nothing really serious, just hanging out ) about to tranfer again or not and where. Most guildmates don’t want to go down because there is no enemies at our raid time, other don’t want to go up because the long queues. Never anyone have complained about the gold spend for the transfer (some ppl have gems already saved for future transfers if nedeed!) or the reseted guild upgrades(now have a guild upgraded is not having much impact on WvW, at leats not too much ) .
What im trying to say is that things like free transfers , the guilds upgrades are maintained between server transfers (something that for some ppl is of common sense) or items/gold benefits wont make the guilds to make transfers to other servers, at leat not for serious WvW guilds. From my point of view the only ways to really encourage the guilds to move really down on tiers, would be to make some way that the guild have more impact on the final score or make some way the organized guilds have more impact on maps(what is the point for your guild playing good and defeat enemies if they return at the next instant and you only can maintain your own area because there are ppl going inside the conquest area again and again). The silly tactic of mass die and return instant to your keep/tower a lot of times force some guilds to leave the area, its true that make more easy to defend your own area, but personally i like that when my guild have made an effort to enter a T3 defended structure we dont have to go out because there are ppl constantly committing suicide to keep the area and with the warrior banner this only make it worst.
In my opinion, you could close the transfers to top tiers, within a time some guilds maybe would move to some other servers. yes, but which servers? and for what servers you would like to be transfers? i dont know, i think it’s dificult to find some way to encourage the ppl to move too low on tiers. Im serioulsly thinking that this maybe is one of the easiest ways that would make to spread the ppl along the different top servers. But would need time to see how this go.
About reduce the cap per map, its true that would make more queues and more guilds maybe would move, but I honestly dont really like the idea. Some ppl have said that this would make ppl to go in lower groups, but this isnt true, well its true, but all would be the same, all servers will go with one blob per map(only less people on map and blob). Its like a forced way against their will for the guilds to make transfers in my opinion.
Personally, the way more easy that i think would make guilds to transfer on lower tiers would be to change the system of ppt and that the guilds would see that they can change this server without the need to get together different timezones guilds to make a 24h/7d server or doing PvD. Other way i think but more elaborated would be to make the result of the match by colours and free but restricted transfers between servers with the same colours, this way the guilds maybe would move to make the worst server to not loose to much points to win the final score, altough this surely would make necesessary to remake too much things. At least i cant see other ways to make ppl to want to transfer down.
PS: All this is from a point of view from a player focused on guilds. I am not taking too much in count how could react a non-guild player. But i think that who will be more inclined to perform transfers and will have more impact on a low populated servers will be the guilds because one guild move like a mass of active players.
(edited by Ebisun.9682)
The most obvious solution to me is a timezone-bridging capstone event somewhere on the order occurring every 12 hours that acts as a primary accumulator of points in WvW, and uses the number of controlled nodes as a multiplier for the number of points rewarded such that winning it and denying other servers it is the single most important thing to victory.
As it stands, ticking every 12 minutes for points leaves the mode subject to the most subtle of population fluctuations. Constant 24/7 activity is far too necessary, and the point system would be my first consideration for relieving that.
That’s certainly a different direction. My concern here would be that we put too much emphasis on a very specific time of day. It might be the case that we should try and put more emphasis on specific portions of the day, but the more focused it is, the more you encourage everyone to show up at exactly the same time, which makes the queue worse and just lessens the experience for everyone. I think there is something to the idea of PPT being higher during certain times of day, but it has sort of the opposite problem. That’s the balance we haven’t yet struck, in my opinion.
Then change the ticking to be AT LEAST 20 minute and MAX 40 minute, a completely random value between 20 and 40 so you don’t know when is the “right” time to take a camp or a tower. Less ticks per day could be a patch for night capping / off hours.
Would be the same, how can compete a difference of ticks of 240ppt and 245ppt(5 points of difference, normally in PT) with a 400ppt and 100ppt(300 points of difference, normally morning/night)?
you need to make 60 ticks in PT to make the same diffencere in point as like one only tick at night/morning. Plus, there are more hours of morning/night that PT. So I think that scores on the hours which are full maps and is more fun to play are useless and ungrateful.
Actually, the server with more population along the day win the match because the differences that can be made when there aren’t any enemies are too large compared to PT.
All that can be made on the map with a small group is more easy to make it with larger groups. One only gruoup zerging can defend (not attack!) the whole map almost. Bigger group defeat smaller group easy, so the group having a number of people rather than others servers usually gains the map control.
Which would be the difference with the 7 matchs or one week match? the peaks off hours would decide the matchup of 1 day. The only days that could be different would be the weekend, but the rest of days is the same.
What would be the point to win one of 7 matchs?
also, having seven resets day after day would be pretty stressful for dedicated guilds.
Congratulations to Jade for the second place! matched and interesting match until the last day… except for vizunah, he was out of the league since the start….
Camp PPT: 5 (upgrades at camps do not add PPT)
Tower PPT:5 + [(# of completed upgrades) x (Multiplier 1 )]
Keep PPT:+5 + [(# of completed upgrades) x (Multiplier 2 )]
Stonemist: +5 + [(# of completed upgrades) x (Multiplier 3 )]My variation on this theme is:
Resource Camps: 1 point base + 1 point per upgrade (max 5 points)
Towers: 3 points base + 1 points per upgrade (max 15 points)
Keeps: 6 points base + 2 points per upgrade (max 30 points)
Stonemist Castle: 9 points base + 3 points per upgrade (max 45 points)It would help encourage upgrades and defense and make flipped towers worth less, but I’m not sure it would help with the problems caused by a population or coverage imbalance.
I like the idea to encourage ppl to take upgraded things but the problem that i see is that this only give more ppt to the night/morning capping, because is the time of the day that is more easy to upgrade things.
At prime time(or whatever time wiht full queues on 3 servers) its more difficult to upgrade things.
you can not remove the importance of the night hours because this hours are important hours elsewhere, personally i prefer to just give much more importance to the hours where the three servers are matched to numbers on the map and is more difficult to make differences to well to match the impact of the other hours where it is easier to score.
(edited by Ebisun.9682)
well, at moments with the three servers with full queues the ppt usually are about 2xx bwetwen them. Differences only of 50 points or less by tick. One only tick without enemys you can make 200 points of difference without problem, you can reach 300 – 500 poitns of diference with some matchups by tick.
Furthermore, you have all structures resetted and your structures T3 with defenses normally, so its more easy to expand those ticks with more enemies.
A multiplier by 10 when three servers have queues would be a simple way to
to give more importance to those ticks of ~50(would be 500). Actaully the difference of the ticks with full queues are too low compared to the other.
I think this would be a fantastic and fresh change for season 2:
Where instead of 3 servers fightin the servers are split by 3 colours and fight each other with WvW guesting allowed to servers within your colour.
That is the worst idea I have ever heard of, has anyone given this any real thought? Or was this thought up by just people on lower tiered servers? If we guest to one server to help them out, who is gonna watch my server when we aren’t there? And there is no way I would want to depend on other servers for our score, no thank you…
And now? For example, for what is competing Vabbi? He need a mass migration for him to be competitve.
This way all servers can compete for the win, and the servers with more queues have some real reason to change server, even through guesting.
Actually there isnt any real reason to move. All the guilds are competitve enough to want the victory, and this is why all people are concentrated in a few servers.
If you want ppl to change of server and move to another, you have to give them some reason, not only free change for low rankeds.
Either this way or another.
Hi, im from EU server.
Free transfers on low-tier servers I see a problem, at least in EU servers:
Why would my guild want to transfer to a server where there isn’t any decent enemy?
we don’t care about the gold we can gain or spend, we want fights and no queues, if we move down we wont find these fights. There are some guilds, but not too much WvW activity, so we would end bored and transferring again.
The Gate system at my server would be a problem. We have the prime time and the raid guilds more late than the others servers, with that system would break all guild raids doing an awful matchup for us and for our enemies who would see their queues also increased during their playing time.
Personally, i liked the idea of a “crossed matchup betwen servers” with guesting the same team servers of Nuzt.7894.
More reasons for a guild to move to another server and cover different times for win the global matchup.
There has been solutions a plenty suggested here on these forums on how to fix this. A personal Favorite was Teambattleaxe’s suggestion on how to work Leagues, he adressed many if not all of the issues regarding balancing, blowouts, population, and fun factor. I think the WvW team would be wiise to take a look at his purposal and take it into serious consideration.
I understand you may not want to do this exact solution, there is many good ideas in the video, that allows for alot of our concerns, and the best part of all, with three colors everyone is a winner, 1st, 2nd, 3rd.
Even if you only take the how to blanace servers from this, it will be a step in the right direction.
If you choose to ignore the video, thats your choice howeve I then ask you start basing transfer’s off of Server Ranking instead of Overall population which means nothing when it comes to WvW.
If some guys wanna see the real focus http://gw2wvw.org/?region=2&tier=3.
This web only show the focus of the structures taken, for example, is server A is defending the only structure of his map attacked for the other two servers, the focus will never increase, in return, the focus betwen server B and C will increase beacause their structures are being exchanged betwewn them.
Is very difficult to estimate the real focus. This calcul is a fan made calcul.
I wonder if Anet knows that there are more people outside Europe who speak/are Spanish then within. Big parts of South-America are playing on the Spanish server and do all the nightcapping, still Anet believes it is a European server. Same goes for French, so basicly all real European servers getting screwed by Anet.
i don’t know other server, but BB don’t have as much south-americans as u think. We have a later prime time than the rest of europe, and when you play at night and your enemy outnumber you, then your pugs tend to disconnect and go to sleep, but if you are farming against PvD, like a lot of nights that happen at BB because our later priemr time, then the pugs stay connected and farm.
In my opinion, the night is more a moral fact and who goes sleep first.
I won’t take who win this matchup so seriously, a lot of guilds are doing a lot of GvG and roaming. Considering that at prime time is very dificult to make differences at points and a lot of guilds are playing for fun, this will win the server with best coverage, not necessarily the best.
so play and have fun!
(edited by Ebisun.9682)
in my humble oppinion there is no point in accusing eachother of bloobing
piken blob and baruch blob, the only diference is that piken blob with 1 guild 20 members +10 -30 pugs (involuntary – you can’t stop ppls to follow you, even if you turn badge off ) and baruch blob with 2 -3 organized guilds ( not sure why) .
We never blob with another organized guild if we have any raid on, and the same for the other guilds of BB, and i guess that will be the same for the piken’s guilds(piquen is a server full of guilds wvw and we envy that, so at times can seem that you are two guids together also, although is one guild and 2-5 pugs of another guild). Not all the guilds have the same raid time, so if i can follow one random commander or a sin’s raid(for put one example), I will follow the sin’s raid obviausly. We follow other guilds when we don’t have any RL and don’t have raid on. I played together with all the others guilds on the map at different weeks, and we never blobed together as guilds(if we are two guilds of 5-10, then yes, but not with more people and rarely). As you say, its imposible to stop the pugs to follow your raid although you run without badge.
I won’t defend loseros, so I think he was wrong with he was saying, at least the way he exposed his posts, dont misundestand my post pls.
I don’t know, i liked the matchup this weekend, funny fights, although some time there was big lag but only when the three servers fight together on the same spot and I think it was normal at some times when you want a big objective like hills/bay/garri. The lag is because the three servers, not only one.
When only one guild is with raid on and there is none commander on the map, is normal that all the pugs join them although they run without commander actived.
Including your own guild, running for 15 RG and 3-4 puggies with 30 guys or even worse, porting back to spawn. But that’s not it, you guys run to regroup with the other 40 pugs in the zone to blob us.
I knew that would be a similar post here. Sorry, but we werent 30, we had 17 ppl online on guild at that time and we have 4 ppl commanding the randoms of EB. We didn’t want any combat at that time, and less against a guild like your.
my apologies if we upset you wiht that, we have big respect for your guild and we always have fun although u wiped us.