Guild Wars 2

Thanks for the input. Found it in the end.

But really, it shouldn’t be up to forums to counteract – it shouldn’t be an opt-out.

Undoubtedly another April Fools (Anet = see below) joke thread.

Log in for the first time in ages (except yesterday) – 30 mins in, white noise headache from my toon sounding like:

“Brrreeooow Brreeewwwowwwowowowwo Breeeeowowowowowwwoow Breeeowowowowowowwowwwowowowwo Breeeeowowowowowwwoow Breeeowowowowowowwowwwowowowwo Breeeeowowowowowwwoow Breeeowowowowowow….”

Boring to read, boring as fek to listen to.

Don’t write code that sounds like this you plums.

Thx,
Sweet Jonny

Firstly I’ll say that claiming structures and leaving them with no buffs and without management is a real pain, and any practical way of controlling this would be good.

Claim Buff

If I understand, the idea is that a structure is automatically unclaimed when the applied buff expires, allowing another guild to claim.

If the original claim was an act of griefing, what’s to stop the same griefers claiming under a different guild with an active Claim Buff?

Claiming Without Buffs: Why?

There’s a definite difference between +5 Supply and the other buffs in terms of appropriate application.

Extra Supply

It can be very helpful to claim a structure in order to prevent an extra supply buff being applied. If you’re trying to upgrade a structure and unknowing or uncooperative teammates are taking supply the upgrade is impeded. This is more effective when the map population is lower as obviously sufficient number of players can drain the supply whether it is +5 or not.

The Other Buffs

I’m not saying here that buffs are unnecessary.

Mostly attacks on structures are repelled by weight of numbers and/or effective defensive siege. Conversely defenses fail to overwhelming numbers or ineffective siege. The borderline situations of make-or-break based on stat buffs are relatively few in my experience. As such, when our guild claims a structure, it may be so we can apply the appropriate buffs when they’re called for. This depends on the flow of play on the map at the time, it may be that we apply blanket buffs. If we’re leaving a structure as a guild, we unclaim if we’re not going to apply blanket buffs, allowing others to manage the structure.

Also…

One point here is that there isn’t one fixed strategy for playing WvW (read: applying buffs), so making rules for or against the necessity of active buffs as a prerequisite to claiming is a sticky situation.

But I would really like to find a practical solution to the griefers.

/signed

Making superior siege blueprints for WvW – great fun. This will be an on-going process, not something that’ll ever go away.

ANet, why is this “click gated”?

Having only one interact key in the game is often a problem in WvW. For example, if there’s a defeated NPC near a bally I’m forced to res the ally rather than use the bally. Yeah I can double click or right click the bally instead, but this is PvP and there’s only so many things you can do with a mouse at one time. And the solution is easy.

Loot/Revive or Res/Use Siege/Build Siege/Repair Structure….

Sort it out ANet. This isn’t a console game, we’re not realistically limited by the number of keys we have at our disposal.

Otaur.9268:

… except for fighting Dolyaks.

Bah! I type too slowly at 5:00am!

I agree this is really likely to be game engine related rather than malicious. I’ve experienced this issue, and yep, very frustrating.

If you’re a player that ever escorts yaks you might have experienced similar there. You’re trying to put swiftness on the doly but you can’t, because you’re not both at the same location. Then begins a game of cat-and-doly as you move up and down the road, applying swiftness, trying to find where the doly really is, rather than where it’s being rendered. I’ve even had a guildy asking WTF I’m doing, and it turns out “the doly’s right next to [me]!” It’s rendering correctly for them, but not for me. I seriously doubt the doly is hacking

That’s probably why there’s no easy way to report hacking, we’d all be sending many erroneous reports. And there’d be reports filed against you/me too because this effects your/my opponents too.

Thanks for the follow up Gamadorn.

I’d tried achieving this before and failed, you prompted a retry which did work to an extent and proved the point.

Whether or not this is an exploit is still moot. Just because it’s available to all doesn’t mean it’s by design (invulnerability spots in Borderlands etc). So Anet may not have considered this effect in WvW (no offence ANet, you can’t catch ’em all).

Contiguous.1345:

Furry Fury.9036:

Contiguous.1345:

Furry Fury.9036:

Sharpoon.8197:

Windowed Mode and Eyefinity are not hacks.

But their use is an exploit.

Don’t bother posting that it’s not an exploit unless you’re from ANet, in which case I’d really like to hear what you have to say about this.

Eyefinity is not only accepted, it gets technical support. It’s part of Anet’s ongoing development.
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/support/tech/Eyefinity/first

That said, there are third-party ‘zoom hacks’ in use that are exploits. Please stop confusing these to different things.

Okay thanks for that info.

Is it categorical that the use of Eyefinity/Windowed mode is acceptable for WvW, specifically targetting around/over walls, which are obviously designed to prevent precisely that?

I really would like an ANet source to confirm this.

I’m more than happy for those with the hardware to have a greater field of vision. Even the ability to see beyond walls is an advantage, but to be able to destroy defensive siege, surely it’s too much. This is too much of an advantage to too small a segment of the population to be considered fair in my opinion.

Hacks are not exploits. Please stop confusing these to [sic] different things.

Eyefinity doesn’t allow the user to see any more than normal. All that changes is the aspect ratio of the screen combined with high resolution. Not only that, the projection model used creates an inverse fish-eye distortion that actually reduces the field of view by about 30%. Result is you get to see maybe a 50% wider view.
You can simulate the view on a normal monitor by selecting window mode and setting your window to a roughly 4:1 letterbox.
You will find that you cannot see over walls or into towers or any of the places that a normal monitor won’t display by simply panning the camera.

The genuine exploit concerns the use of a third-party zoom-release where the game client is persuaded to allow extreme zoom distance. The user is then able to get a bird’s eye view of the locality from several times the normal height. This makes it easy to target the top of walls and the open centre of most structures.

Afik Anet are unable to ‘fix’ this because it’s built into the Havok 3D engine that’s in common use for many MMOs. The ‘hack’ is into a part of the system they have no control over. So all of this complaining and blaming is a bit pointless

Thanks very much Contiguous, this confirms my suspicions.

So if I understand correctly, Eyefinity & friends do not give the ability to bypass walls for targetting. Anyone able to do so must be hacking (ie. zoomhacking). This is important so I can report players on my server with confidence.

Hang on though, even if someone is using a really high resolution, surely the ability to zoom out is fixed? Or is it that the zoom range is related to the resolution?

Contiguous.1345:

Furry Fury.9036:

Sharpoon.8197:

Windowed Mode and Eyefinity are not hacks.

But their use is an exploit.

Don’t bother posting that it’s not an exploit unless you’re from ANet, in which case I’d really like to hear what you have to say about this.

Eyefinity is not only accepted, it gets technical support. It’s part of Anet’s ongoing development.
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/support/tech/Eyefinity/first

That said, there are third-party ‘zoom hacks’ in use that are exploits. Please stop confusing these to different things.

Okay thanks for that info.

Is it categorical that the use of Eyefinity/Windowed mode is acceptable for WvW, specifically targetting around/over walls, which are obviously designed to prevent precisely that?

I really would like an ANet source to confirm this.

I’m more than happy for those with the hardware to have a greater field of vision. Even the ability to see beyond walls is an advantage, but to be able to destroy defensive siege, surely it’s too much. This is too much of an advantage to too small a segment of the population to be considered fair in my opinion.

Hacks are not exploits. Please stop confusing these to [sic] different things.

Lord Kuru.3685:

They can just have an extra computation that determines whether the target area can be seen in a 16:10 or 16:9 aspect ratio. Unfortunately, it’d be a miracle if they actually bothered to do anything at all.

Yes, this is by far the most sensible solution. I suspect your summary is also accurate.

Peetee.9406:

Furry Fury.9036:

Opc.4718:

Neither windowed mode nor eyefinity are exploits. There are legitimate uses for them, which is why the game itself supports these things. There’s really no programmable criteria to tell if they are being used in a exploitative manner.

They use a game mechanic (displaying the game world) in a way that was unintended[*1] and gives the user a competitive advantage. An exploit.

The game itself does not “support” these things, it turns a blind eye.

No amount of sensible or ludicrous playerbase discussion on this will affect my opinion that this is an exploit. The only thing that can change that is ANet saying “This is not an exploit.” Which they won’t do, because it is an exploit which they’d then have to fix. If it isn’t an exploit they’d readily say “Life is good, nothing to see here.”

Understand that the above paragraph is not designed to antagonise any member of the playerbase, but to prompt a response from ANet.

---

1. It’s an assumption that this is unintended, which is why I asked for an ANet comment.

By your definition using a keyboard is exploitation.

Okay, I’ll bite: go for it, explain.

Opc.4718:

Neither windowed mode nor eyefinity are exploits. There are legitimate uses for them, which is why the game itself supports these things. There’s really no programmable criteria to tell if they are being used in a exploitative manner.

They use a game mechanic (displaying the game world) in a way that was unintended[*1] and gives the user a competitive advantage. An exploit.

The game itself does not “support” these things, it turns a blind eye.

No amount of sensible or ludicrous playerbase discussion on this will affect my opinion that this is an exploit. The only thing that can change that is ANet saying “This is not an exploit.” Which they won’t do, because it is an exploit which they’d then have to fix. If it isn’t an exploit they’d readily say “Life is good, nothing to see here.”

Understand that the above paragraph is not designed to antagonise any member of the playerbase, but to prompt a response from ANet.

1. It’s an assumption that this is unintended, which is why I asked for an ANet comment.

Sharpoon.8197:

Windowed Mode and Eyefinity are not hacks.

But their use is an exploit.

Don’t bother posting that it’s not an exploit unless you’re from ANet, in which case I’d really like to hear what you have to say about this.

Heya,

I found this: World Experience

Hope that helps.

B’wah? Yeah but… what?

User was infracted for this post.

Am I totally missing something here? I’m sure it’s against Terms to comment on why this would be, but I’d love to know the reasoning so I don’t make any not-obviously heinous comments.

/Gobsmacked

Shiren.9532:

Splitting up the servers further would only hurt WvW and we need to accept that casuals/militia are the core of WvW, not the hard core guilds. It’s a big competition and it can’t be won by big guilds alone. I also think break out is actually good for the game and the future of WvW.

I do want to reiterate that this thread is not directly about the Breakout event. It’s rather about providing a opt-in for playing wuvwuv with additional mechanics,

With that in mind I don’t think the population itself would be split by the designations. I would imagine those that favour vanilla WvW are both casual and hardcore players, and the same would apply to those that favour the additional mechanics.

There’s little merit in continuing with this thread as it’s unlikely to produce anything practical, I just wanted to hear the community’s thoughts.

Thanks for your input, good luck and have fun.

Sylosi.6503:

- Wasting resources to catergorize servers on the basis of one very, very minor aspect of WvW, is silly.

Your statement does not reflect the content of the OP.

This idea was conceived after the introduction of the Breakout event, but it’s not limited to that event

This thread is not a thread pertaining to the merits of the Breakout event.

Sylosi.6503:

- Connecting “hardcore” with not liking that tiny aspect, is silly.

See above.

Sylosi.6503:

As for “self centered”, you must be kidding, try looking in the mirror, you want them to waste resources on setting up a system and split up the playerbase, because you don’t like one tiny event in WvW.

This is not a suggestion thread, no request is made of anyone regarding use of resources.

Thank you for putting across a well structured point of view about the original post rather than going off-subject or by distracting others by commenting on posters rather than posts.

Sylosi.6503:

Doesn’t make any sense

Is it possible for you to post why? That’s the point of the thread.

Sylosi.6503:

Catergorized servers just because you don’t like one tiny bit of WvW, seems silly, also if you want “hardcore” why are you even playing GW2, it is a fluffy game in virtually every respect, surely you should be playing mass PvP in a sandbox game with full loot like EVE or the new Darkfall.

Not everyone is totally self centred. I tried to make it clear that I’m considering the community as a whole.

This idea was conceived after the introduction of the Breakout event, but it’s not limited to that event. It’s obvious that some players love the event while others hate it. This made me wonder how it’d be possible to please as many players as possible for as much time as possible.

ANet want wuvwuv to be open to casual players. I for one really appreciate this stance and would not want to see it changed. I am, however, probably considered a hardcore wuvwuv player. I only really play GW2 for wuvwuv, I don’t PvE very often, I’ve done maybe 2 or 3 dungeon runs. My world completion is probably around -30%!

If servers were tagged Hardcore or Casual players could choose their play style. Hardcore servers would remain vanilla wuvwuv while Casual servers could include additional mechanics such as the Breakout event.

I don’t think the different servers would require placing in different match groups based on their designation, they can remain in the same EU/NA groups they’re currently in. If servers of Hardcore and Casual are matched the style could be either defaulting to Casual or by majority of the 3 servers’ style, eg. 2 Casual servers meet 1 Hardcore server means the match is run under Casual rules. I’m ignoring the impact on server ratings based on two different mechanics, I suggest it’s insignificant in the broader scheme of things.

I know it’s not ideal and would require some further thought but I just wanted to sound out the idea.

I don’t think buffs are the only consideration.

Here’s a link to maloki’s thread which was moved to the Suggestions subforum.

Furry Fury.9036:

I’d be more inclined to go with auto-unclaiming an installation when no members from the guild have been representing in the zone for a period of time (perhaps 12 hours) and there are no buffs.

Why? Because it’s possible for a guild to be doing a great job defending an installation without buffs and they shouldn’t be ousted by another guild if they’re putting the effort in. Our guild held a BL tower for over 50 hours in the last match, starting with buffs, but then maintaining siege and a constant presence. If another guild could just claim over all our upgrades, siege and time while we were still active I’d be pretty miffed.

Focussing on buffs though, there are some issues to work through.

• What would be the order of precedence of buffs? Is +40 Toughness superior to +40 Vitality?
• What about the usurped guild’s buffs? They’re now available but unused, they’ve wasted their influence and build times.

I’ll leave it there as this is not meant to be a post against the idea, I think some mechanics could be improved here.

One things that would really help is to include a method for a guild to unclaim other than by them claiming another structure. A simple: “we unclaim” option would be great.

Perhaps a combination of the two ideas may be a solution, ie. no buffs and no guild representation. A guild that wants to claim an already claimed installation could request unclaiming. If the guild currently ‘in residence’ does not respond within a given timeframe (15 or 30 minutes?) the re-claiming is allowed.

Shiren.9532:

It gives servers that have no foothold on the map a stronger chance to get back into the match and provide some competition.

Shiren.9532:

The reality is, for this event to trigger it requires the server to have no fortified structures, so prior to it happening, you had nothing to do (other than spawn camp or chase small ops supply camp groups) with that server.

Crosstrack.9184:

However, in this instance, giving a team that is completely stomped a bit of help getting a foothold on the map… I honestly cannot see why so many people don’t like this.

Each of these points (and most of the pro-Breakout advocates) assumes that a server with no structures in a zone is weaker than the other servers. This obviously can be the case, but it’s equally likely to not be so. For example:

Stronger servers intentionally withdraw from zones so:

• their resources are not distrubuted in zones they’re not currently interested in;
• when they are interested in that zone, they can full on zerg the entire zone (80+ players, 8+ golems) as they are as far from pop cap as possible.

The point being that these servers don’t need a ‘chance’ they can wipe a map in 15-20 minutes anyway.

Shiren.9532:

It has a side benefit of teaching people siege location, siege purposes and how to build and man siege.

If you don’t mean “how not to place siege” then this must be a joke! There is no way a newcomer would benefit from seeing their first siege placed in these locations, and with invulnerability shields.

Shiren.9532:

People seem to be complaining for the sake of it.

That’s a lot of people with some pretty cogent ideas you’re talking about there. Are you sure you really believe they have no substance in their musings?

Ekove.4586:

Wolbryne.4037:

Ekove.4586:

Where do I even begin…WvW is a hybrid between PvP and PvE…you want pure PvP, go play sPvP.

I am tired of that argument…and the counter argument is too obvious to even bother writing it down. But sorry to tell you that WvW can never be what it is, nor can it be balanced without some PvE elements.

if I wanted to play some boring 5v5 timed games on a tiny map I’d go play leage of legends or something like that.
wvw is supposed to be a huge map focused on pvp. not focused on pve or pvnpc.

thanks, come again

So let me get this straight, no PvE…

So remove neutral NPC camps, remove keep lords, remove guards, remove dolyaks….hell some would argue even remove gates and walls…
So what do we have here? Conquest mode on a huge map? oh wait….-.-

Yes I think we know that WvW has PvE in it. For the sake of argument I’m happy to consider WvW as PvE with PKing involved. So why the issue with the Breakout event?

Because it’s the first PvE that directly aids (gifts?) a team capping a structure. All other PvE is, to all design intents, passive and does not assist in directly capping a structure.

In addition, until now the capping of a structure relied upon active players forming and executing their own strategy. Here that is replaced by a developer coded strategy executed with significant NPC support, free supply, invulnerable siege…

Surely we can agree that the manner and impact of the PvE is of an entirely different nature here?

My position is that I’m happy to lose a structure to a superior number of enemy, or a superior tactician or anything that is another player’s doing. But I don’t want to lose it to a programmed event.

It takes the Pee out of PvP.

Good luck, and have fun.

Catisa.6507:

Morningstar.6208:

Furry Fury.9036:

Arenanet have always said wuvwuv would be an open world environment with no concern for balance, eg. if a team can’t flip an outpost: so be it.

And now this….

I understand that for casual players this event can be fun, and that ANet want casual players. But the Breakout event is totally contrary to the open-world-ignore-balance principle.

For non-casual players the event will rapidly become mind-numbing. Every few minutes it’s “Breakout @ Lake” and off we go to fight the same array of awfully placed, invulnerable siege against teams that only possess the skill to zerg in the first place.

Remove the Breakout event. Remove it now. Do not wait for match reset.

And BTW Anet, where was the player base analysis for this? Perhaps I missed the months or weeks of preceding info regarding this, but all I saw was “Good news! Wintersday update…”

Agreed completely

Disagree completely

You disagree that ANet intended for WvW to be open world?
You disagree that Anet intends for WvW to be unbalanced?
You disagree that I think casual players can find this fun?
You disagree that the Breakout event is contrary to open-world-ignore-balance principle?
You disagree that the siege in the event is placed awfully?

Nothing wrong with the breakout event. WvW is boring this week even with 3 breakouts going at same time in EB.

Three Breakout events and you’re bored, but you want to keep the events.

I think I’m catching on here.

Combined with your previous comment that your concept was too obvious to post I’m failing to see how you’re bringing anything constructive to this thread.

OhhGasm.9604:

@Furry, each guild has it’s own influence for each server. If people just move over to claim it over another guide, it would be very hard for them to unlock all of the upgrades and then buy the buffs.

Hi,

That’s correct, and you’re right I was overlooking that. But it’s by no means a major obstacle to those minded for cheating. Politics L1 is 500 influence and Guild Emblem Template is 100 influence. A team of 3-5 could earn that in a few hours, or just simply buy it with gold…

Edit: Exploiting cheaters wouldn’t be interested in buffing the installation, quite the opposite, therefore they wouldn’t want all the upgrades.

Allow for guilds to claim keeps or towers if they have “superior” active upgrades to use. That means that if you have 0 buffs up someone can claim your keep from you.

I can see your objective but I’m not convinced on the proposed solution.

Unfortunately, we must consider the possibility of exploitation by other servers. We know this will happen. Log over onto an opponent’s server and force-unclaim their installation, then do nothing with it. Of course, a true team guild could then oust them, but the scenario is a bit sketchy to say the least.

I’d be more inclined to go with auto-unclaiming an installation when no members from the guild have been representing in the zone for a period of time (perhaps 12 hours) and there are no buffs.

Why? Because it’s possible for a guild to be doing a great job defending an installation without buffs and they shouldn’t be ousted by another guild if they’re putting the effort in. Our guild held a BL tower for over 50 hours in the last match, starting with buffs, but then maintaining siege and a constant presence. If another guild could just claim over all our upgrades, siege and time while we were still active I’d be pretty miffed.

Add some sort of messaging or “information” on what keep you have claimed and on which map.

Art of War upgrade “Messerger Bird” that can inform your guild when your claimed keep is under attack.

Doesn’t guild chat and/or MotD deal with this? Also Twitter, guild site shouts etc.

To ANet
Regarding identifying a guild that has claimed an installation, why is there no way to see which guild it is, beyond employing a vexillologist? It’d be really handy y’know!

Cymric.7368:

I find it strange how so many ppl are complaining that fighting npcs don’t belong in WvW. Do you even play WvW at all? Taking a camp/tower/keep you need to kill the defending npcs. There are npc whose help you can secure on every map. All these are PvE fighting npcs. You can upgrade your towers and keep with more powerful and more numerous npcs bringing more PvE into WvW.

Wake up, fighting npcs is a core part of WvW. I kill more npcs than players in WvW everyday.

You seriously consider the passive NPCs defending installations as the same as the Breakout event? Perhaps you should wake up.

Dual.8953:

Having to retake the tower maybe tedious, but it’s better then the boredom of being in a completely conquered map. Seriously, once you’re server takes over a whole map, do you find it fun sitting there waiting for battles that probably won’t come?

Some servers allow a team to cap their entire BL so that there are very few players in the zone (the defenders have nothing to do, get bored and leave and small groups of attackers can’t do much).

They do this so when they want to zerg they can bring their entire group in at once (as their team has so few players in the zone). They now have a group of 80+ in an effectively defenderless BL in which they can prove how skillful they are at PvD. Add to this that they are entitled to the Breakout event as they have no outposts (by their choice) and you have a group of skilless eWarriors that believe they should each individually be considered to be somewhere between Sun Tzu and Chuck Norris. More like Zapp Brannigan.

(Oops, that got away from me!)

OT: Unbalanced by design. If a team can’t cap, they can’t cap.

Arenanet have always said wuvwuv would be an open world environment with no concern for balance, eg. if a team can’t flip an outpost: so be it.

And now this….

I understand that for casual players this event can be fun, and that ANet want casual players. But the Breakout event is totally contrary to the open-world-ignore-balance principle.

For non-casual players the event will rapidly become mind-numbing. Every few minutes it’s “Breakout @ Lake” and off we go to fight the same array of awfully placed, invulnerable siege against teams that only possess the skill to zerg in the first place.

Remove the Breakout event. Remove it now. Do not wait for match reset.

And BTW Anet, where was the player base analysis for this? Perhaps I missed the months or weeks of preceding info regarding this, but all I saw was “Good news! Wintersday update…”

Deadcell.9052:

Furry Fury.9036:

Victim.3016:

Well if it rallied 60 people onto the map then it served its purpose?

If 60 can muster why do they require an NPC event?

Victim.3016:

They don’t want one side to have total control, I think map control doesn’t mean what you think it means. Map control is owning the higher % of objectives not total lock out.

WvW is designed to not be balanced, therefore complete control of a map is completely acceptable.

All this will do is encourage zerging. I’m usually careful to put ideas across in a constructive way, but this is so diabolically incompetent I can’t be bothered.

Worst. Idea. To. Date.

[Edit: but this is so diabolically incompetent I can’t be bothered <- “this” refers to the Breakout event itself]

The system already greatly encourages zerging with or without this event, this event just helps players actually play for a little bit before they are slaughtered by who ever has the bigger zerg on the map at that time. In WvWvW Zergs wins matches, the bigger the zergs the better chance you have of winning.

Zergs do not win matches, zergs win battles. Points win matches which equals holding installations.

Visiroth.5914:

Furry Fury.9036:

I understand the frustration of undermanned servers not being able to, well, breakout. If the players on those servers are playing GW2 for WvW they can transfer to a WvW-centric server. If they’re PvE players they probably don’t feel the frustration too much.

Even in top tier servers not all maps have a presence or the numbers necessary to breakout at all times. Rarely do we ever have a presence on all 4 maps. Usually it is only on 2 BL + EB, sometimes just 1 BL + EB. Even more rarely we are down to a single map.

Yes. Even in top tier servers. Let it be how it is, don’t tilt it.

Lensar.4920:

It’s not a big deal. It basically helps one side take a tower, that’s it. That jerk NPC commander didn’t even stick around long enough to build some defensive siege or defend. I suspect that in most cases the break out event is going to end just like ours did tonight. http://youtu.be/AvIBHjy32qc

Either way, it’s somewhat amusing and has no net effect on balance, so why kitten about it?

Firstly, I’d already seen the vid and love the comment in chat regarding ‘typical Blackgate Commander flipping but not defending’. I think we’d agree that ‘Blackgate’ can be replaced by any server name. (Note: typical, not all.)

I play wuvwuv to PvP, as in: try different strategies against my opponents and have them come back with their strategies. Why am I fighting an NPC now? (Please don’t go down the path I saw in another thread comparing the NPC Commander a raptor. I really would laugh if a raptor tried to take a tower)

I understand the frustration of undermanned servers not being able to, well, breakout. If the players on those servers are playing GW2 for WvW they can transfer to a WvW-centric server. If they’re PvE players they probably don’t feel the frustration too much.

So it comes back to: if it’s not a big deal, why is it there? Remove it. Let players use their own skill to win over their opponents. If it’s a lack of manpower issue and you want wuvwuv, transfer.

Anyways, enough of this, got me some RL booked in.

Have fun all.

It’s worth ‘caring’ for no other reason than it encourages zerging.

If the idea is to downplay the Breakout event’s effectiveness by saying ‘a bit of extra support’ then clearly the impact is inconsequential so it may as well be removed, right? Or it is significant. Which is it?

Visiroth.5914:

The breakout is hardly unstoppable. I’ve already witnessed it get stomped before the Champion even made it to the tower and could initiate the siege.

The bubbles also don’t last long enough to destroy either a gate or a wall unless several additional siege are dropped by players.

With defenders = can stop
Without defenders = no can stop

Question: if there are no defenders why do the “weak” attackers need an NPC help?

I’ve played all tiers/brackets of WvW from bottom to top. A common scenario is the early morning golem zerg. A team with no installations in a zone can bring in as many as they like for a zerg (eg. 80+) with golems (eg. 8+) According to the Breakout criteria they need assistance as they have no installations in the zone. Yet they’re capable of producing a force as outlined. Breakout event is a total nonsense.

[Edit: The point here is that early morning, with a zone controlled by your team has very little activity on it. It takes some serious dedication to scout an empty zone waiting for the red dots to appear, for hours on end. So when the red dots do appear, is extremely likely that there’ll be little opposition.]

As someone mentioned in an earlier post: if a server cannot compete against their opponents then they cannot compete against their opponents. The end. Attempts to compensate with stunts like this cannot work.

Victim.3016:

Well if it rallied 60 people onto the map then it served its purpose?

If 60 can muster why do they require an NPC event?

Victim.3016:

They don’t want one side to have total control, I think map control doesn’t mean what you think it means. Map control is owning the higher % of objectives not total lock out.

WvW is designed to not be balanced, therefore complete control of a map is completely acceptable.

All this will do is encourage zerging. I’m usually careful to put ideas across in a constructive way, but this is so diabolically incompetent I can’t be bothered.

Worst. Idea. To. Date.

[Edit: but this is so diabolically incompetent I can’t be bothered <- “this” refers to the Breakout event itself]

Heya,

From wiki page: Range

Ranges are defined in terms of game units. There are 12 units per foot, which makes them equivalent to inches. 1 meter is approximately 39.4 units.

Heya,

I agree that ‘night capping’ is symptomatic.

Ease of transfers is definitely a problem.

Unlimited free transfers skew the stats in a number of ways, including both the desired population shifts but also by match fixing tactics such as logging on to an opponent’s server (agents provocateur, supply disruption etc.). These are two very different problems, but nonetheless affect the match up of servers.

However, free transfers need to stay in place for a number of reasons.

Review the types of under-dog bonuses. Yes please!

Have fun

Hrist.8972:

Tzash.5748:

CptCosmic.3156:

we have players on the EU servers from other timezones. they joined on purpose to abuse this issue. they can recap everything at night while the majority is sleeping and during the primetime when they sleep the normal playerbase of the server will defend their work.

How dare people WvWvW when you are asleep!

Seriously, do you not understand that 24×7 battlegrounds means that this a perfectly valid tactic? It is not abusing anything. If your server cannot or will not form your own night crew then the ranking system will eventually pit you against other servers that also share your weaknesses.

Why can’t it be done already? I think it’s pretty obvious from current scorings that some servers shouldn’t be together.

The method that ANet is using to determine matches takes months to even out. That process can’t really start while transfers are so easy, as by the time the scores are considered the population has (probably) changed.

Sarrs.4831:

Personal skill has very little to do with success in WvWvW. There’s the fact that organisational skill is much more important, there’s the night capping issue and there’s the issue of how willing people are to spend their money and how much money they even have. The server actually being good at the game doesn’t really figure into it. If you want a truly competitive arena, you’re sadly going to have to look somewhere else, at least for now.

Furry Fury.9036:

Variable point ticks cannot work. All servers across all brackets need to have the exact same scoring system so their scores can be compared for rematching. If a higher bracket server has points increment reduced as they out man their opponents, servers in lower brackets will be mismatched by their higher score increments.

This assumes that the scores themselves are being compared, not the proportions between the scores.

You assume I assume, I do not.

From GW2 Wiki:
Matching of Worlds

Worlds in WvW are matched up based on their ranking using a modified Glicko rating,⁴ so that high-ranked worlds will battle other high-ranked worlds, and low-ranked worlds will battle other low-ranked worlds. This attempts to ensure that every world has a fair chance of winning matches despite differing levels of player participation or skill.⁵

Edit: even so, any statistical approach is skewed too much during the free transfer period.

Hiya,

For what it’s worth….

The only solutions to server population disparities are:

1. Stop free server transfers and wait for server rankings to reflect server population;
2. Get 24/7 coverage on competing servers.

With possible assistance by making the out manned buff relevant to being out manned, not something totally unrelated.

Variable point ticks cannot work. All servers across all brackets need to have the exact same scoring system so their scores can be compared for rematching. If a higher bracket server has points increment reduced as they out man their opponents, servers in lower brackets will be mismatched by their higher score increments.

Any possible solution must keep scoring consistent for all servers in all current matches.

/end-tuppence-worth

Heya,

I’d like to see this.

I suggested the same in the official queue thread, but I think it got swallowed.

Link for reference.

Lifiane.5203:

I’m assuming you’re more concerned with the rendering issues?

Hi,

To clarify I was referring to the lack of ability to create functional groups in game (ie. Raids). I wasn’t referring to the appalling effect of non-rendering/culling of toons (but believe me, I could rant about it!).

Cheers.

Hi all,

I’m not trying to derail this thread but consider this development time and how it can be best used.

Fund raising in GW2 can be achieved without further development. Sensible combat grouping cannot. I’d see it as a greater benefit to guilds to have useful grouping capabilities and we need the devs to do this.

Like I said, I’m not trying to change this into a grouping discussion so please all, stay on subject.

I know that if operating a large guild it would be hard to manage the inflow of funds. Let the member show their true colours and take donations, use it as a way to cull the selfish guild members. It’s a personal choice if you really want to be a part of a huge guild that’s composed of second rate members.

Have fun.

Hi,

Our guild had the same problem, Leader and Officers couldn’t claim objectives. The Leader reported this as a bug and within a day we were able to claim objectives again. I don’t know if there was any action taken by devs due to the bug report or whether the issue resolved itself, but I’d suggest raising a bug report.

Have fun.

Heya,

I say no cost for grouping up.

Leadership skill can’t be measured by counting kills, heals, revives or any other thing. If someone wants to lead let them. If players don’t want to follow that leader they don’t have to.

Removing the commander icon would be necessary, but I don’t see what purpose the icon serves at the moment.

Forming groups is a fundamental part of MMOs, how there can be any fee for it is beyond me.

Have fun.

saurus.8290:

your hdd is not good enough to load all the textures thats why you see players slowly loading on your screen

you should get a good SSD (i mean good not a cheap crap SSD :P)

If this were true all mechanical HDDs would fail, right? It’s not an issue bound by client side I/O.

I’ve had this happen to me on a number of occasions and usually laugh. What is going through my enemy’s mind: why the hell is that nutter charging us solo??

But I won’t be laughing for long!

Lonewolf.5869:

can someone explain to me why achieving “COMMANDER” is by spending gold?

Nope, I honestly can’t.

Lonewolf.5869:

Its a WvW thing, if you haven’t done 500 events in WvW and have 2000 kills, then why should we believe you know what you talking about?

Nope again. A player could be a fantastic leader but not completed events or amassed kills – they just aren’t the measurements of leadership.

Why should there be any requirement at all? Allow groups (raids) to be formed with no charge. With the added option of making them public or private. No need for on map icons for the commander, those in the group will know where the commander is.

Hi all,

The one thing I’ve not seen put forward as an option is to make the WvW queue apply to an account rather than a toon. That way you can play one toon in PvE but auto-log another for WvW when your turn comes.

It wouldn’t make the queues any shorter, but it’d increase the entertainment for those that are waiting with nothing to do but /dance at Lions while they’re idling. I’d like to up my alts crafting while I’m waiting please…

(Don’t tell me, the facility’s already there…!)

Faranox.4217:

I think this is the sort of issue that can only be worked out by explaining things to people. Unfortunately, it’s not often a very rewarding experience.

I suspect so too Faranox, but thought I’d see what the community had to say on it.