Guild Wars 2

EasyModeAj.3169:

I have thought of a cool mechanic which is guild members can do special pve events to capture “champion” Monsters which you can then spend lets say 1g transporting to a keep or tower for the duration of the night. Something like the ones that build the 25 stack of fury so if a zerg is nightcapping they have to spend more time fighting said chapion before they can capture the keep/tower/garrison.

The other thing is having the guards on their own seige which will auto attack enemies to some extent.

This suggestion won’t solve absolutely anything. Putting more PvE into a PvP content will make this part of the game worst. And especially such an encounter will take only 5-10mins more for a zerg to kill it. No big deal.

In general there are plenty of proper suggestions to solve the imbalance pop / nightcapping issue. The only real question is… In what direction Anet want their game to go. If they don’t care for WvW too much, don’t expect any major adjustments soon, if they do, they will come up with something solid.

Of course timing is everything, and if they won’t do anything for WvW soon enough, this part of their game will be deserted.

Suggestions – Part II

• Transfers
To establish a fair gameplay along the servers, Anet need to sort out the transfer feature as well. They recently announced that transfers will be limited to 1 every 7days, but this is nearly nothing without limited the amounts of transfers. The following 2 options, will serve well all the sectors of the game – PvE – PvP and RvR.

Option 1:
Transfers will happen every 2 weeks with a restrictive amount of transfers getting out of server X and getting in of server X. (i.e. 300 players can move out of server X and 300 players can move in to server X). Every 2 weeks this limit of transfers reset. Every account will have a cool down for transferring again 1 month at least.

Pros:
a)Cheap option for Anet.
b)Players won’t abuse the transferring system too much.
c)Will give players the ability to use their brain to make a choice
d)This option is fair play to RvR by preventing big guild transfers to FOTM servers or any other server.

Cons:
a)For some unfortunate players, usually single ones, this option might not work because maybe they miss the transfer by the limit and they need to wait 2 more weeks to be transferred. Although this can be frustrated for those players, 2 weeks is the max time they need to wait. They might only wait for 1day, it’s purely depends when they desire to transfer.

Option 2:
Transfers can only be made by putting a petition ticket to Anet and will take approx. 24/48 hrs for the actual transfer.

Pros:
a)Anet tracks the transfers by reviewing accounts info (i.e main character guild, origin of transfer and destination) so they can prevent zerg transfers to specific servers which will cause imbalances to RvR
b)Players won’t abuse the transferring system at all, more efficient that option 1.
c)Will give players the ability to use their brain to make a choice
d)This option is not only favours fair play to RvR but also is friendly customer all over. Since small grp of players who wish to move server for PvE or friends or whatever else they don’t need to wait long time to do so.

Cons:

a)This option could be expensive for Anet to implant. They will need extra staff tracking down the transfer petitions daily. Of course, they can put a small fee of real money to transfers so they can balance their expenses a bit. Already many MMOs have this charge on their transfers.
Notes:
1. RvR stands for Realm vs Realm and it’s the original term of large scale pvp. I personally prefer to call this type of PvP like this instead of WvWvW.
2. We need to concern about Anet’s costs as well, since the game is free after the 1st month and everything they do is for free.

PS: Anet has done a great game for it’s price. RvR still need some adjustments to proper balanced. Following the Daoc model is a good concept, but we can’t compare GW2 with Daoc for the simple reason that 70% of MMO community created or joined the MMOs after WoW. So population imbalances came into consideration. Daoc had those population imbalances as well, but not in so big scale as GW2 and WAR had.
Anet has a chance to fix RvR and hooked many players into their game for long time. I believe that devs know what’s wrong with RvR but their ego is too high to admit.

With Regards
Groon The Guardian

I would try to point out in a clear and simple way the options Anet has to fix a broken RvR* system. Anet made an amazing work with zone environments and how the pointing system work right now is very well thought. The problems which making this part of the game broken are pointing out below.

The Problems
• Nightcapping due to different time zones
• Population imbalance due to unlimited character transfers

Anything else in RvR sector of the game works fine and don’t need to be changed.
The following suggestions can solve the above problems with minimal effort in terms of time and cost. If Anet doesn’t want to follow these solutions, it’s obvious something else going on. Maybe Anet wants to have this part of their game imbalanced and they are happy to have this sector of their forums full of troll threads and flaming.

Suggestions – Part I

• Servers

Option 1:
As mentioned before, all servers can be global. No labels for EU or NA. Basically, this is what happens at the moment, with the difference that right now there are labels which cause more frustration to the players.

Pros:
a)Players will be prepared for 24/7 RvR coverage and frustration on forums would be minimized.
b)For Anet this option will cost nearly nothing to implanted*.

Cons:
a)Tier 1 servers would be packed and be full always with long queues to enter RvR.

Option 2:
The servers keep their labels as EU and NA, but Anet puts IP restrictions for overseas IPs as most of MMOs do these days.

Pros:
a)Nightcapping would be limited to locals, which is fair and square if they have the players to do it.
b) Population on servers would be more spread out and queues to enter RvR would be less than Option 1
c)This option is more fair play from players’ point of view than Option 1.

Cons:
a)This option is more expensive for Anet because they need to setup servers for Canadians , South Americans, Oceania, China / Japan.