Guild Wars 2

Why are they grindy?simple… The current cap is placed at 161 i heard. Every mastery point is around 600k exp, which is 2.4 old normal levels. Which means you need to get 161*2.4 = ~386 normal levels. Which is pretty much 5 complete characters of levelling.

On top of that most mastery points are locked behind achievements of which several are also gold/timesinks. Just cause a lot of players got these achievements already doesn’t mean they’re NOT there.

So why are masteries grindy? Because you need to waste a lot of time to unlock them and then another load of time to grind the experience they require.

Personally i’m getting the autoloot mastery, fractal mastery and i’m doing the HoT story, and after that i’m stopping with bothering and just stick to PvP (which currently is messed with imbalances). In short, for me this expac is failing badly and i won’t be prepurchasing their next ones if they ever get there (as i mostly care about PvP now – thank you grind – and you didn’t need the expac for all the additions of the expac).

Is this actually what it’s supposed to look like? It’s not exactly clipping, but that thing in the back just feels out of place not to mention it doesn’t always sync with your colors.

IMO it’s a shame it’s there because the sylvari gown is the best out of the 4 i’ve got access to.

Who says you need to buy HoT to be in the leagues? PvP is for everyone in the end anyway.

Just tossing out my opinion and some suggestions that might improve these 2 fields anet apperantly does seem to want to go for. Wouldn’t be surprised if some of these things will not be appreciated by a lot of the GW2 players.

First of the esports thing. It’s nice that there’s one, GW2 PvP is dynamic, and those who play it can follow the fights pretty decently, for others it might seem too flashy to follow, but hey, same can be said about moba’s you’re not used to. But the biggest problem is that there’s a big enough scene. But the reason isn’t usually what many claim is the reason, which is that B2P doesn’t work or that conquest is “boring”. Laning in moba’s is just as boring as playing conquest and moba’s are the strongest esport type currently out there. But why are moba’s popular? Simply because the prizes are good to insane (last year’s dota2 international gave out 1 million each to the victors and this year the prize pool is 70% larger).

They accomplish this by making the players add in chunks to the prize pool. Like smite does with their summer sales and dota does with the compendium. There’s nothing that holds anet from doing the same for their WTSes. Lower the amount of gems given for 10$ from 800 to 750 and toss 5% of the income from gems into the prize pool of WTS. I’m going to be rash and give an example that anet makes 30 million from gem sales only, split over 3 WTS that would be 1.5 million added to their prize pools. which means 10 times as large prize pools as they give now. However this isn’t enough.

Large prize pools alone won’t boost your esport community, as the large prizes won’t matter if the same teams keep nabbing all the cash (looking at you Abjured/oRNG/TCG). But with larger prize pools you also allow the opportunity to increase your amount of teams sent to WTS. Currently you do 1 of each region, 2 for the organizer. With a larger prize pool you could easily send 4 of each region and 8 of the organizer. The prize for the victor would still be larger than they get now, but more teams would get a piece of the pie, which means more competition for prizes (even if they’d be as little as 1000 a person for the 9th-16th it’d still be worth it for non-pro teams).

Secondly the league. It’s nice it’s being added but the setup currently suggested screams farm and worse of all… it can be sold! Just pay a bunch of good players to boost your account to legendary division and you’re there’s forever. Who cares that you’ll never receive another reward because you’ll be stuck in the lowest tier at 0 pips.

However 1 of the largest complaints i’ve seen on here is faulty. You need to be extremely lucky to get lucked into the top divisions, because even though you can’t drop division, you can still drop tiers, so you need a lucky 100 pip boost before you’re safe from another drop. Sadly this no div drop system won’t give a good view of how good players are in the end because noone should technically stay in amber, and 2-3 you can luck through as tier drops aren’t active yet afaik. which means you’ll only have 3 divs to split the population in.

The best system would be to allow division drops but let everyone start in division 4 tier 1. The first games should let you drop or rise faster. Say, first game move 1 div, second game move 3 tiers, third game move 1 tier, fourth game move 3 pips (with a cap of division 5 tier 3 – only move 1 pip from there). This way you shuffle rapidly in the beginning and you let div1-2 still be useful regarding rating.

Anet,

Please add a freaking diminishing return in the MMR reward/loss after games. It’s getting freaking annoying how this game can’t notice which players are good and which got lucky and same goes for the other way round. The “ELO hell” is a mix of all kinds of players and is ruining the games for a lot of players. By placing a diminishing return you can let newbs start below average.

Currently the way the MMR is going, you can get walking corpses as an experienced player. I’m not gonna say i’m an awesome pvper, but the last 2 weeks i’m getting a lot of games where i either win by a landslide or lose by a landslide. And the factor isn’t me, but it all depends on how many walking corpses my team gets or the enemy team gets. I’m talking about new players here who just die within seconds without doing the damage you’d expect from zerkers.

It’s getting demoralizing for me, so i wouldn’t be surprised if other players are getting the same feeling.

If you’re not playing from the start you can forget ever catching up as there are plenty of achivs impossible to obtain. The history from before LS2 can’t be obtained anymore and all those together could easily account for 5-6k AP.

Dailies you can catch up as die hards will be bumping on the 15k cap pretty soon. (As to dailies being more than 10, there were a month or 2/3 where dailies gave 5 a piece and 5 existed every day).

Anet should program something that games can not start unless both teams have 5 players present. And to those who say it’s impossible, i’ve added a screenshot of a game starting at 4v5 while the 5th never entered.

Technically what should have happened is that the account of the 5th should get a dishonorable debuff for a decent while (he was unable to return for over 2 minutes, bs) and someone within the MMR range should be fetched from the queue, the wait time extended with 1 minute so that the guy from the queue can load up decently and automatically set all players already in game to “i am ready”.

Only if someone DC’s during the on-going game, the current grace time thing should happen and noone should be picked from the queue, but there can’t be any harm in picking a latecomer from the queue for a game that hasn’t started yet!

I don’t think those new dailies drew new players to pvp. Reward tracks did and that’s been a long time ago already. Also putting rank brackets is ridiculous. Rank 80 would have a lot of people, but the others would have small numbers of peeps playing, and waiting long. Such long waits would just make peeps run away from pvp even faster.

Also the ranks only mean time spent, not skill. I was getting teamed actively with dragons since i was a deer and it didn’t take me long to be able to beat some of the dragons. The MMR assigning needs to be improved. Because most players end up in MMR hell if they solo queue, cause it’s a 50/50 chance that you end up with lousy players who are either new or got carried in the past whose MMR got upped accidentaly. Which if it happens often can knock your MMR down badly again, since being the best player in a losing team makes you lose as much MMR as the crappiest player in the team.

But even then one can discuss whose worse, since personal score assignment isn’t always correct. Defenders often gain less points than peeps who just run around ganking peeps where they shouldn’t be.

IF they added such a track, you’d know a lot of players would use charged track to get quicker income.

Sorel.4870:

Lux.7169:

You need to apply for a passport, pay the fee and wait the long period… or pay more to expedite it so that you only have a wait a slightly less long period.

I doubt that paying 100$ every five years was THE main reason there were not more european teams. In addition to the fact that many europeans actually leave their country from time to time, so passport are not exactly rare birds.

Well to be honest, i’m european and i don’t have a passport as i just don’t travel. I see no reason to get 1 either, sight seeing the world doesn’t interest me much anyway. However a rush job for a passport is probably less than a week. I can’t see in how anet can be looser with their rules. Say if i’d be in a team and wanted to try to qualify, i’d only want to buy a passport if i knew i could go! Otherwise i’d be wasting 100+€ for a teeny tiny chance of actually being able to go because teams like TCG and oRNG are far better than most new teams and other veteran teams.

So they could as well just check age solely. Every 18+ in europe can get a passport succesfully when applying for it as long as they’re not criminals! Just plan the qualifiers further ahead of the tournament in question, say a month or so, gives the winners who didn’t have a passport yet enough time to apply an emergency (which like i said, takes less than a week in belgium). I’m pretty certain noone would care paying extra for a rush job passport when the 4th position already gets 500$/person (more than a rush passport).

But in my opinion the primary reason why you got so little participants is the fact there are no other rewards in the tournament. TOL and TOG (this served for deciding who qualified for WTS #1 iirc) were extremely popular because getting in second round already got you a mini, it’s at least something, and you didn’t need to beat the best of the best to get a decent amount of stuff. If the only prize in the tourney is the ticket to WTS you can know a small group of teams will try because in europe there are 3 active teams that are far above the other active teams, so why bother if your chances to actually win are less than 0.1%. You’d be wasting time for absolutely nothing.

I got movement completely on my mouse (razer naga). 7 strafe left, 8 strafe right, 9 jump, 10 dodge, 11 back, 12 autorun, just move by double clicking the buttons.

Abilities and targetting is keyboard, 1-5 abilities, 6 heal, 7 elite, F1-F3 utilities, F4-F7 class extras. ² is switch weapon, tab is scrolling through nearest target, T for assisting, Y for setting assist.
Technically i only got a small area of 7 buttons and 3 buttons up i need to handle during combat.

Queue from anywhere should just return… if you miss queue from loading screens, sorry but that’s your own fault, don’t freaking zone to other zones if a queue could pop any moment! A lot of peeps want to do wvw or farming (both of which don’t necessarily require much zoning), instead of just standing around in lobby doing nothing.

Just cause a couple are afraid of missing a queue pop, all the others shouldn’t end up shafted.

An MMR leaderboard wouldn’t be the best idea, it could cause the same hostility ranks did in the beginning. Showing MMR just to the player themself would be nice though, gives one an idea how well they’re faring without others having a reason to kitten at being teamed with newbs and whatnot it would spawn.

As to the current leaderboard, an average of all games played would better than rounding up the last 100 games. Cause teams would just play until they get a big win streak and then just stop even if they have a lousy win rate during say 50 games before and still be near unbeatable in scoring.

It’s impossible to give a number on how many games one needs, some are faster to accomodate to game dynamics than others. There are peeps who master classes after like 50 games. But there are dragons around that still don’t grasp the dynamics of pvp and one needs over 1000 games to become a dragon.

You can only judge that you’ve mastered whatever class if you start solidly winning fights where your side and the enemy side is on equal numbers, when you can dispatch enemies rapidly when +1’ing, knowing what the role is for whatever class you’re playing (something like 50% of the pvp population fails at). So you’ll just have to feel for yourself when it feels like you’ve mastered a class.

Better to be arrogant, than assume things are always obvious for everyone.

Turrets aren’t auto win, palador… Those who think they are, are the baddies themselves. You got 2 types of turret gardens. Either they’re clustered together, the opponent just needs to fight aoe heavy (most classes have tools for that) and the turrets will be dropping 1 by 1, all the meantime you just need to ensure the “weak” engi himself can’t put any decent CC.

Or the engi spreads his turrets around, all one has to do is be patient and attack with ranged, attacks, take out the rocket, while remaining outside the fire range of rifle/flame. Once rocket’s gone, kill the engi, flame is little range and rifle doesn’t do much damage.

Either way, a turret engi is easy to beat if you use your brain, and if you’re not built to fight whatever garden he has, just walk away, and he can’t kill you on the chase, because his dps is stuck rooted!

Another attempt to get the attention of Anet. Maybe some of the things are mentioning are already the case.

For the matchmaking, some things that were added to the new system seem to be backfiring. They added a new variable to avoid teams containing multiple of the same class. This was done by upping the “MMR” of the team by a certain amount depending on how many duplicates or triplicates they have. However this isn’t fully working because 2 teams containing 2 of a certain class will even eachother out. Can’t really say how what i’m about to suggest can be properly coded. But the better system would be to reserve slots per class in the pool. Currently the queue is supposedly collecting 20 peeps to slot into 2 teams. What if the queue was set to collect 3 of each class before matching into 2 teams. Take into account not to deplete a stack of classes rapidly though if it slots less (think impopular classes). And don’t use duplicates/triplicates as a means to up the MMR score of a team.

I’m asking to avoid this, is because a problem with triplicates would have, is they’re facing a team that is actually better than them, because the other team averages 100 MMR more than them, because the duplicate/triplicate artificially made em seem stronger. This is also an issue for groups of mediocre players who aren’t using TS to boost their performance. The matchmaking system is upping them to higher level than they truely are (also the reason why top premade teams have to wait a crapload of minutes of games, they’re top of the MMR, and the fact they premade ups them even higher).

Now to MMR ranking itself. There’s a big problem that the “pack” of PvPers are often being put with newbies in their teams. This isn’t fun for the newbies cause they’re getting stomped left and right, nor for the vets who keep getting them in their teams because they’re technically pushing them in a 4v5 (or even worse if they’re being rally bots).
As far as i can see the system of MMR is that a certain score is given to the winners and that certain score is taken from the losers. What Justin once mentioned in a topic is true, just upping the start score of people won’t help this issue as the median would raise along. This is my suggestion:

*Lower the start score, say from 1500 down to 1000-1200.
This is to seperate the new players from the veterans. How to split the start score from the median will follow further on.

*Lower the starting variance, raise the final variance.
This will give new players still a quick grow or decrease in MMR, but less extreme then now, that way lucky starters don’t get instantly stuffed amongst veterans. And with a higher variance in the end, people who once got carried by a great team, but suddenly fare less succesfully will move swiftly to the “pack”.

*While below 1500 MMR, you gain more rank points than you take from your enemies. If you lose you lose less points than your enemies. See the following formula done on the MMR gain/loss based on the current calculations.
actual pt gained = mmr gain * 1500 / your rating.
actual pt lost = mmr loss * your rating / 1500.

*To avoid that too much rating is being fed into the ladder by baddies, do the reverse at higher scores. like this for eg above 2000 rating.
actual pt gained = mmr gain * 2000 / your rating
actual pt lost = mmr loss * your rating / 2000.

Due to the fact there are more baddies than there are great players, you’d be creating more points in the 1500 range than you’d be taking away from 2000+ until more and more are pumped into 2000+ MMR, but baddies will most likely still remain under the 1500. The only difference is the median will be pumped, because 1500-2000 will be the heaviest populated. Baddies will be lingering closer to where they started 1100-1300. This way you split the started from the pack as well.

Ranked being farmed is caused by the system of the leaderboard. I’ve given my opinion about how to improve it a long time ago (a division of points by games played with a minimum of 100 games in the denominator).

Fact they’re using turret engis. Instead of crying over the fact they’re using a braindead build for it. Go teach new players you see failing fights against em on how to beat turret engis then. It’s not that hard to dps down the rocket and then knock out the engi itself. I’ve beaten turret engineers on a pistol/pistol trikit engineer, so it’s not like turret engis are unbeatable.

Ooh cry me a river… For once the pvp reward track was worth something and pve’rs come crying over it :/ Maybe the gift drop rate of it was a little low, does it mean they shouldn’t have put it in the reward track? HELL NO.

Some PvPers don’t mind it being there at all because they also wvw and pve (think underwater frac) and could use it. After all it is an option. You can go for other things instead if the rebreather isn’t your aim.

Instead of kittening about the reward track, kitten about anet putting ridiculously low drop rates for the interesting loot in their gifts.

Being new to pvp isn’t all about knowing your class though, you need to learn your role and the rotations as well. Plenty of games are lost because people think winning as about the fighting and ignore the conquest part of the game (i lost count when i saw newbie zerg someone at close and think they were doing good).

As a DD ele it’s very handy if you have a good map awareness (know when the other spots will be unguarded so you can decap – and cap if your team can handle the fight that you’re about to leave or else you return after the decap). The fight rotation you’ll grow used to pretty rapidly, although it’s a bit getting used to the attunement dancing if you’re used to another class (barring engi).

well blame the idiots who do it in ranked though… If one is unfamiliar with a class they should be doing the dailies in unranked. That a lot are clueless is obvious, often you see players who don’t get the role their class have (guardians roaming as snails instead of defending spots – thieves/dd eles that join in massive team fights while the enemy’s home base is unprotected)

5) Courtyard: Deathmatch is a nice pvp gamestyle, however, it does not belong in the same queue as conquest. Both gametypes are too different for it. Simply because deathmatch becomes a dull zergfest where a side assisting gets an advantage (especially in a game with no designated healers). Plenty of MMOs with a DM PvP style promote small team combat there. Look at how 2v2 and 3v3 arena is far more popular than 5v5 in WoW.

The simplest solution is to pull away courtyard from the queues. And add a seperate ranked/unranked (choose whatever) queue for deathmatch, but make it a smaller teamsize, i’d say in GW2 3v3 would be perfectly fine. That way conquest can remain 5v5 unhampered.

6) 4v5: It still happens too often, games should never start if they’re 4v5 (either by dc or a tosser logging off). As long as a game is less than 20 seconds into the game, the round should be cancelled and a countdown of 1 min should be restarted. Allow 1 dc unaffected by dishonor, but if the person doesn’t return before the game restarts, dishonor that person and pick another person from the queue (possibly with another map selection if you don’t wanna change the steps). Might sound harsh, but say if that person DC’d during the first 20 seconds, he’d still have a whole minute to start rezoning into the map.

That’s my 2 cents for possible improvements. But not all changes were bad, the map selection has been great.

1) The leaderboard: There have been massive complaints about it all over, all very acceptable. Currently this thing is just a massive grindboard, which causes people to just bot their way into the top 50. This is counterproductive for the botters, as they’ll just be playing less themselves, which they might have before in other game modes. But more for the people they’re teamed up with, often bots are too crappy to be counted as a real player.

The grindiness is easily fixed by just putting a maximum requirement of matches played.
The total points should be divided by the amount of games played, but with a minimum of 100 in the denominator. What this will cause?
Players need to play at least 100 games for their score at an optimal position. They can however keep playing after those 100 games to alter their score. Will this give premades an advantage over soloists? yes and no.
Yes, because they’ll have more wins over losses and should get more points.
No, because they’ll be more likely to lose points when losing and NEED to win to get 1 single point, while soloists often end up in the lower region of probability might actually avoid losing points when losing or even gaining 1, and gain more points for winning.
The ranking would imo most likely end up with 1-10 being people from the top premades, but 11-100 will be a big mix of the good soloists and the sub top premades.
Simply because sub top premades win 1 point from beating soloists, but they’ll still be losing 1 point when they’re teamed against the top teams.

2) The probability matrix: Currently this matrix is just too leanient! Top teams have protection on close matches, and with low probality the win reward is still too little different from actually winning. The points should better be altered like this imo:

0-19 -1 -1 0 +1 +3
20-39 -1 -1 -1 0 +2
40-59 -2 -1 -1 0 +1
60-79 -2 -2 -1 -1 +1
80-100 -3 -2 -1 -1 +1

The idea behind my changes, is lower the scores a little at lower results for the low prodability, and take away all protection (the close loss 0) for high probality, because even a close loss when you should roll the enemy should still be punished. This matrix might make the points less for both soloists and premades (aside of the top that barely loses)

3) Grouping: ATM this is placed in the matchmaking algorhythm. In my eyes this is wrong. A group of soloists should NEVER be teamed against a premade.
I’ve mentioned this before, instead of placing a variable in the algorhytm for team size (leave it though for probability calculation), you should put a hardcoded split between teams and soloists.
The simplest system for this is to add a piece of code in the matchmaking that checks the largest teamsize in teamformation:
3-4-5 man teams can only face eachother. 1-2 are neglected by this check, they’re purely used as fillers for 3-4 man teams.
eg:
11111 can only face 11111 1112 122.
5 can only face 5 41 32 311.
3 can only face 5 41 32 311 as well.
2 can face everything but they can only be placed against 5 41 32 311 if they’re being teamed with a 3 man team, because the check should pick the 3 as biggest teamsize.

Why do i suggest this instead of splitting queues to solo and team again? All players will find themselves in a single queue pool, but for soloists it will most likely feel like a solo queue again, except for the cases where they’re used as a filler, in which case they should still have a chance of competing, because their team should still contain an incomplete premade themselves.

4) Matchmaking: ATM it often feels too leanient, i’ve often had 2-3 min queue pops where i end up with a player that seems like he never pvp’d in his life (read dieing instantly, being unable to dps). If what you said queues should take between 2-15 min, then it shouldn’t be i’d be getting teamed with newbies so quickly. I know i’m not high MMR because i’ve never teamed, but i’m not really that low either.

There’s nothing wrong with the class dailies… Sure it forces players to play classes they’re not used to. But you can only improve your own game by knowing what your enemy will do, and you only accomplish that by playing the enemy’s class. If that was necessary, say because you know what they do, then you shouldn’t have a problem with these dailies because you’d be knowing how to play em anyway.
But noone is that good, there’s always something you’ll find out by playing the other side, weaknesses they won’t show, weaknesses you hadn’t figured yet, things your enemies have done wrong.

The only issue is the class spam , but that fixes itself within hours. If you hate that, simple solution, do your dailies when you return from school/work the evening after, by then most will have done dailies and returned to their more accustomed class.

The fact a lot of PVE’rs are drawn to PVP for the dailies is certainly annoying, cause you often find imbalanced games after midnight. This isn’t entirely due to these class dailies. The problem is the rewards in dailies.

PvP dailies are always a guaranteed 3/40 of a reward track by themselves, ignore the 2/40 of winning 2 games (unless you hotjoin). Due to this the reward of the pvp dailies is a lot better than all the others. The only ones that can compete are the fractal ones and the world boss one. Problem is there’s a max of 2 frac ones and only 1 world boss one, in extreme rare cases you might complete completioner with just rewarding pve dailies. Hence they come to pvp for “easy” reward dailies. Aside of the class wins they’re done within 1 game.

Want pve’rs out of pvp, easiest solution is up the pve daily and wvw daily rewards. So they’re worth pretty much equal to what the pvp dailies render.

Why are you crying over 1 class often getting put there? If you want the achiv points of dailies, you only need 7 classes of the 8 anyway, as there are always are 2 class achievements , 2 that are either reward track/rank points/defense/capture/kills.

Since you only need 3 of the 4. If you got 7 classes you should be fine. If you’re greedy and want all reward track bonuses, create an engi then. They’re a nice incentive for players to try other classes. The best way to learn pvp is to experience what your enemy is most likely going to do and for that you need to play all classes anyway.

PS: not exactly been tracking it, but from the feeling so far i’d say from least to most frequent:
Necromancer
Thief
Mesmer
Warrior
Ranger
Elementalist
Engineer
Guardian

There are simple solutions to all points you’re asking for:

1) The sound that comes when queue pops is currently set on the effect sound setting you have in options. Most players (like me) purposely set these low because we didn’t want to be deafened by them + we don’t want peeps to hear it through TS. However this one single sound is an exception. If it’s possible (and should, cause sound options bug out like this when changing sound settings on your pc) should the horn for a queue pop come out of the speakers at a decent intensity so it’s hearable when you’re not sitting at your pc.

2) The algorhythm they’re using is fine, the problem is the variance grows rapidly because anet is afraid high enders have to wait too long for a game and this ruins the experience of the players at the top of the big pack because they’re most likely to become first victims of the longer waiting teams. They could slow the variance again, but then premades will complain about waiting over half an hour again. They should save up the top 50 players in pvp (queue+play) so they’re most likely to be placed against eachother in turns, that way the pack of soloist isn’t used as scapegoats to feed the premades.

3) Expand the heart of the mist with an arena at the outer skirts kinda like th gurubashi arena in WoW. A place where everyone is an enemy of everyone (except party members). There might be bad seeds who’d ruin fights of others, but it would allow players to do 1v1 fights in these arena like fields.

4) I’ve mentioned my leaderboard suggestions several times before on these forums. Make it a points/games played LB where the denominator is at least 100 to enforce people to play at least 100 games to make full use of the scoring.

Always the same crying over eles and engis… The only thing that needs to be changed:
Sigil of strength : cd increase from 1 to 3s.
Blasting fire fields + sigil of battle: add 2 stacks of might instead of 3.
Runes of strength: half all the duration increasers.
And against the AI spam (aka turrets) : make turrets take condition damage.

All your so called op’d cele builds will be toned down. It’s not the classes that are op’d, or their builds or the celestial amulet. It’s the fact might is easily accessible these days that turn all round builds into beefy dps builds.

As to top dps in a dd ele build… Funny how someone claim it’s all lightning whip and drake’s breath. While actually a well timed burning speed + fire grab does more damage than whipping will.

And calling DD ele cheesy… Than ALL builds are cheesy, because all builds are pretty much about grinding a certain rotation. Not the ele class’ fault they feel op’d because of the might meta that’s been raging for months now.

class W/L ratios
build W/L ratios
most picked class
least picked class

For yourself you have these…what point is there to give the numbers overall? You should feel for yourself what class you fare best with, not follow the fotm. Cause that’s a problem that often repeated itself in WoW.

Honestly fighting over the -1 when facing no chance is exagerating… Cause such games rarely happen, as those games are full pugs where NOONE has brains vs one of the top 20 teams in the region.

If such a game happens, you try to salvage it by zerging your home point and play a safe 1 spot game where you toss a roamer to far if the better team zergs you back at your home point. I won’t say it might not fail and you’d still end up with 100- points.
But the odds of these games happening are almost null. Especially when MMR get accustomed again, atm they’ve been flattened out as premaders had their MMR reduced since their solo queue activities (which weren’t 70%+) got mixed with team queue MMR.

I mentioned this suggestion before:
Take into account the largest group size of a team.
5, 4 and 3 man teams are able to be matched up against eachother.
Duos and soloists only against eachother.
What this means is:
311 can face a 5
But 221 can never face a 32 311 41 nor 5.
And 11111 can only face other 11111 1112 or 122. If you add this dynamic into your queue, soloists don’t need their own queue as the queue would pretty much do it automatically, except for using 2s and 1s as fillers for the 3s and 4s.
A 3 man group still stands a chance of doing well against full premade, and even if they don’t succeed the probability will have put them in the 21-39% where even reaching 300 points will ensure they don’t lose points (with 400-499 also rendering a point).

Traditional pvp is what makes gw2 more interesting, if you’re calling WoW’s and SWToR’s pvp tradional. Most MMOs have a pvp setup that’s all about grinding the better equipment, not by being better. The fact gear is standardized in gw2 makes its pvp better.

The problem GW2’s pvp has is that currently unranked (and between season also ranked) queue is being infested with 2 incompatible pvp styles. Conquest and deathmatch. Deathmatch with too large teams have been proven over and over to be ineffective.

GW2 should split conquest with DM, make some extra DM maps (can’t be that hard). And allow a 3 man queue for DM, a 5 man queue for other playstyles.

Also conquest alone doesn’t work well either. Some new gametypes should be added as well.
Some other pvp styles generally liked:
*Capture the flag (alike WSG in WoW)
For GW2 scene: capturing the power orb of the enemy and when you couple them with your own in your own base you empower a battleship. The victors win by being able to escape the island on which both forces are stuck.
*Sportlike games (alike huttball in SWToR)
For GW2 scene: Taking a bomb to the enemy base and have it explode onto a machine in the enemy base. Only one bomb spotted by npc scouts at a time. after a certain amount of hits, the machine is destroyed and the ones with the working machine win.

Although i’d say these 2 types would fare better if the pvp queue was expanded to 8-10 (instead of 5) or else stalemates will be too frequent.

It doesn’t hurt soloists as much as you expect, laserbolt. If you look at the leaderboards before the patch reset only like the top 25 of the team queue could handle a win rate of 60%+ because top teams facing eachother will make eachother lose at times and if not only 1-3 teams will actually be able to push themselves far ahead.

Soloists are less likely to lose points against premades than premades are to lose against other premades. Since soloists against premades are more likely to end up 0-20% or 21-39% where obtaining at least 200 points will give you no loss of points and if you get closer even get points for faring well.

In the topic where i repeated this suggestion i showed that the first place (130 pts at the time) would get like 0,63 points using my system. A premade getting 66% win rate will have LESS points than that because they’d have 66 points from wins (no premade will ever get below 41% probability) and lose most likely between 20-33 points from their losses which are quite rapid when your probability goes up (even at 41-60%).

In short, soloists get an advantage by the probabilty matrix to bypass the advantage premades get by winning more.

PS: silent i didn’t mean use only those who played at least 100 games. People with less should also be included. eg someone with 57-2 having 59 points should get 59/100 = 0.59 points (as 100 is used as minimum in the denominator).

What’s with the daily grind hate? Not all players are incompetent with alts.

Points per win isn’t the way you should value it… I mentioned this suggestion a few weeks before. The leaderboard should be based on points/games played (with a minimum of 100 to enforce people to play at least 100 games to utilize the max point ratio, or else some lucky streaker will stop with say 10 victories and no losses).

Because in your example the guy with 130 points is 3rd, while he certainly does better than the guys with 129 and 124 points since he lost less games!

112-92 130pts would be 130/204 = 0.637
111-115 129 pts would be 129/226 = 0.570
97-114 124 pts would be 124/211 = 0,587

As you can see the guy with more losses but heavier wins is still ranked above the close to 50% win ratio guy. But the guy who lost less is taking the lead. It will also lower the grindiness of pvp as only 100 games are necessary and premades will be up ahead again because they usually have big win % but they’ll have less points (1) every win. If they only reach 66% win rate with their premade, they still stand a chance of being behind a person like that guy with 112-92.

Also the matrix of anet is wrong imo, a more fair set up should be:

0-20 -1 -1 0 +1 +3
21-39 -1 -1 -1 0 +2
40-59 -1 -1 -1 0 +1 (as is)
60-79 -2 -2 -1 -1 +1
80-100 -3 -2 -2 -1 +1

Mostly the 0 turned into -1 (except for even teams small loss). I don’t see why good teams with 100% chance to win should receive no punishment for losing barely. They were supposed to stomp em!

Dishonor needs to come asap… It seems the cheats have found out it’s not active, because since today i’ve been seeing a crapload of 4v5s while it never happened during the first week. It’s starting to ruin the pvp experiences of solo queuers.

MMR wasn’t reset with the patch, it was mixed with solo and team queue, for premaders their MMR took a big dive, because everyone’s MMR was more closely together in solo queue… Profession MMRs were set to your patch MMR. The leaderboard is grindy in a way yes, but it’s not like it’s giving out free points and never taking em back. It does punish peeps if they don’t do well (although it may be a tad harsher, a -1 where all the 0 are now, and for 0-20% a 0 where the 1 is now – same for 2 to 1 would make the LB less grindy). I’ve seen lousy players with quite a few wins and still less than a 3rd of their wins in points.

As to facing pugs, it’s not a leaderboard issue, it’s the fact that the MMR logarythm has been changed to a way that premades wait so long that the variance is raised high enough, you get pitched against pugs, since everyone’s rating is more evened out now. Give it time and you might get the premades only again because MMR will be seperating itself again slowly. Or anet should just lenghten your queues again and make it so the 50-100 top MMRs currently in pvp (fighting & queue) are treated a little seperately so they get pooled against eachother more.

PS: removing unranked isn’t a good option imo. A lot of players (myself incl) like to use unranked to try out classes they’re not comfortable with yet. And refuse to play hotjoin because it doesn’t equal real queue pvp enough to assume you’re actually starting to understand said class.

Would be nice if one could see his account MMR and every profession MMR in the stat overview page. That way a person can actually see how well he or she fares with said class. Gives them an idea whether or not they should attempt that class in ranked pvp or not. ATM too many players are only using their main classes in ranked pvp because they don’t wanna be a burden if the leaderboard will be affected.

I’m not saying here to show it on the overviews after a game because indeed peep bashing would most likely occur if peeps can see eachothers’ MMR. But as it is right now, one can’t exactly see how good he or she is doing because the leaderboards aren’t exactly giving a clear overview anymore.

Funny how premades are crying over the fact the new leaderboard are all about grinding. Won’t deny it’s partially true, but the fact still remains that if you’re a bad player, you still won’t be able to get massive points by purely grinding.

A few days ago i checked my guild’s LB and found someone with 9 wins and 16 losses (i know this guy only pvps with teams), his points was only 3. Because he often lost points by losing. It’s true that in the top you’ll find many soloists who grind craploads of games. It also means they don’t do too badly against premades, or else they wouldn’t be able to stay near the same amount of points as they have victories, because losing a close matchup with still make you lose points.

It’s true the setup right now might be a bit mild, but making peeps lose 1 point every time they lose automatically is bs, because then the leaderboards are just as bad as before, showing only the top teams at the top, doesn’t make em the best players because synergy makes a team the best, not the player specifically.

Let soloists have their field to be able to be rewarded. Solo queue wasn’t the solution either, because it was mostly luck anyway. A good soloist can be a boost for a 3 man pugging up the ranked queue against full premades.

Exactly, for matchmaking class mmr isn’t a factor as it’s set to 0% in the matchmaking. Add also the fact iirc class mmr is setup to the your account mmr on the patch and is just settling right now. So if you were high mmr on your main, your ranger is starting with high mmr, might also be a factor as to why you fail badly on the power ranger, since as you said, it can’t carry teams.

Butch, the fact that mediocre players or complete newbies to pvp get teamed up against top players and premades will hurt pvp more than it will help it. A lot of these players will be demoralized before actually improving their game in pvp, because noone likes being blown out. Or maybe anet should make a specific premade be teamed up against TCG or abjured all night long, just so they can have a feeling of how a night currently is for the newbies and mediocres. It’s even unenjoyable for the better soloists because they tend to be stuck with mediocres as well against premades.

Just because anet thinks more games = more fun!
The teams blowing newbies away, aren’t having fun, except the premades who keep requesting courtyard, cause they kittening suck at conquest.
The players blown away, get tired of it rapidly, so they generally do the daily and quit.

I somehow can’t truely follow where the leaderboard doesn’t do what the game objective requests? Don’t blind yourself with the scorecard of a game, whether you score 5 points or 300 points, you get the same reward as your allies. The only exception is getting 0 points, but technically if you’re on the winning side you should never ever end up with 0 points. The initial cap of a point is awarded points, killing an enemy (aka having done damage on them) renders points if someone finishes them off.
If you ended a game with 0 points, then you should be complaining more about your allies, rather than the game. You somehow bunked a base you didn’t assist in capping and were left to rot by your allies.

I can understand the doubts about CU, but hey they only started on the basics of their engine and design, it’s far from finished on how they want the final gameplay, the pre-alpha is still in principle development mode. The fact they’re letting donators in to check how things go, shows they wanna be open and willing to listen to those players up to a certain point. Are the CSE votes a hype? yes. It’s for MJ and his colleagues to justify the votes they’re getting now. If they screw up with the final alpha version and the beta version, they deserve to lose their lead next year.
But the openess they’re showing i haven’t seen yet by other games in development by other studios. But even then it can’t truely be compared because unlike CU, in most other games in design people haven’t put in money. Which the donators have for CU and MJ’s ideas for the game.

Also saying that CU is for pure PvP players is still in doubt by my vision. The PvP MJ is envisioning in his game is more the blob vs blob you see in GW2, instead of what happens in sPvP. Except it’ll be less aoe based than WvW.
So not sure that CU will be the game for hardcore PvPers who wanna stroke their kitten by being better in smallscale combat.

Most likely some been mentioned already by others in other topics. But just listing up some things that could improve the experience from my perspective (someone whose MMR is within the pack, since i rarely get groups together).

1) Courtyard really doesn’t belong in the standard queue. Team deathmatch is a good pvp gametype. But deathmatch in other games is always focused on smaller teams, just look at WoW as prime example with their arena. 2v2 is the most popular, 3v3 is still heavily played, but 5v5 has little success. Partially it’s because it takes too long to create teams, but it’s also because it ain’t fun if you can’t avoid people dieing within seconds from focus fire. That problem is only intensified in GW2 because there are no primary healing classes! Am i saying that you’d have to change the combat style of GW2? No.
All i’m suggesting about courtyard is to give TDM maps (well currently 1) their own queue of different size, 3 would be perfect for GW2 in my eyes, 2 might be force stalemates if facing double bunker. That way other more objective maps can still be played with 5.

2) Leaderboard, currently there’s soo many complaints that it’s a projection of having played the most. A simple fix for this purpose, make the point system of the ranking a little different. Makes the score: Points acquired * (games played capped to a certain number) /games played. This will give the scoring a little mix, for players who play often it’ll be kinda representation of their win% as points are generally gained/lost according to winning losing, aside of specialties like losing a sure win, or making a superior team tremble. For players who played little games they won’t be able to take the lead with a lucky single win. To clarify some numbers:
Gonna use 100 as cap, that way it would feel as much as possible like a “percentage”
Take the first of the ranking EU: 153 points 176-101 63% With my scoring system it’d be 153*100 / 277 = 55.235 points.
Taking the second of EU: 146 points 174-28 86% With scoring it’s be 146*100/202 = 72.277 points.
Taking another example of the rank but a specialty: 56 points 53-2. With my scoring it’d be 56*55/55 = 56 points.

With these examples i’d wanna show that you might get a lucky streak, but before you’d have full use of your scoring, you’d have to get to the point where you put the cap of the multiplier. Aka if you set it at 100, one would need to play 100 to be able to equal someone with the same “win%” as you, so no lucky 10-0 hitting the top ranks early. And skilled players who play 100 games will be able to beat grinders who played 3000.

3) Matchmaking is currently being a horror for soloists because they get pushed against premades, i’m currently with this suggestion ignoring that matchmaking is far too loose (pre-patch i was around 92% on tpvp as soloist but i apperantly got teamed against a couple of 55hp monks just messing around with alts yesterday – i remember you mentioning prof mmr is ignored atm).
But to handle matchmaking against groups, you should put a limitation that certain type of teams can only be teamed against other certain types.
For example make following setups:
5 man teams can only face 5 , 4 or 3 man teams.
4 man teams can only face 5, 4 or 3 man teams.
3 man teams can face anything.
2 man teams can not face 5 or 4 man teams.
This list is based for largest team in the match. A 2 man team being put with a 3 man team would still be able to be placed against a full team. Soloists are generally used as fillers for this ruling.
In general a gang of soloists would never face worse than 3 man groups, unless their team actually contains a 3+ group itself.

Hilarious how people defend how this map should not be taken out of rotation… If people actually learned to read. My suggestion is NOT to remove it, my suggestions are to ensure it’s not wasted time for the losing side if they get screwed over and face a premade and thus end 0-500! I could care less if the map appears, i just dislike the fact you get no rewards at all because you couldn’t kill 1 enemy in a 5v5 zergfest that ends in a snowball effect after the first wipe against premade teams.

Also, i know this map is only in rotation until 16/12, in my original post i mentioned “between seasons”. Before you start to level my opinion to the ground, actually read what i was suggesting. For the lazy peeps who didn’t, i’ll attempt to shorten my suggestions:

1) If players end with 0 personal score, they still get the standard loss rewards. (because against organized teams even active players will most likely get 0 score)

2) Allow the side getting the most casualties to stand in their start area until the whole team is back there, so they can regroup and attack the winning side from another exit with a group of 5, instead of being forced to snowball an outnumbering force.

yeah, and the people who’d buy such a package are the same type that are buying MORE gems than that anyway. So a sub system would be a loss of money to GW2, because those who used to spend more will spend less, and the others will quit because they refuse to pay for content they don’t know they’ll actually like.

The only ones asking for a sub system are thus people who want to spend less for the same neat stuff but want OTHERS to pay for the supposedly extra content that could possibly be released because anet would supposedly gain more money since more players would maybe be paying them.

Chase.8415:

This is not an issue as the player continue to vote to play courtyard, the playerbase obviously likes the map.

Like i said earlier. The only ones picking courtyard are either people new to pvp who think deadmatch is more interesting than conquest (very rare) and premade teams who know the fact they will be assisting eachother will give them such a massive advantage they’ll most likely win 500-0 (a lot more common).

Explain why else courtyard always gets selected 3 to 5 times or completely not when it shows, because that’s the teamsize required to get the advantage to make it possible with your fingers up your nose.

Also might i add, i’m not complaining about the courtyard being in the rotation, my complaint is that pugs getting set against premades will waste 7-15 minutes for ZERO rank points and ZERO progress in the reward track, because it’s plain impossible to get points against an organized team in that map.

I can understand you wanna put all maps in the rotation between seasons. Although i’m against it. Some maps are too advantageous for premade teams (think push/pull teams on skyhammer, and any premade coordinating in courtyard). It’s unfair to the pugs who are stuck playing either map against a premade.

But let’s ignore the fact you’re most likely bound to lose and accept it. But courtyard needs a drastic change. In skyhammer if you’re bound to lose getting points is still possible by sneak capping a point. But in courtyard there’s kill or rez for getting points. However in the zerg like hell mindset the map creates, the games generally end 500-0 for the premade.

Why am i complaining? If you’re on the losing side against a premade, you’re pretty much guaranteed to end with 5 players having 0 points, and thus get NO reward at all because the server would see them kitten afkers, and that’s plainly wrong. You just had 5 peeps waste 7-15 min for nothing only to please a premade.

So make it so for team deathmatch maps that 0 pointers also get the loss rewards (500 rank pts & reward track advance).

Another issue with courtyard, it’s impossible to wait at start point for all players to respawn in case a wipe is imminent, after a certain time you’re teleported back into the fight area (and generally where you’re being camped). This teleport should only be activated if ALL 5 players are standing in the start point for over 30 seconds. Give the losing team a chance to regroup and attempt to attack the winning side from another exit. Right now the losing team is forced to snowball due to the teleport system.

Going subs would literally kill GW2. A lot of players opted to play GW2 because it’s no sub, in other words a lot would plainly quit it if it happened. The ones that do wanna pay a sub are probably the type of people that spend a lot of money on goodies from the gemstore currently as well. Because they wouldn’t mind spending money for cute minis/outfits. Hell i even don’t mind spending 10€ if i see an outfit that i find nice enough to put on, and i’m pretty certain i’m not the only one of the people that refuse to go sub.

I quit SWTOR as soon as GW2 started because of the whole sub ordeal. I’ve considered returning to SWTOR at times now that free is an option. And the simple principle behind it is, stores with goodies work better than subscriptions because it’s something you can enjoy in-game. “content” shouldn’t be the drive of being the gain in money, it’ll only backfire because content isn’t always appreciated by everyone because people have different tastes. And if a long streak happens of content being a failure in one’s eyes they’ll just quit the game altogether, but if you work with stores, peeps will spend money for something they enjoy in the store. (The only improvement anet can do to their gemstore if they wanna make more money is get rid of the gold->gem conversion, but leave in the gem->gold conversion)

And don’t come here using WoW as an example for a succesful MMO with a sub. Blizzard has always had a MASSIVE fanbase with strong franchises like diablo and warcraft. Because WoW built on from the warcraft franchise, it was infested with lore that a lot of blizzard fans could relate to. Add to that the fact that at the time WoW was released it barely had a competition, Everquest was several years old and the same could be said for DAoC. Due to the fact it didn’t have any more recent competitors and the fanbase, it could draw a lot of players instantly. And could thrive upon it, then there were plenty of years where no decent MMO was released, so it wasn’t endangered at all, i only remember it was after cata was released that the first mention of possible WoW-killers was mentioned. SWTOR, ESO, Rift, 3 examples of games that were deemed WoW-killers but all failed because they didn’t handle their playerbase well, i can’t judge what went wrong for ESO and Rift as i didn’t play em. But SWTOR ruined their game by neglecting to acknowledge a massive decay of players after the free month, which made about 70% of their real subscribers to be stuck on near dead servers. And they waited a half year before merging the dead servers to the live ones, but by then only 10-20% remained of those 70%. If they hadn’t done that mistake in the first half year they possibly could have made subs work for them as well.

Would WoW be as succesful if it was to release now with an up-to-date graph engine? Succesful yes, but not as good as it is. Consider the fact that WoW has been having a decay in playerbase with every other decent MMO that has been released. If those people didn’t have a WoW account in which they spent years on their characters, they would have been less likely to ditch said MMO. It’s the fact they spent sooo much effort in their WoW characters that they need a MMO that will truely throw them off their feet to leave it behind.

Personally my only reason i could easily leave WoW was because my PvP experience was just getting worse and worse without a solid group of people to team with for rated bgs and arenas, and i grew tired of grinding raids over and over.

Which brings us to the point of updates. “WoW does bring more content”, sorry but WRONG. WoW usually gave people a raid with 5-12 bosses every half year with MAYBE 1 5 man dungeon with 3-4 bosses. The only reason it feels like more content is because they force you to grind it over and over for a new set of gear!

So please don’t come here crying for subscriptions, most don’t want it and will run away. And anet doesn’t need it cause they add enough to the gemstore that lures people to buy items which aren’t a large effort to create.

Cheese is spot on on my concerns regarding skyhammer. I loathe there’s a map that’s purely based around pulling and pushing people into little holes or off edges for cheesy 5 points all the time. Be honest, that’s ALL that happens in skyhammer, a bunch of pushes and pulls. It’s not skillful playing, it’s being kittening lucky to have a team that knows how to abuse it best. If there was a layer underneath the main layer where people drop onto if they get knocked off the edges (aka no cheesy 5 points) i wouldn’t mind skyhammer’s presence in the rotation. However since anet refuses to understand that this is the real problem of skyhammer, it shouldn’t be in a ranked rotation.

Sorel on the other hand, doesn’t have a friggin idea at what i’m talking about. if i was afraid of skyhammer cause noone liked it, i wouldn’t mention this issue, cause if noone liked it, i could sleep on my 2 ears on the fact noone would ever pick this. However i know there are a handful of players who love this map. On the contrary i know there are a crapload of players like me who hate skyhammer so much that we prefer to fully pug tpvp (aka queue up by ourselves solo for team pvp, because solo pvp turns up too much as skyhammer). At this point peeps who wanted to do skyhammer for ranked pvp had their queue to infest, and people like me had our exile in the harsher tpvp queue. But after 2/12 there’s a chance we bump into teams that purposely will be aiming for their skyhammer. Which means skyhammer won’t be completely avoidable anymore for peeps who don’t wanna see it at all.

tl;dr: Keep skyhammer out of the rotation, until you fix the cheesiness of getting 5 points per kill using a pull/push off the edge by adding a new “floor” underneath the main field where people are dropped onto and need to run to a specific point to jump up to main area.

Sinject, the fact that cele amulet has more points in total is working as intended. It’s an all rounder amulet, and not every class uses all stats equally effective. Only engi/ele and to lesser extent guardian who could be called utilizing the whole collection.

Therefore other classes generally use other amulets where they can get a bigger punch on what they use more than celestial. Does this make the other amulets worse than cele? No, because they succeed much better on what they’re supposed to do.

Nerfing cele would just force the current cele classes to either go extremely bunkery or more glassy. Not sure it’d be better for the meta if you get engis going back to rabid considering the might spam meta