Guild Wars 2

Asking Anet to delete WvW servers is nothing else than asking Anet to delete the communities that have been forged over the past years. This is the closest possible thing I can image to asking the game mode to commit suicide.

My 2 copper.

~MRA

This is the single most exciting piece of GW2 news I heard this week. Seriously, I even logged in to the official forums for the first time in 9 months just to publicly state how much I like the thought of having a full squad parachute into battle. Cannot wait to see and play this.

My 2 copper.

~MRA

I assume the whole WvW community would appreciate to see siege blueprints (of all “rarities”, and maybe also including traps) added to the material storage.

Thanks for considering.

~MRA

Please allow me to send you my heartfelt thank you. I know this has just been a minor QoL issue, and this may sound absurd to many, but this issue has actually been the number one reason why I stopped playing my ranger alt. I will now certainly reactivate him.

~MRA

Nidome.1365:

I just did a quick check on the matchup to which the OP seems to refer and at the time of posting this:

I’d actually prefer to not call out particular server names here. I’d really like to keep this discussion focused on the scoring mechanics and not about any specific match-up, to keep the thread within the limits of the rules of this forum.

~MRA

Nidome and misterdevious raise some interesting points. I wasn’t fully aware of the significance and impact of the “points per dolyak”. This aspect seems especially dire because it severely increases the effectiveness of unopposed dominance, since during times of opposition, camps do get flipped and dolyaks are getting killed quite frequently. I agree that an uncapped “PPD advantage” is a problem, too.

Still, the unhealthy effectiveness of PPT during unopposed hours is a part of the mix. It can be easily shown that a server can dominate during the 18 hours of daytime and still loose the tally in that segment just because of the 6 hours at night. Please find a simplified and idealized example of such a scenario in the attachment below. (And please excuse that I am using a 700 PPT total, but the numbers are easier to read that way.) I also included an example of a tally that does not give a higher advantage to unopposed hours in that attachment, and I’d argue that the alternate tally is a more accurate reflection of the actual servers’ performance. (The alternate tally is similar to what FogLeg suggested, but I’d argue that you do not really need a separation in “prime time” and “off hours” for it to take effect.)

But I also now agree that the problems of the scoring mechanism are more complex than just the one aspect I discussed.

~MRA

(This is a cross-post from a reddit thread. )

tl;dr: A reminder that nightcapping is still a thing (yeah, I know, what a surprise), and some brief analysis.

I know that I am not telling anything new here. But since we obviously have the dev’s attention now, I’d like reiterate on that subject.

When I woke up this morning, happy to join my server in WvW for an early shift today, just like in the good old days, my motivation was hit pretty hard with that all-too-familiar picture of what is still so wrong with the current WvW scoring scheme:

http://imgur.com/nXkgSvv

Yes, I know, WvW shouldn’t be about the war score, and it’s the fun of the gameplay that counts, after all it’s just a game, and all that jazz. I know, and I keep saying that to myself all the time. But still, why can’t we have both: fun gameplay and a scoring scheme that has at least remotely something to do with the game we experience while playing it?

What you can see quite nicely in that linked graph is the sheer effectiveness of nightcapping. In the six hours starting from reset until about 2 a.m., Red Server was able to achieve a small lead of about 1000 war score over Blue server and of about further 2000 war score over Green Server. In the six hours of nightcapping that followed, Blue Server was not only able to negate that lead, but also ended up with a lead of about 10,000 war score over Red Server and about 14,000 war score over Green Server. That is, nightcapping is an order of magnitude more effective at gaining points than gaining points during times of actual, opposed play. In fact, it is so effective that any lead gained during the 6 hours at night usually cannot be caught up in the 18 hours during the day. And this is the main reason why nightcapping is such a f.o.o. strategy.

There have been (non-conclusive) discussions on fixing that problem for ages, and I don’t want to claim that I have the ultimate solution ready. Just allow me to state the two following observations that might indicate a way to tackle the scoring problem without the need to define some artificial “prime time” slots or to punish a server just because it brings more players at a certain time:

• The nightcapping problem does not stem from the fact a server may dominate in a certain time slot, it stems from the fact that the PPT advantage from dominating unopposed is so much higher than the PPT advantage from dominating while opposed. If there would be a cap to that advantage that is consistently reached during nighttime as well as daytime (e.g., fixed war score points for 1st, 2nd, and 3rd dominating server, in every tick), the night would no longer dominate and would again be only about one forth of a day.

• PPT is a passive way of scoring, it does not take into account player activity. It actually doesn’t even care whether any player is there altogether. PPK on the other hand is an active way of scoring. And it also scales quite naturally with times of player activity. Allowing PPK (or a similar activity based score) to have a more significant impact on the war score total would help having the war score being more representative of what is actually happening during play time. I don’t think PPT has not to go away (holding a keep should be worth it), but it could be toned down significantly.

I don’t know the priority fixing the score has at ANet, but I think the demotivating aspect of the broken scoring system should not be underestimated. Not every player is just in there for loot and reward tracks. I wish the dev’s nothing but success in coming up with a solution.

My 2 copper,

~MRA

Tyler Bearce.3427:

1) Now that you guys have settled around Saturday resets, do you still want resets changed back to Fridays?

Tyler Bearce.3427:

• NA resets on 6PM/7PM PST/PDT Fri (2:00 UTC Sat)
• EU resets on 10AM/11AM PST/PDT Fri (18:00 UTC Fri.)

2) Do the above times seem reasonable to you guys?

Thanks for asking, Tyler, your questions are indeed very much appreciated. Please allow me to answer your thoughtful inquiry with a heartfelt: Kitten YES, omg, please yes yes yes, for the love of the Eternal Alchemy, yes, do it, do it fast, do it now, just do it, yes please, i want this, yes this, yes, yes, the answer is YES!!!!1!

Please also allow me to congratulate you to your wise decision of considering reset times independently for NA and EU. This is, in fact, a splendid idea for giving the communities on both sides of the Atlantic the best experience possible. My Kudos to you and the whole team.

Yours faithfully,

~MRA

I’d say there are very good changes. Many thanks especially for bringing the strategic component of upgrading your objectives by protecting your dolyaks back to the game.

As for the changes to the defeated state, I’d say this is a very good one. I’d even encourage you to explore the idea of “no rezzing of defeated players at all” (like in spvp). I know that this may sound like an annoyance at first, but the idea behind this is the following:

There is still no effective attrition mechanic for a “dumb playing but way bigger zerg” in the game. Assume a zerg outnumbers an opponent 2:1. There is a fair chance that the bigger zerg wins and the smaller one wipes, even if the smaller one absolutely killed more players in that process than the bigger one. And once the fight is over, the bigger zerg just simply rezzes all defeated players and is as good as new. If both parties meet again, it is likely that scenario will just repeat itself, and we will eventually see the smaller zerg taking a severe hit to its morale and stop trying, allowing the bigger party to dominate without opposition.

If rezzing of defeated players would be disabled altogether, then there would be a way for smaller squads to do (a somewhat) lasting damage to a bigger one even if they wipe. The bigger squad would have either to waste time and regroup after a tough win, or would eventually be worn down if they keep constantly pressing forward. The underdog however would not really see any difference since the squad has to port and regroup anyways. Hence, the system would open up tactical opportunities even in a severe unbalanced setting, and it would help to push more unbalanced match-ups towards equilibrium, without punishing a stronger server for winning or playing well.

Just my 2 copper,
MRA

John Corpening.9847:

We will keep resets on Saturday to address issues and once we are in the clear we will evaluate the best time for WvW reset both for us as a company as well as for our players.

That’s very sad to hear. I assume you have read the arguments given in this thread, so I assume you must by now know what this means for your established WvW community. Maybe the move will turn out in your favor and new players will come in to replace the old ones leaving. Then you will have done everything right from your metrics perspective. But please be aware that the players you have forced out of the game were actually the most loyal and steady advocates of the game mode in the past 3 years.

For the sake of a game mode I have loved for over 3 years, I can only plea to you to do something totally crazy and — instead of blindly following your metrics — to ask your loyal players what reset time they deem best for serious WvW. Since, if you allow me to close with a quote from better days: ‘’The most important thing in any game should be the player. We build a game for them.’’

My two copper, and last words.

~MRA

zhonnika.1784:

Unpopular opinion: It’s 2-3 hours of the week; I’m actually fine with it. If my guild doesn’t rally, I’ll follow along with an EU guild and then rally as normal in the evening. Carry on as normal.

You should never feel the need to excuse for your opinion. But I think you are missing the point.

It’s not about the “2-3 hours” of reset. They are not that important. It is about the 24 hours at first, 16 hours now, of meaningful WvW playtime that gets lost by pushing the reset further into the mid of the weekend. This drastically reduces the time of meaningful play during the weekend, aka the prime time of prime times.

Rule of thumb:

• WvW playtime just before the reset: meaningless playtime since the match-up is decided, and generally accepted as time when mindless zerging may take place outside of EotM
• WvW playtime immediately after the reset: quality playtime when match-up is still fresh and undecided, and when all competing servers usually have a fair chance of equal coverage

~MRA

Please allow me to argue completely from an EU perspective, since this is the situation I know pretty well.

John Corpening.9847:

We have many more players logging in on Saturday than on Friday which means with this change many more people will be available to experience the rush of claiming objectives for their world during reset.

But that is exactly the point: People like to play on weekends. And — face it — a weekend starts on Friday evening. Before the planned move, we had potentially (from Fri 20:00 CEST to Sun 23:59 CEST) about 52 hours of fun WvW playtime. It doesn’t matter that there are “more players on Saturday than on Friday”, it was fun weekend playtime for those players on Friday, too. With the planned move, we are going to loose about 16 hours of that time, with merely (from Sat 12:00 CEST to Sun 23:59 CEST) 36 hours remaining. For no convincing reason.

Also, please don’t overestimate the effect of the reset at a match-up. Yes, the initial rush is fun, and everybody should experience it at least once. But essentially nothing that is won in the first early hours of a match-up survives the first night following it. The match-up isn’t decided by a reset, it is decided by coverage. The nice part of the weekend is that night-coverage is not that much of an issue from Friday to Saturday and from Saturday to Friday, since even on lower tier servers people are willing to spent a night in WvW. Which means that the match-up usually stayed fresh and fund during the whole weekend. This drastically changes during the night from Sunday to Monday. Everything that happens afterwards is dominated by night-coverage, and the fun of the match-up usually vanishes at the same time.

I absolutely thank you for your initiative to make the move “not as bad” as it was announced in the OP, but this will still be bad for many EU players. For EU, Friday evening (20:00 CEST) was a near perfect time slot. It was the start in the weekend. People had time to get home from work and were eager to spent an evening in WvW. People woke up on Saturday morning at thought “heck, why not, let’s spent some fun hours in WvW before lunch”. The move will explicitly kill those two scenarios, and replace them by nothing.

I stay by my point: If the WvW reset time changes, this will be a net loss for the WvW community.

My 2 copper.

~MRA

Chris Barrett.3280:

WvW’s reset time will be changed to be 24 hours later in NA and EU. It will now occur on Saturdays instead of Fridays.

From an EU perspective, this is very, very bad news, indeed.

This essentially means that for 50% of the weekend (and especially during Saturday, the prime time of prime times in WvW) there will be no meaningful WvW match-up going on. People playing on Saturday will be forced to play in the mindless karma trains we now see during Fridays, which is pretty much the opposite of what serious WvW players want to play. I’d say this change has the potential break the neck for many EU WvW players.

For me personally, I always had Saturday as the one day I was able to play GW2 the most. This kind of kills my WvW playing routine. I certainly will not become AWOL since I will always fight for my server, but I am pretty sure that this means I will no longer be able to play as intensively as I have played before.

My sad 2 copper.

~MRA

Tyler Bearce.3427:

Agreed. Things are a little too skewed in favor of defense currently and we have a few changes in mind. We want defenders to have an advantage, just not quite so extreme of an advantage.

Woaoaoa! Hold on, please. I have not been invited to a beta test of the new maps yet, so I cannot know whether stuff has changed in such a significant way, but when in this game have the odds ever been “too skewed in favor of defense”?

If anything, a buff to defense is still very much needed to bring an end to this long-running, low-effort, “raze the tower in under three minutes, and then move on to the next” fast-cap meta. The guild tactics shown in the past POI could finally be a first step into the right direction.

Chaba has been talking about the long-siege, a type of play that — I’d like to point out — many of us (but of course not all, and maybe not even the majority) consider the essence of a good WvW matchup. The long-siege was something that has been pretty commonplace in the early days of WvW, before builds and tactics had been min-maxed. But over the months (years), with tactics becoming more optimized towards scoring PPT, and scouts being harder and harder to find, the fast-cap meta took over. Personally, I haven’t experienced a decent siege in months. While a long-siege would still be very well possible today, commanders (and zergs) have become way to impatient to spent the required time, and the next free fast-cap is always waiting just around the corner.

The true problem of the long-siege is this, again correctly identified by Chaba:

Chaba.5410:

As you go about balancing defense against offense in the new map, consider finding a way to hold player interest in the long siege.

Making the long-siege more interesting is the core term here. Making an objective easier to cap is certainly not making it more interesting for the defender. And I’d even argue it is not making it more interesting for the attacker either, unless she/he is completely loot-minded. The dilemma of a scout is that there is too much donwtime and too little activity while doing the job. (And don’t get me started about rewards.) And if an enemy finally arrives (usually zerg-sized), there is most of the time only so much the scout can do other than crying for help. Find mechanics to make both (the downtime and active defense) more interresting and engaging, and you have hit the jackpot here.

There are plenty of us scouts and builders who love the strategic RTS-like aspect of WvW. We rarely see any of the loot or WXP other players farm so efficiently. (Heck, I spent 2000+ hours in WvW, and I am merely at WvW level ~500.) But we accept this since we want to play strategically for our server.

If you want to respect the playtime of your scouts and builders, don’t make them just impotent bystanders who see the objective they looked after for many hours being razed in mere minutes.

My 2 copper.

~MRA

Also, if your attacking golem zerg is brain afk hitting the door, consider planting a wall of reflection just in front of the door. You will be surprised how many golem drivers have no problem with hitting themselves hard …

Condis. Golems are weak to condis, it melts their gigantic health pool quite nicely. Also, it keeps them in fight so they cannot chicken out if the rush fails.

I am all for special events like these to make stuff a little bit interesting from time to time. But, seriously, just the thought alone of having even more golem rushes (for more than just this week) makes me think about staying away from WvW for a while.

Golem rushes are the easy mode of WvW. It is the low skill, low effort, time efficient (yet high coin cost) solution to razing maxed T3 keeps even if the keep is defended. The only side having fun at a golem rush is the attacking side, since the other side is usually doomed to just watch a keep go to waste with pretty little counter-play that they could bring. And I am saying this as someone who has experienced both the receiving and delivering end of a golem rush plenty of times.

This is the in-game equivalent of giving the finger to all those numerous players who put hours, coin, and much effort into upgrading keeps, scouting them through periods of low coverage, keeping the economy going, and defending keeps in actually interesting siege battles instead of just banging their head to a door with the karma train like everybody else, just to see their keeps razed in sometimes even below 3 minutes.

As for the perspective of where WvW should be heading, we don’t need more golem rushes. We are actually still in desperate need for a mechanic to limit their no-fun effectiveness.

If this is just a one week of craziness then, heck, why not, let’s do some all-omega raids. If anything, it will help to reduce the supply of golems. But, please, don’t ever even think of this as a testing event for a future permanent update.

Gaile Gray.6029:

One workaround mentioned in this thread and confirmed as functional: Unequip all kits (do not have them in your skill bar) when you attempt to complete this achievement and you should be able to do so.

I cannot confirm this. I tried swimming multiple times, with different (land and water) non-kit skill sets. As soon as I am forced under water, the rifle is gone.

I can only quote /u/Lenitas who already summed it up perfectly in a recent reddit post:

If a weapon is required, please make it an inventory items [sic!] instead of a merchant bundle.

MeanCoffeeBean.2073:

Because not all professions have equal access to condition clears.

Power can be mitigated with active combat and toughness/vit. Condis cannot.

Well, there is “minus incoming condition duration” gear and food, which is kind of an available counter to conditions for all professions. The food is used quite frequently in WvW when facing condi-heavy opponents.

However, I am not against having a defensive stat to counter conditions explicitly. If I recall early dev posts correctly, the initial concept saw toughness as the primary attribute to counter direct damage, and vitality as the primary attribute to counter conditions, although it did not end up to be that clearly defined in the final game. I could imagine choosing one of those two attributes (vit?) and let it give some “minus incoming condition duration”, too.

~MRA

John Smith.4610:

As an addendum OP, you salvaged 145 ectos for 279 dust.

Wait a minute …. that’s 1.92 dust per ecto as opposed to the expected 1.77 dpe!!!!1!

This mean RNG is clearly broken. Anet, pls fix asap.

~MRA

\howmanycharsare15chars?

Luna.9640:

How about you FINALLY move to 2015 and move to better forum platform that supports grid-view or folder-view ?

I fear it would take a little bit more than just cleaning up some folder view to bring this forum to 2015. First of all, it would mean to finally get rid of the stone-age message board forum concept and instead use a system that utilizes the modern techniques that have come up in the past 10 years, like Q&Aing, up-voting, threading, and notifying. After all, this forum site was already conceptually and technologically way behind its time when it was first released.

However, such a technological and conceptual upgrade cannot be done lightly, as it will at least require a completely different software (plus time and money). And frankly I no longer assume an upgrade to happen at all, now that Anet has been rolling with this message board system for such a long time. I would already be happy if a simple 1995’s concept like a “thread last updated time-stamp on thread overview” technology would be possible.

Just my 2 cents.

~MRA

Mark Katzbach.9084:

So, let me know what you all think of this alternative plan:
Instead of making the archived subforums unavailable to read, we can ‘unpublish’ the subforums from the front page. These subforums would still be accessible (read-only) via a direct link to the page, but would not show up as links in the forum index.

This is a way better solution, thumbs up for that. Please allow me quote your very own John Smith on that topic:

John Smith.4610:

Archiving is one thing. Deleting data is a crime against humanity.

While thinking of it, the sections on the front page can be folded/unfolded on click, can’t they? Wouldn’t it be an even more simple solution to just have the Archive section minimized by default? This should take approximately one line of JavaScript code to realize.

~MRA

Justin ODell.9517:

I’m really curious as to how you guys are figuring out if the other team is a pre-made. We don’t tell you, and looking at the data there are very few party rosters compared to solo.

If you have the data available, maybe you could just post some statistic on the distribution of what kind match-ups (x% of 2-2-1 v 3-2, y% of 5 v 2-3, etc) have been made since the release of the new system? If older data is available, you could even compare that statistic to the kind of match-ups made in the old system; thereby using the data to show us whether it has improved or not.

In the absence of reliable aggregated data, people will always fall back to anecdotal evidence, which usually does not help the discussion.

~MRA

Chris Whiteside.6102:

‘…instanced co-operative group based ‘challenging’ content…’

I am little bit disappointed to hear that. I was always hoping GW2 would have the courage to build on past experiences and to try out new concepts of inclusive, open raid events. It’s sad to learn that we are heading for the same old exclusive type of “you are not welcome here” content.

~MRA

Crystal Reid.2481:

Is there still an issue of players “rushing to 80” when a large percentage of the player base already has at least one 80?

Yes and no. I am convinced the inclusiveness of GW2 is a unique property that this game needs to be preserved. There are enough “1337 only” MMOs out there, and I would really rather like to see GW2 explore new ways of inclusive gameplay then to repeat the same old exclusive gameplay that drove me away from other games.

Having said that, I’d say if you roll out raid content as “requires level 80” content then I think most people are fine with such a requirement. After all, getting to level 80 in a non-rushed way somewhat equals the time a new player needs to learn to play the game, anyways.

However, if you are not careful with the content you design, and an intended “requires level 80” slowly morphs into a “requires level 80 with fully ascended gear, hyper-expensive runes, and other knick-knack can only be obtained after a lifetime of farming” then I’d say we have a problem. The challenge of a good raid should be organization and active gameplay, not gearing up.

And when organization is a key element of a raid event anyways, why not have a number of roles that are doable by level 80s and non-80s alike?

My 2 copper.

Marcus Greythorne.6843:

A player has to have at least one lv.80 to unlock raids accountwide. Normalize gear and level for raids so that player “newthiefy” (lv.23) can play a raid with his lv.80 friends while he is on the same power-level as they are.

Nice idea.

And while we are at it and normalization is a thing: Anet could even reconsider the old “sidekick” concept in it’s original design: Each level 80 character might “sidekick” a non-level-80 character up to level 80. This would lower the level barrier to enter a raid if it would require level 80 stats.

~MRA

For the sake of discussion, and since it fits the topic, I’d like to re-post this suggestion I made over two years ago.

Category
Stagnation

Proposal Overview
Let world events be a thorn in the side of the the leading team to give the two other teams a chance to catch up.

Goal of Proposal
I still think that the “winning team” in WvW could use a little bit more opposition for being in lead. Many times both “losing teams” attack each other and I have yet to see some real cooperation to attack the current number one. Part of me believes that this will maybe never happen. (After all, all enemies have red nameplates and drop loot.)

I have a suggestion how PvE style events could help to balance the relative strength by putting some mob pressure against the leading team. I call this the Release the Kraken proposition. It is nothing which can be implemented immediately, but it uses only game mechanics that are already in place so it may be an option for the future.

Proposal Functionality
The idea is as follows: Assume that there is an additional map which is equally accessible to all three parties, such as the jumping puzzle in EB (but I guess it should better be new area). The center of this area should be hard to get to (traps, jumping puzzle, enemy interference, and all that stuff). At the center is a shrine/place of power/red button or whatever. This macguffin can be activated by any player from any team, except by players of the currently leading team.

Once activated the following happens: A huge creature is summoned to appear at one random castle/keep/tower of the leading team (equal chances, but at locations controlled by the leading team only!). This could be a Kraken rising from the water to attack Dreaming Bay, Gojira trashing Stonemist Castle, or whatever fits the mood. The creature is out to complete and utterly destroy the stronghold and anything in its way. This means that even maximized guards should not be a threat to it, and it should take an opposition of at least a small zerg to make it a fair fight.

The idea is that the creature should be a serious distraction to the dominating team. It should be as if a small “4th faction” joined in the fight. If it remains unopposed for too long it will shatter walls, doors, defenses, etc and it will ruin coin and resources spent to the fortification. (Maybe it should even be able to “downgrade” already made upgrades.) And it won’t go away until it has been beaten. So it should be a problem that the leading team has to address immediately, and this should give the two other teams an opportunity to push forward.

With the shrine/place of power/red button there would be another objective that is worth fighting for. The leading team should try to block any other faction that tries to unleash the beast, and both other teams have a fair motivation to activate it. Plus, since it can be activated by a player of any opposing faction, both loosing teams do have a real incentive to cooperate in the mini dungeon. When they don’t attack each other, they might outnumber the defense 2:1.

Associated Risks
Plenty. Events in GW2 are always a little problematic because they pose a risk of getting stuck, which of course would be catastrophic in the scenario sketched above.

Also, these WvW mega bosses should neither happen to early nor too often. I’d propose that the event should not be able to be activated for some hours after a match started, and it should not be able to be activated for some hours again after it had been active.

Bosses should also not carry any more loot than, say, a keep lord to prevent non-WvW related farming from disrupting the match-up.

I am sure that there are many more practical problems with this suggestion, but I really think a concept similar to this suggestion could be realized and would be a nice addition to the game mode. Personally, I would really like to see dynamic events to take a more relevant role in WvW than just to cash out rewards for taking objectives, or being completely unrelated like Wurmy, Grubby, & Co.

~MRA

John Corpening.9847:

I’d like to kick of a discussion on scoring in WvW.

Thanks, John. That’s really appreciated.

Ok, time to unshelve those old proposals …
(blowing away the dust from a pile of paper) …

Category
24 hour coverage

Proposal Overview
Reduce ppt and significantly increase the war score gain for stomping enemies.

Goal of Proposal
Very roughly speaking, currently 75% of the war score gain is generated by holding objectives (“ppt”), and only 25% is generated by player actions like taking flag posts or stomping enemies with the Bloodlust buff. Thus, night-capping (which generates approximately four times as much ppt advantage as dominating during prime time, without much player interaction involved) still prevails as THE first-order optimal winning strategy in WvW. This generates a lot of frustration among the majority of prime-time oriented players since a server can essentially counter a mediocre playing performance by sheer night time coverage. The goal of this proposal is to shift the focus from time based scoring (ppt) to player action based scoring. This will break the dominance of night time coverage and give players an option to win the match-up by a solid performance during the prime time.

Proposal Functionality
The proposed functionality change could be as simple as just dividing the ppt score gain of objectives by two and doubling (or even quadrupling) the war score gain from stomps. I would even propose to implement a flat war score gain for stomping without the Bloodlust buff, and an increased gain (maybe tiered, but I’d prefer it to be not) if the server is under the effect of Bloodlust. These changes should be very easy to implement with the existing system. However, the actual numbers here should be subject to play testing. I would propose a target average war score split of at least 50% each for ppt and stomps, or even a split of 75% war score from stomps and 25% from ppt.

By shifting the war score focus from time based scoring (ppt) to player action based scoring you can counter the dominance of off-time coverage and generate a mindset where players feel that their actual actions do make a difference. You wouldn’t even have to define some artificial “prime-time” window to make this work: The changes will come into effect and scale automatically whenever players are playing. As a positive side effect, the performance after reset and at the weekends will also have a slightly higher impact than the performance during work days. The change would also increase the impact of mid-sized roaming groups since every small-scale fight will now contribute to the war score.

Let me add that I wouldn’t say that ppt has to go completely. I am all for incentivizing to hold and upgrade fortifications, maybe even by tiering the ppt gain of a fortification with its upgrade status. I am just arguing that scoring ppt (and, hence, coverage) shouldn’t be the single most match-up deciding statistic.

Associated Risks
I don’t see associated risks for the (software) system as such. All necessary mechanics are already in place an can be easily tweaked.

As with all scoring systems, people will try to min-max and find loopholes. Hence, the actual numbers have to be balanced using simulations and play testing. One risk might be two servers working together and “trading stomps”, thereby generating war score without fighting. This might be countered by using a similar cool-down mechanic as with the WXP gain of killing players.

Another abuse might be a leading server willingly not playing WvW to reduce the both remaining servers capability of scoring stomps. This should be countered by the fact that ppt are still in the game and does still have an impact.

However, I understand both exploits described above as rather artificial and not really something that will happen in practice. The majority of players of a server do not follow any agreements anyways.

Lastly, it should be mentioned that the proposal assumes an existing WvW community that plays at least kind of regularly. On servers with a very, very low WvW player base, the proposal will not have any significant effect.

My 2 copper.
~MRA

To throw my 2 copper in the ring, I always liked the following idea about how to limit the number of “unwanted” commanders on a map: A new squad is not simply formed by a commander clicking on a “create squad” button. Instead, if a commander-to-be requests to form a squad, all players within earshot (in WvW: on the whole map?) get a timed pop-up asking:

“Commander Whatshisface asks you to accept him as your commander and to join his squad. [accept and join squad] [decline]”

If, and only if, a certain threshold number of players (say, five?) accept and join, then the squad is actually formed and the commander icon will be visible on the map. If not enough players join before the timer runs up, then the “form squad” button will go on a cooldown to prevent spamming.

With influx of new commander icons we currently see/will see because of the September patch changes, having such a feature might become relevant. After all, as the old zen riddle says: If a commander has his tag on and no one follows him, is he then actually a commander?

~MRA

Michael Walker.8150:

Start with removing one big piece of debris in kessex hills every month and add one single finished house in LA every month and before you know it you have a living world.

This. Couldn’t have said it better.

~MRA

Lishtenbird.2814:

For me, the extra space there looks exactly like something to put “projected profit” into.

Thanks for doing the images. Image #3 of your mock-up is exactly what I came here for to propose. Thumbs up for you.

~MRA

Curtis Johnson.8456:

Stormdancer.4972:

Just being able to filter based on items usable by the current character is a huge improvement. Thank you!

I don’t see why removing the ‘under vendor price’ items would cause any risk to the market – simply kick them back to the person who put in the order!

If simply kicking them back was something simply done I’d agree. The sheer quantity of orders to process posses some risk.. and one wrong bit of processing might require a TP roll-back.. which would be … scary.

Why not slowly and continuously let “the government” buy all those under-priced items and pay the sellers (i.e., the game itself quietly buying all that stuff piece by piece over months and destroying the items)?

This would also mean a lower money influx to the economy when compared to returning all items to the suppliers and forcing them to vendor them. And the seller cannot complain, too. After all, she agreed to sell the items to that price, TP tax included.

~MRA

nethykins.7986:

I know this sounds like a no-brainer, but:
Don’t you think a well developed, clear and concise tutorial would have at least curbed some of the issues you have with new players “understanding” the game, instead of changing the core game pacing?

This. So much this, too.

JonPeters.5630:

Actually not. Generally speaking tutorials are hard to implement, boring for experienced players and overwhelming for new players.

It’s a little sad that you think this way, since you already have one tutorial that does not seem to be too difficult to implement and that works pretty great and seamlessly with your game: Train with the militia is maybe the best piece of tutorial I have played in a game for a long time. It trains how to block, how to avoid blocks, and how channeling skills work without the player even realizing that she/he is just playing a piece of tutorial.

I always imagined how great a real GW2 tutorial could work consequently using the same principle. Just discard that lazy “do one heart in your starter zone” level 2 personal story step and replace it by one or more actual tutorial hearts near the newbie starter area. You don’t have to give all tutorials out at once, you may distribute them over levels 1 to 10. Using the home instance you could even give profession specific tutorial hearts (yeah, right, one could actually USE the home instance for something!) like a ranger learning how to lock its pet on target, how to tame new animals, and how to swap pets in combat.

And if you fear that you could bore veteran players, you could always give the “heart NPC” a dialog option that would let you fill the heart instantly.

~MRA

Example 2: “… leader will die. Rest will fall in line” (high impact)

Imagine that at some future release we will learn of an assassination attempt. After some investigation we learn that there is not only one, but actually two possible targets: Queen Jennah and Marshall Trahearne. Both targets are to be taken out by assassins at two totally different locations. In a classical cliche climax, time is running out and we have to split up the party. So the player has to decide:

• Join Marjory and Kasmeer to save Queen Jennah. After a hard boss fight, the Queen is saved. But sad news arrive: Rox and Braham were stopped from meeting with Trahearne by some overzealous Pact captain, and now the Marshall is lost …

• Join Rox and Braham to save Trahearne. After a hard boss fight, the Marshal is saved. But sad news arrive: Marjory and Kasmeer were unable to fight off the assassin, and now the Queen is lost …

• Or, as a surprise twist of events, after choosing one of the above options, the story will turn out to be just like the sick mind game the Joker played on Batman in The Dark Knight movie. (Enough said, I don’t want to spoil that movie for anyone.)

So after two weeks Anet will again go with the option that has been chosen by the majority, and a major recurring character will be lost. (Although, the third option might actually only work when only the very first try per account is counted.) This will, of course, pose quite a challange to the writers, but in the end it will have been the players’ choice.

Example 3: What a difference a silver makes (low impact)

Assume that in the Gates of Maguuma release, in the township of Prosperity, there would have been a quaggan named Drooburt. Drooburt was having a hard time, and he desperately needed a drink, but he made some poor decisions in the past and now he is out of money. Hence, he started asking anybody passing by for some spare copper, or even just a spare fish, to help him out.

Unknown to the players, Anet would track in the background how much money had been donated to Drooburt, and how many players talked to him. There would also have been a reasonably high target amount (like: 5s per player who talked to Drooburt). Depending on whether that target amount is met or not, it is later disclosed that one of two scenarios happened.

• If the total amount collected was too small, then in a later release the players would learn that Prosperity had been overrun by mordrum. Not far from the ruins of the town players can meet a bar regular who escaped the assault. He would be telling the players a sad story of poor Drooburt who was just out of luck. He wanted to leave town, but he just didn’t have the money. He even started begging, but people were cold-hearted and he was not able to raise enough money to leave. And now, he has been killed by the Mordrem and his cold yet smelly body is rotting in the hot sun of Dry Top.

• If the amount was high enough, Prosperity would still be overrun, but Drooburt is nowhere to be found. Instead, he can later be found having bought a piece of land in central Lions Arch. (The property prices had been pretty low for some strange reason!) He is happy to meet the players again and tells them that their donation really made a difference for him and helped him to get out of that awful town just in time. He also tells the players that, using the money, he had some luck investing in linen lately, and that he is considering to open a business in LA once the city has been rebuild. Some people warned him from doing so since a certain Evoon Gnooshbloob (if he remembers the name correctly) would control the linen prices in LA and he would not be amused by a competition. But hey, how bad can that Evoon guy be?

Anet could disclose that this decision was based on the players actions afterwards. Such a change might not be a big one, but it would add some nice complexion to the world.

~MRA

a plotline that expands and evolves based off of your decisions and actions

Carried away from thinking about it, I came up with some examples how the GW Living Story could make players’ actions really matter:

Example 1: Rytlock, the ghost buster (moderate impact)

I assume we all know what happened at the end of the Dragon’s Reach Part I release. If you don’t and you don’t want to be spoiled, please skip ahead to Example 2.

Now assume that after the boss battle, Rytlock did not immediately rush heedlessly after his sword. Instead, first, the mysterious rift opens. Then, before anything else happens, a timed dialog box (say, 5 seconds?) would appear for the PC and give her/him two options:

• Stop Rytlock!
• Trust Rytlock that he will do the right thing.

If the second option is chosen then we end up with what actually happened in the story. If the first option is chosen, the PC tackles Rytlock just in time, and the rift closes, leaving Rytlock without Sohothin in Tyria. In that case, Rytlock would be of course be totally upset of the player and maybe even refuse to talk to her/him anymore. (But hey, Rytlock isn’t resentful, or is he?)

These are two options. But how does the story continue? In the background, Anet would count how many times either option has been taken. After two weeks (i.e., with the next release) the option that has been chosen more often would be declared canon, and the writers would have to work with that turn of event.

The actual difference to the developers might be not always be as big as one might think at first. Here is how the stories might go on: With the currently canon story of Rytlock missing, NPC X might approach us with an idea on how we could follow Rytlock, rescue him and retrieve the sword. (My money is on Magdaer being used for that.) So we will open a rift to wherever-that-is and go on a rescue mission in ghostland. In the other plot option, we might be approached by the same NPC X with a story of Rytlock having retrieved Magdaer from the smith who reforged it. He used some some magical mojo on it, and now he is vanished and there is a mysterious rift in his office. Imperator Smodur has commanded all of his subordinates to stay away from that kitten thing, but maybe the PC can help and go on a rescue mission in ghostland?

We, the players, would of course never know that the differences were just minor, since we will only ever learn the one and only canon storyline anyways. But we will know that it was our decision that was shaping this story.

(continued)

Arghore.8340:

Living Story = Living World ?

I use the terms interchangeably. Yes you could argue that there is a difference between “story” and “world” (with “story” being the transition of the states of the world, while the “world” is the subject that is being changed by the story) but that sounds somewhat like making simple things seem more complicated than they actually are.

Konig Des Todes.2086:

To me, a living story is a plotline that expands and evolves based off of your decisions and actions – rather than a story that is on a single railroad. Dishonored, the Mass Effect trilogy, Dragon Age, The Witcher (from what I’ve heard as I’ve yet to play it) and to a small degree the personal story are such stories to various degrees and designs.

You raise a very important point here and I agree with your take that “Living” usually implies (should imply) that the players’ actions drive the story. But I think your examples are not valid for that concept, since they do (as one-time releases) lack the “evolution based on based off of player decisions and actions.” Yes, those games do ask the player for decision, but the outcome of those decisions is preconceived and all possible outcomes are already implemented. There is no evolution along the road.

I’d argue a more fitting example would be the living story of the Legend of the Five Rings CCG. (While I am at it, best regards to Ree Soesbee.) L5R has a vast lore behind the card game with a storyline that spans over multiple generations, and that is moving on continuously. From time to time, IRL card tournaments are held and the outcome of the tournaments (i.e., which deck won and how) are interpreted by the lore writers to define smaller or greater details of the continuing story. So the story might go on in one or another direction based on the fact that a corrupted Mantis clan deck won the Origins tournament, and not a Lion clan one. IMO, this is an approach that provides a truly Living Story in its purest form, where the community decides how to move forward.

Based on that definition, the only part of GW2 that we have seen so far and that is truly Living Story/Living World is the outcome of Cutthroat Politics, with Ellen Kiel established as a Captain and the mysterious E … pardon, I mean Evon Gnashblade been put in his place. I really hope Anet will revisit this concept and will find ways to give player decisions more impact in the future. Ultimately, I think we would all be very happy if we could make decisions like “Who are going to stomp next after Mordi, will it be Kralk or Jormag?” But even very small or mundane decisions would be very welcome.

However, I also understand that a PC game of a quality like GW2 has a much, much harder time to adopt flexibly to player decision than “just” the written lore of a card game.

(… rewind …)

Konig Des Todes.2086:

The Witcher (from what I’ve heard as I’ve yet to play it)

Dude, by all means, go play that game! With respect to story and immersion, The Witcher is awesome. Well, the controls are a little bit strange and combat might be considered too simplistic, but that’s the only bad thing I will ever say about that gem. Since Season 2 is on hiatus anyways, NOW would be a perfect time to play it. (Actually I am myself currently catching up on The Witcher 2.)

~MRA

Illconceived Was Na.9781:

This would not have happened if the hard-core farmers had voluntarily chosen to give up a fraction of the maximum possible loot.

When designing incentives, you do not assume that “people voluntarily give up a fraction of a possible advantage” since, in practice, this essentially never happens.

Anet needs to step in an fix their incentive structure such that the goals of their different demographics do not compete with each other, but that all parts of the player base always have the same goal even when going for the most selfish route.

~MRA

Events in the open world should be generally reworked to have

a) spawned mobs drop no loot at all, and

b) having the mob’s loot being given out as part of the successful event reward once the event is finished.

It seemed that Anet had learned that lesson after the fiasco with Scarlet’s Clockwork Chaos invasions, and they already incorporated it successfully in the new Tequatl and Tripple Worm events. In these events you will never see anyone purposefully failing or stalling (apart from trolls, but that’s a different topic). I am still wondering why they forgot this principle again when they were designing new events (like the events in dry top, where despite having a working event reward system, the spawns do still drop some loot).

My 2 cents.

~MRA

BGrennslen.9765:

One of my disappointments is the fact that players can complete a Heart “on accident” by just killing roaming mobs that are attacking, or clicking on inactive objects before even knowing that they are in an event area.

Thats because in the original design, the hearts are not quests, they measure your reknown in a region. If you did something in that region, then people know you, regardless of you having talked to them in advance or not.

One of my disappointments at release was they they crippled events to no longer contribute a significant amount to the renown in the region. Which made the hearts a little bit more of a chore instead of a natural renown thing. Think of it, after having saved his farm two times over from bandit attacks, do I really have to keep watering a farmer’s crops for making myself a name in the region?

BGrennslen.9765:

Also, once you complete a zone, the Scouts won’t give you a “tour” of the area. If it’s been awhile since you have completed a zone, players may want a reminder of some of the areas events take place. I think the Scouts should always be able to replay their map tour dialog whenever requested.

This is a fair suggestion.

~MRA

AnthonyOrdon.3926:

This gives me the notion that with a little help at the system level, events can and should be the bulk of repeatable open world content in Tyria.

Oh my, thank the Eternal Alchemy, I am so happy to read that this is your stance on the matter. When I saw the red post in this thread I almost feared that the OPs idea might gain some traction. (Not meant against you, OP, I just really, really don’t like the idea of more checklist quests.)

Please don’t bring back more quests. In my opinion, the hearts were the most boring and mundane aspect of the whole game. I was so happy that they were gone once they were done; I really don’t ever want to do them again. I consider not having a single heart quest in Dry Top a very good sign.

Personally, I still consider the the renown hearts and their blatant over-communication as GW2’s most dire design flaw. This over-communication was spawned from the understandable intention to cater the veteran MMO crowd that so desperately needed a checklist for them to know what they should do. (You could also call that a lack of confidence in ANets own initial dynamic event concept.) However, this approach backfired. Since the heart tasks were so prominently visible in the UI, and dynamic events were very often quite immersively, if not subtly, melted with the environment, in the perception of journalists and first-time players the mundane and rather boring hearts were mistaken as the core content of GW2. I have seen countless review, “let’s play”, or walk-through videos showing that many, many players were running straight past all the wonderful content just to reach the next heart, to fill it, and to move on. I have heard people explicitly stating stuff like “Nah, don’t go over there, that invasion of hellish creatures is just some crazy world event. Here, my quest says I should plug some daisies for farmer Ree, so let’s go there …”

I say we don’t need more checklist quests in GW2. I say what we really need are more dynamic events. You know, as in the original sense of this term, like with ‘cause and effect.’ I want complicated events, I want intertwined events. I want random and alternative forks in event chains. And I want failure branches if we fail.

When I was first imagining the possibilities of the dynamic event system 4 years ago, I was picturing an event chain as something cool like the old Wing Commander mission structure. (See the picture in the attachment if you are too young to know what I mean.) Instead, most of the time, we just got this:

( state A ) <—-> ( state B )

So please, don’t go for checklist quests. Other games do this already, the world doesn’t need another game doing this. Instead, go for dynamic events as you once planned, iterate on the concept where necessary, and make them worthwhile!

tl;dr: I don’t like hearts, I like dynamic events. Includes my 2 cents, and some arguments, too.

(edit:) screwed up the attachment, fixed that.

~MRA

Distaste.4801:

Temporary content is not content

That’s funny, I am pretty sure it is … I played it for hours and hours, I enjoyed it, I shared the experience with friends and guildies, I had a great time, I moved on once it was done, and I have many fond and dear memories of it.

So what are you telling me? That all this is a lie, that I did not actually played it? That I did not have had my share of fun, that my dear memories are fake? That I am living in the Matrix, or that I am a replicant? Are you telling me that I don’t know what a tortoise is? Are you asking questions about my mother? Let me tell you about my mother …

~MRA

Darmikau.9413:

A long list of selection bias

Please look up “selection bias” in a textbook to learn what it actually means. I am not John Smith, so I won’t give lectures in my spare time.

BTW, I did not “select” this list, I just copy-pasted it from the wiki. The only “selective” aspect is that I actually stripped a number of bullet points from it when I considered them to be negligible or redundant.

Darmikau.9413:

You do realize how many features you described are different parts of the same update and how many weren’t content updates but changes to the game itself?

Motivated by your comment I did a tally. Of the 73 bullet point in the given list 51 are clearly content, while 22 could maybe considered to be “just game changes”. (Although I was under the impression that new mechanics like new skills and traits, or systems like wardrobe or solo queue have already been named many times as expansion-type content in these forums.) And yes, I did of course list the features individually, since they they were different pieces of content.

Darmikau.9413:

A trait system rework is content, but the reworking of the attribute system in GW1 isn’t?

Please correct me if my memory is incomplete, but by “reworking of the attribute system in GW1” you are referring to the “you do no longer need refund points to respec attributes, everything else stays the same” update? Then calling this a “rework” would be just as ridiculous as introducing colored commander icons and calling that a “rework of the commander system”.

You are correct if you assume that I wrote the GW1 list just from memory (because the updates in the old GW1 wiki were just too inconvenient to skip through). In doing so, I forgot a number of features like

• the post-campaign titans quest,
• observer mode, or
• the Great Temple of Balthazar

which were also available for free. You are welcome to add more items for the GW1 list if you remember further items I forgot. However, my claim remains that you will have a pretty hard time to come up with list which is just as impressive as the GW2 list.

BTW, while skimming through the GW1 updates I just remembered the following: GW1 had temporary content! (shocked gasps in the audience, a woman in the first row faints) In March 2006 the Luxons and Kurzicks had temporary camps in Nebo Terrace. I remember that I wanted to play their quests, but since I had no time that week(end), they were already gone when I checked out the location. How dare you, GW1, how dare you!

Darmikau.9413:

It’s nice that you can thoroughly pick out some temporary content and non-content to pad a list, but how many races, professions, skills, explorables, weapons, guild halls, and PvP modes has GW2 added compared to GW1?

Oh, right, I forgot, how many races, professions, skills, explorables, weapons, guild halls, and PvP modes had GW1 Prophecies added as free content? Let me think … correct me if I am wrong, but it was: None, none, zero, one (Sorrows Furnace), nada, nope, and none that I am aware of, right? (Yes, I am deliberately not counting stuff from Factions or later, since that would be free content of a different full-price purchase.)

Nostalgia is great, but please at least try to stay objective.

phys.7689:

i would have prefered to pay for expansions if it had gw1 amount of content.
I would spend more in the gem store just to support anet if i liked the stuff coming out.

That’s a fair stance, but it is not a deal Anet offers.

~MRA

Darmikau.9413:

I think there’s a disconnect between what content we get, and what content players feel they should be getting. If you’re asking the question “has there been content?” then the answer is, of course, yes.

If you’re asking “does the scope of the content we’ve received match what we received in GW1?” then the answer is very far from yes.

Oh, really? Didn’t knew that. Well, then let’s see what we free updates got for our full box price in GW1 when compared to GW2:

GW1 Prophecies:

• Sorrow’s Furnace
• Tomb of the Primeval Kings revamp
• Helloween quests
• Wintersday quests
• constant balancing updates

GW2 (blatantly copied from the wiki):

• Mad King’s Labyrinth zone,
• Reaper’s Rumble and Lunatic Inquisition activities,
• Mad King’s Clock Tower jumping puzzle
• Ascent to Madness dungeon
• Costume Brawl activity
• Modus Sceleris events, Skritt Burglar events, and dozens more
• Tribulation Caverns, Hexfoundry Unhinged, Hidden Garden and Coddler’s Cove jumping puzzles
• Forsaken Halls and Vexa’s Lab mini-dungeons and many new exploration achievements
• Southsun Cove map, including many new events and Under New Management and Skipping Stones jumping puzzles
• Fractals of the Mists dungeon consisting of several fractals, explorable chunks of reality from the Mists based on past events in Tyria’s history
• Temple of the Silent Storm map in structured PvP
• Wintersday event, featuring Snowball Mayhem, Bell Choir Ensemble and Toypocalypse activities, Winter Wonderland jumping puzzle and Tixx’s Infinirarium dungeon
• Breakout events in WvW
• Laurel currency
• Ascended gear
• Guesting
• Guild missions, along with new currencies Guild Merits and Guild Commendations
• Spirit Watch map in structured PvP
• World Experience
• Removal of culling
• Super Adventure Box
• Molten Facility dungeon
• Custom Arenas and Spectator Mode in structured PvP
• Crab Toss activity
• Stealth Disruptor and Supply Removal Traps in WvW
• Canach’s Lair dungeon
• Island Control meta event and Karka Queen boss fight
• Angvar’s Trove guild puzzle
• Dragon Bash festival with the Dragon Ball and permanent Moa Racing activities
• Aetherblade Retreat dungeon and Not So Secret jumping puzzle
• Torment condition
• Labyrinthine Cliffs zone with the floating sanctuary of Zephyr Sanctum
• Achievement rewards
• Belcher’s Bluff and Sanctum Sprint activities and Lessons from the Sky scavenger hunt
• Skyhammer map in structured PvP
• Candidate Trials, Aspect Arena and Southsun Survival activities
• Kiel vs Gnashblade, Indecision 1326 A.E.
• The Crown Pavilion with the Queen’s Gauntlet
• Wallet to hold all account currencies
• Champion and daily dungeon rewards
• Daily activity rotation
• Solo arena queue in structured PvP
• Scarlet’s Playhouse dungeon
• Scarlet’s minion invasions
• Magic Find account wide, Luck
• Weaponsmith, Artificer and Huntsman crafting disciplines can progress until level 500
• Defeat Tequatl the Sunless event is completely redesigned
• Ruins of Power added to the Borderlands in WvW
• Looking For Group tool added to the Contacts panel
• One of the paths in explorable Twilight Arbor is replaced by the new Aetherpath
• Tower of Nightmares in Kessex Hills
• Antitoxin Spray healing skill available for all professions
• New fractals: Thaumanova Reactor, Molten Furnace, Aetherblade, Captain Mai Trin Boss and Molten Boss
• Mistlock Instability in higher levels of Fractals of the Mists
• Armorsmith, Leatherworker and Tailor crafting disciplines can progress until level 500 to craft ascended armor
• New healing skills for every profession
• Triple Trouble meta event, Evolved Jungle Wurm world boss to kick your kitten!
• Twisted Marionette Weapon Test event
• Edge of the Mists map in WvW
• Lion’s Arch is under attack by Scarlet’s forces!
• Scarlet’s Prime Hologram boss event and Scarlet’s End
• Trait system redesign, 40 new traits
• Ferocity attribute for increasing critical damage, rune and sigil effects updated
• Account-wide dye unlocks and wardrobe for armor and weapon skins
• Account-bound world experience, legendary and ascended equipment
• PvP reward tracks, PvP Locker merging with the wardrobe
• Megaserver system
• Story Journal for living world storylines
• Tangle Root meta event in Brisban Wildlands
• Dry Top, Sandstorm meta event, and dozens new events
• Ambrite weapons
• Mysterious Vine back item, Cultivated Vine, and Mawdrey + Mawdrey II scavenger hunt
• infrequent balancing updates

Yeah, now I see what you mean.

Serious question: Is there really someone here who bought the game back in Summer 2012 and honestly assumed that we would receive that amount of constant updates and support for the price of a single boxed copy?

~MRA

Zietlogik.6208:

Really? You guys did it to Capricorn, a map people actually enjoyed. Why is this map being held onto so religiously?

I assume that since underwater combat is no longer a priority to the devs, they had no problems removing the “underwater combat PvP map”. (Same happened to WvW borderlands, too.)

CCs however are still a thing in the game, and while the “CC and positional awareness PvP map” obviously needs some fixing, it is not obsolete.

~MRA

Angel McCoy.1832:

Horst Hortensie.5420:

Would it be a spoiler to tell what Scarlet’s wyld hunt was or is it already in game and I just missed it?

If she had one, what would you guess it was?

hmmm … razing Lions Arch?

Angel McCoy.1832:

Tell me this. Why, in your opinion, are folks so enamored with the Mursaat?

Nostalgia, and the longing for answers to unanswered questions from GW1.

(edit:) Am I really the only one who would be way more intrigued by learning more about the Seers?

~MRA

Atherakhia.4086:

What was the reward…. I can’t even remember if I got it or not

This: http://youtu.be/HXDXeVoWclc

Well, approximately. (I remember two blues, a green, some crafting mats and a large pile of bloodstone dust dragonite ore.)

Which was great IMO, since it did send the right message to all those who did sacrifice solid WvW play just to farm for the season rewards.

~MRA

(edit:) Kitten, I completely forgot about the dollie pushers best friend, who was the best part of the rewards. Sorry about that.

Konig Des Todes.2086:

With the current quality of the primary plot-telling under the Living World team, I don’t think we’ll be getting such ‘elaborate’ twists.

I understand what you mean. But, to be fair, they already achieved a similar “surprise twist” with the “Ascalon, I free you from this curse!” trailer.

~MRA

Konig Des Todes.2086:

Tribune Burntclaw is dead, we kill him at the end of the least popular (but best end boss) CoF path.

Oops, sorry, my bad. I obviously missed that completely. Thanks for the correction.

So the Flame Legion is currently in total disarray, with no leadership at all?

Konig Des Todes.2086:

The questions that should be asked are:

1. Which leader(s) would Mordremoth care about?
2. Which leadership would allow the rest to ‘fall in line’?

The first I would say Trahearne and the Pale Tree are prime candidates – the former leads an anti-ED group, the latter is blocking his corruption. The second I only see as the Pale Tree, as she is blocking his corruption – the Pale Tree dies and he can corrupt the sylvari race thus they will ‘fall in line.’

I agree that the Pale Tree would be a prime target, but maybe also the most difficult one to take down. Because of the two very important questions you raise I actually have another tinfoil hat theory: The whole summit is just a distraction for the player. (I mean a purposeful distraction by ANets writers, not in-game!) The true target is Faolain! The Nightmare Court is already established as general bad guys, but they are not actual minions of any dragon. However, the followers of Mordremoth (Aerin’s letter makes me believe there are more than just one) could scheme a bloody coup to take over the Court for their cause.

Hence, the current Nightmare Court leader would have to die. Then the rest will fall in line.

~MRA

I already started a thread on this topic over at reddit, but I though it might be interesting to get some input from you guys here at the forums, too.

—[copied from reddit]—
Considering the portentous letter we found with Aerin and the fact that we will have a summit of Tyrian leaders pretty soon, there is a fair chance that ANet will actually kill a Tyrian leader. The burning question is obviously, who might be the unfortunate victim?

I did a small census of the Tyrian leadership. Of course, I came up with the following obvious candidates:

- HRM Jennah, Queen of Kryta and Regent of Ascalon
- Smodur the Unflinching, Imperator of the Iron Legion
- Knut Whitebear, Master of the Great Lodge
- Councillor Phlunt, Emissary of the Arcane Council
- The Pale Tree, Mother of the Sylvari
- Trahearne, Firstborn Sylvari and Marshal of the Pact

In addition to them, and although not invited or necessarily present at the summit, we also have the leaders of the orders and other influential groups:

- Almorra Soulkeeper, General of the Vigil
- Gixx, Steward of the Durmand Priory
- Spoiler, the Master of Whispers
- Lord Caudecus Beetlestone the Wise, Legate Minister of the Krytan Ministry
- Countess Anise, Master Exemplar of the Shining Blade
- Wade Samuelsson, Duke of Ebonhawke and Commander of the Ebon Vanguard
- Tribune Burntclaw, acting Imperator of the Flame Legion (already deceased)
- High Councillor Flax, Leader of the Arcane Council
- Councillor Yahk, Official Representative of the Inquest
- Faolain, Firstborn Sylvari and Grand Duchess of the Nightmare Court
- Captain Ellen Kiel, member of the Captain’s Council
- Captain Evon Gnashblade, proprietor of the Black Lion Trading Company
- The Master of Peace, leader of the Zephyrites

Of course, I don’t know who might be the one to meet her or his untimely end, but I am interested in learning what the community is thinking about what will happen. Hence, I set up two straw polls addressing the following two questions:

Question 1: Assuming that you were the one with her/his finger on the trigger, which Tyrian leader would you kill off?

Question 2: Who do you think is the most likely to be actually killed by the ANet writers in the Living Story?

I am also interested in hearing your reasonings and conspiracy theories in the comments, too. Thanks for participating!
—[end]—

~MRA

Kloud.1894:

What’s the deal with Traherne?
[…]
Anyone know any reason as to why this happens?

Trahearne is a plot device that allows the personal story to bring all three order paths together to a common conclusion. Unfortunately, the transition between the orders chapters and the following chapters was done pretty badly, creating all the unfortunate side effects you described in your post.

Players who played a sylvari will suffer only to a reduced degree from this transition, since Trahearne has already been part of their origin story. So he wont be introduced as a complete stranger, but as an old acquaintance.

~MRA