Guild Wars 2

Absconditus.6804:

Why not at some point go over World vs. World and rather make it a Faction vs. Faction system where players sign up with factions such as the Kurzick, Luxons and a third faction, and the server portion of WvW is phased out? Will there be potential landslides, yes; but that’s already happening.

IMO if they had the current server instancing at launch this is probably what we would have.

Sadly this isn’t very feasible at the moment. You can see how people get their jimmies rustled at ideas to balance the current server system. I can’t imagine the backlash if they hinted they may do away with servers all together. People have spent a lot of time and gold over the years manipulating server pops, I mean “building communities”.

Serenity.6135:

Magni.2835:

Serenity.6135:

Magni.2835:

Serenity.6135:

Magni.2835:

Serenity.6135:

Magni.2835:

Serenity.6135:

Magni.2835:

Serenity.6135:

Strider Pj.2193:

Serenity.6135:

Magni.2835:

An idea to help maintain server populations is to take accounts that haven’t contributed to pop data for a time, say 2 months for example, and disassociate them from their wvw server.

Send them an in game mail explaining that they have been removed from their server due to inactivity and have them join one of the lowest population servers before going into wvw again.

This will help maintain an accurate measure of a server’s population. It will help keep wild fluctuations in population in check from major content releases.

This is not a proper solution, it might sound good in theory for some but try imagining if it was actually implemented. People take breaks for a variety of reasons and I always see players saying how they are coming back to the game.

Now do you really want a bunch of people suddenly finding out that on returning they are no longer able to play with their old friends and guilds? And have to restart on a new server because it might be easier for data calculation…um no it does not work like that.

It also would prevent hibernation to unlock servers.

I am for a 4-6 week window. If you take a 1-2 month break, then maybe you need to be moved. Less than 4 weeks effects vacations, school breaks, etc. more than 6 weeks, is just people not supporting the game mode.

I would definitely favor this before kicking everybody including active people in their communities.

And inactive to me, only includes time in WvW. Logging in for PvE or sPvP wouldn’t count.

I think some people seem to forget at times that this is a game…Trying to dictate how long a person stays active in a game is over the top and absurd.

So you’re against kicking people out of WvW for being afk?

You can already be kicked out of wvw for being AFK, it is not the same thing as being thrown off the server. To compare the two illogical.

Not really. I’d argue it’s in the same spirit. If I need to go away from the keyboard and get kicked out I don’t throw a temper tantrum that my entitlements have been revoked. If I were to not play the game for months I would have the same reaction to not being on the same server. If my “community” and “guild” mattered that much I probably wouldn’t have gone so long without playing.

Sure. If anet forced you off your server and the reason they gave you was…we had to do it for data purposes. I bet you would make your own thread with a TLDR section.

Try to look at it the way a dev would. They look at the entire playerbase, not just you or me. People have lives, some may be able to play 12 hours a day but that does not mean everyone can.

What I’m saying is that people who don’t do anything at all in wvw for months on end should be assumed to have moved on and deselected from a server. Not sure how this matters to people who play every day or even once a week. Heck, someone who plays once a month is well beyond having to worry about this.

So if a person is not doing what you think they should they need to be punished? I say again, having players dictate what others should be doing with their time and coming up with ridiculous timetables is absurd and will do nothing to improve things.

Who cares what they are doing with their time if they aren’t even playing this game?

Did not say you should care, I said they should not be punished for not be glued to their computers playing a game every day.

ONCE.
IN.
TWO.
MONTHS.

is what I said

Made up timetables are absurd, is what I said.

Furthermore, why not 1 month, or 1 week? Same idea right?

Penalizing players for not playing is a good way to keep them away.

How is it a penalty? If I leave a restaurant at lunch I don’t assume my table is free for me at dinner.

Serenity.6135:

Magni.2835:

Serenity.6135:

Magni.2835:

Serenity.6135:

Magni.2835:

Serenity.6135:

Magni.2835:

Serenity.6135:

Strider Pj.2193:

Serenity.6135:

Magni.2835:

An idea to help maintain server populations is to take accounts that haven’t contributed to pop data for a time, say 2 months for example, and disassociate them from their wvw server.

Send them an in game mail explaining that they have been removed from their server due to inactivity and have them join one of the lowest population servers before going into wvw again.

This will help maintain an accurate measure of a server’s population. It will help keep wild fluctuations in population in check from major content releases.

This is not a proper solution, it might sound good in theory for some but try imagining if it was actually implemented. People take breaks for a variety of reasons and I always see players saying how they are coming back to the game.

Now do you really want a bunch of people suddenly finding out that on returning they are no longer able to play with their old friends and guilds? And have to restart on a new server because it might be easier for data calculation…um no it does not work like that.

It also would prevent hibernation to unlock servers.

I am for a 4-6 week window. If you take a 1-2 month break, then maybe you need to be moved. Less than 4 weeks effects vacations, school breaks, etc. more than 6 weeks, is just people not supporting the game mode.

I would definitely favor this before kicking everybody including active people in their communities.

And inactive to me, only includes time in WvW. Logging in for PvE or sPvP wouldn’t count.

I think some people seem to forget at times that this is a game…Trying to dictate how long a person stays active in a game is over the top and absurd.

So you’re against kicking people out of WvW for being afk?

You can already be kicked out of wvw for being AFK, it is not the same thing as being thrown off the server. To compare the two illogical.

Not really. I’d argue it’s in the same spirit. If I need to go away from the keyboard and get kicked out I don’t throw a temper tantrum that my entitlements have been revoked. If I were to not play the game for months I would have the same reaction to not being on the same server. If my “community” and “guild” mattered that much I probably wouldn’t have gone so long without playing.

Sure. If anet forced you off your server and the reason they gave you was…we had to do it for data purposes. I bet you would make your own thread with a TLDR section.

Try to look at it the way a dev would. They look at the entire playerbase, not just you or me. People have lives, some may be able to play 12 hours a day but that does not mean everyone can.

What I’m saying is that people who don’t do anything at all in wvw for months on end should be assumed to have moved on and deselected from a server. Not sure how this matters to people who play every day or even once a week. Heck, someone who plays once a month is well beyond having to worry about this.

So if a person is not doing what you think they should they need to be punished? I say again, having players dictate what others should be doing with their time and coming up with ridiculous timetables is absurd and will do nothing to improve things.

Who cares what they are doing with their time if they aren’t even playing this game?

Did not say you should care, I said they should not be punished for not be glued to their computers playing a game every day.

ONCE.
IN.
TWO.
MONTHS.

is what I said

Serenity.6135:

Magni.2835:

Serenity.6135:

Magni.2835:

Serenity.6135:

Magni.2835:

Serenity.6135:

Strider Pj.2193:

Serenity.6135:

Magni.2835:

An idea to help maintain server populations is to take accounts that haven’t contributed to pop data for a time, say 2 months for example, and disassociate them from their wvw server.

Send them an in game mail explaining that they have been removed from their server due to inactivity and have them join one of the lowest population servers before going into wvw again.

This will help maintain an accurate measure of a server’s population. It will help keep wild fluctuations in population in check from major content releases.

This is not a proper solution, it might sound good in theory for some but try imagining if it was actually implemented. People take breaks for a variety of reasons and I always see players saying how they are coming back to the game.

Now do you really want a bunch of people suddenly finding out that on returning they are no longer able to play with their old friends and guilds? And have to restart on a new server because it might be easier for data calculation…um no it does not work like that.

It also would prevent hibernation to unlock servers.

I am for a 4-6 week window. If you take a 1-2 month break, then maybe you need to be moved. Less than 4 weeks effects vacations, school breaks, etc. more than 6 weeks, is just people not supporting the game mode.

I would definitely favor this before kicking everybody including active people in their communities.

And inactive to me, only includes time in WvW. Logging in for PvE or sPvP wouldn’t count.

I think some people seem to forget at times that this is a game…Trying to dictate how long a person stays active in a game is over the top and absurd.

So you’re against kicking people out of WvW for being afk?

You can already be kicked out of wvw for being AFK, it is not the same thing as being thrown off the server. To compare the two illogical.

Not really. I’d argue it’s in the same spirit. If I need to go away from the keyboard and get kicked out I don’t throw a temper tantrum that my entitlements have been revoked. If I were to not play the game for months I would have the same reaction to not being on the same server. If my “community” and “guild” mattered that much I probably wouldn’t have gone so long without playing.

Sure. If anet forced you off your server and the reason they gave you was…we had to do it for data purposes. I bet you would make your own thread with a TLDR section.

Try to look at it the way a dev would. They look at the entire playerbase, not just you or me. People have lives, some may be able to play 12 hours a day but that does not mean everyone can.

What I’m saying is that people who don’t do anything at all in wvw for months on end should be assumed to have moved on and deselected from a server. Not sure how this matters to people who play every day or even once a week. Heck, someone who plays once a month is well beyond having to worry about this.

So if a person is not doing what you think they should they need to be punished? I say again, having players dictate what others should be doing with their time and coming up with ridiculous timetables is absurd and will do nothing to improve things.

Who cares what they are doing with their time if they aren’t even playing this game?

Serenity.6135:

Magni.2835:

Serenity.6135:

Magni.2835:

Serenity.6135:

Strider Pj.2193:

Serenity.6135:

Magni.2835:

An idea to help maintain server populations is to take accounts that haven’t contributed to pop data for a time, say 2 months for example, and disassociate them from their wvw server.

Send them an in game mail explaining that they have been removed from their server due to inactivity and have them join one of the lowest population servers before going into wvw again.

This will help maintain an accurate measure of a server’s population. It will help keep wild fluctuations in population in check from major content releases.

This is not a proper solution, it might sound good in theory for some but try imagining if it was actually implemented. People take breaks for a variety of reasons and I always see players saying how they are coming back to the game.

Now do you really want a bunch of people suddenly finding out that on returning they are no longer able to play with their old friends and guilds? And have to restart on a new server because it might be easier for data calculation…um no it does not work like that.

It also would prevent hibernation to unlock servers.

I am for a 4-6 week window. If you take a 1-2 month break, then maybe you need to be moved. Less than 4 weeks effects vacations, school breaks, etc. more than 6 weeks, is just people not supporting the game mode.

I would definitely favor this before kicking everybody including active people in their communities.

And inactive to me, only includes time in WvW. Logging in for PvE or sPvP wouldn’t count.

I think some people seem to forget at times that this is a game…Trying to dictate how long a person stays active in a game is over the top and absurd.

So you’re against kicking people out of WvW for being afk?

You can already be kicked out of wvw for being AFK, it is not the same thing as being thrown off the server. To compare the two illogical.

Not really. I’d argue it’s in the same spirit. If I need to go away from the keyboard and get kicked out I don’t throw a temper tantrum that my entitlements have been revoked. If I were to not play the game for months I would have the same reaction to not being on the same server. If my “community” and “guild” mattered that much I probably wouldn’t have gone so long without playing.

Sure. If anet forced you off your server and the reason they gave you was…we had to do it for data purposes. I bet you would make your own thread with a TLDR section.

Try to look at it the way a dev would. They look at the entire playerbase, not just you or me. People have lives, some may be able to play 12 hours a day but that does not mean everyone can.

What I’m saying is that people who don’t do anything at all in wvw for months on end should be assumed to have moved on and deselected from a server. Not sure how this matters to people who play every day or even once a week. Heck, someone who plays once a month is well beyond having to worry about this.

Serenity.6135:

Magni.2835:

Serenity.6135:

Strider Pj.2193:

Serenity.6135:

Magni.2835:

An idea to help maintain server populations is to take accounts that haven’t contributed to pop data for a time, say 2 months for example, and disassociate them from their wvw server.

Send them an in game mail explaining that they have been removed from their server due to inactivity and have them join one of the lowest population servers before going into wvw again.

This will help maintain an accurate measure of a server’s population. It will help keep wild fluctuations in population in check from major content releases.

This is not a proper solution, it might sound good in theory for some but try imagining if it was actually implemented. People take breaks for a variety of reasons and I always see players saying how they are coming back to the game.

Now do you really want a bunch of people suddenly finding out that on returning they are no longer able to play with their old friends and guilds? And have to restart on a new server because it might be easier for data calculation…um no it does not work like that.

It also would prevent hibernation to unlock servers.

I am for a 4-6 week window. If you take a 1-2 month break, then maybe you need to be moved. Less than 4 weeks effects vacations, school breaks, etc. more than 6 weeks, is just people not supporting the game mode.

I would definitely favor this before kicking everybody including active people in their communities.

And inactive to me, only includes time in WvW. Logging in for PvE or sPvP wouldn’t count.

I think some people seem to forget at times that this is a game…Trying to dictate how long a person stays active in a game is over the top and absurd.

So you’re against kicking people out of WvW for being afk?

You can already be kicked out of wvw for being AFK, it is not the same thing as being thrown off the server. To compare the two illogical.

Not really. I’d argue it’s in the same spirit. If I need to go away from the keyboard and get kicked out I don’t throw a temper tantrum that my entitlements have been revoked. If I were to not play the game for months I would have the same reaction to not being on the same server. If my “community” and “guild” mattered that much I probably wouldn’t have gone so long without playing.

Serenity.6135:

Strider Pj.2193:

Serenity.6135:

Magni.2835:

An idea to help maintain server populations is to take accounts that haven’t contributed to pop data for a time, say 2 months for example, and disassociate them from their wvw server.

Send them an in game mail explaining that they have been removed from their server due to inactivity and have them join one of the lowest population servers before going into wvw again.

This will help maintain an accurate measure of a server’s population. It will help keep wild fluctuations in population in check from major content releases.

This is not a proper solution, it might sound good in theory for some but try imagining if it was actually implemented. People take breaks for a variety of reasons and I always see players saying how they are coming back to the game.

Now do you really want a bunch of people suddenly finding out that on returning they are no longer able to play with their old friends and guilds? And have to restart on a new server because it might be easier for data calculation…um no it does not work like that.

It also would prevent hibernation to unlock servers.

I am for a 4-6 week window. If you take a 1-2 month break, then maybe you need to be moved. Less than 4 weeks effects vacations, school breaks, etc. more than 6 weeks, is just people not supporting the game mode.

I would definitely favor this before kicking everybody including active people in their communities.

And inactive to me, only includes time in WvW. Logging in for PvE or sPvP wouldn’t count.

I think some people seem to forget at times that this is a game…Trying to dictate how long a person stays active in a game is over the top and absurd.

So you’re against kicking people out of WvW for being afk?

Serenity.6135:

Magni.2835:

An idea to help maintain server populations is to take accounts that haven’t contributed to pop data for a time, say 2 months for example, and disassociate them from their wvw server.

Send them an in game mail explaining that they have been removed from their server due to inactivity and have them join one of the lowest population servers before going into wvw again.

This will help maintain an accurate measure of a server’s population. It will help keep wild fluctuations in population in check from major content releases.

This is not a proper solution, it might sound good in theory for some but try imagining if it was actually implemented. People take breaks for a variety of reasons and I always see players saying how they are coming back to the game.

Now do you really want a bunch of people suddenly finding out that on returning they are no longer able to play with their old friends and guilds? And have to restart on a new server because it might be easier for data calculation…um no it does not work like that.

I think it is a reasonable thing to ask. If a player doesn’t want to contribute to a game for a long period time, who are they to assume that everything will be just as they left it? Should we cut of our nose to spite our face just because someone may or may not come back to the game after and extended period of time?

An idea to help maintain server populations is to take accounts that haven’t contributed to pop data for a time, say 2 months for example, and disassociate them from their wvw server.

Send them an in game mail explaining that they have been removed from their server due to inactivity and have them join one of the lowest population servers before going into wvw again.

This will help maintain an accurate measure of a server’s population. It will help keep wild fluctuations in population in check from major content releases.

ScionKai.4907:

Had to get a new mouse this week because my g602 started going haywire, so once I learn my Corsair Scimitar I’ll be back in action >8]

Did you check all the bulbs, Russ?

My experience with it is basically if you aren’t willing to play Ranger, Mesmer, Warrior, or Thief specs then you’ll generally end up with a frustrating time while roaming solo. I think it comes down to mobility/disengage potential mostly.

Yes however if you happen to be on a server with massive ques then you wouldn’t really notice. A 120 person queue isn’t much worse than a 110 person queue. Those servers are considered to be stacked servers which is what Anet has been trying to reduce.

Also there are a number of things that should be considered.

1) Even servers that are considered dead can queue maps from time to time.

2) Overall there seems to be more complaints about being vastly outnumbered than there are about having to wait in queue; especially if you ignore reset and the following 24 hours.

3) There is always EoTM which was created specifically to address queue woes.

The server pairings count more for the other end of things; increasing the minimum population that are on each WvW map. What population caps are there for is to reduce the maximum population on the maps to reduce disparity between server populations at a given time.

My memory isn’t good with it because I don’t do much sPvP, but weren’t 8v8 matches basically scrapped shortly after launch do to the maps being too small which lead to “zerging” being the dominant playstyle? I am also proposing that the current caps may be doing the same thing in WvW.

There has been a lot done to encourage players spreading out among the servers with the idea of increasing the population on lower populated servers.

Perhaps it’s time to discuss reverting a change that was done to address the issue from the other end. That change is the decision they made a long time ago to increase the population caps on the maps.

The current cap is estimated to be around 80 players per server per map.

Is 240 players max on a map too many? Does this hurt roaming and small groups?

Does 320 players max per server on all maps encourage servers to try to stack themselves even during primetime hours?

The biggest contributing factor has been that the server had been locked for so long. Then when YB and BG opened, some players actually moved from JQ to those servers. By the time JQ opened it was too little too late.

The final blow to get it to where it is now was that a sizable portion of those NA players left on the server suddenly transferred to TC/DB, including those who were recruited by a guild that just happened to have people transfer from YB about a month before server linking was announced.

Sure, JQ has had NA population problems for a while now, but the worse of it has been a more recent occurrence. They were bored/trolled/poached into moving or quitting with no way for others to replace them.

Probably the best solution is to make EOTM (the game mode, not necessarily the map) into sWvW; where people form and queue their squad before a match begins. The match would only exist while those teams are playing.

I think the core issue here is that there are players that want balanced/“sporty” game-play out of an inherently unbalanced game mode (open-world 24/7 pvp).

If they do something like this, I’d hope they consider that the duration “off-hours” are different for NA (+OCX +SEA) and EU servers. EU servers have a long period where few players naturally play. NA servers have two smaller gaps where fewer players naturally play; one between pacific NA and OCX, and the other being EU.

JQ queues have been very small and IoJ has a good WvW community. Overall it’s been a pleasurable experience.

I’ve seen them drop a guild cata the other week. Same bl except for it was for the YB group taking air keep.

Given that the update just dropped, I’d assume it’s more of a visibility thing to show that they are there to see how the changes are effecting the game.

I believe the logic is that the pairing system would help reduce the growing pains of a glicko reset by creating more even matches overall. The concept of tiers means less now anyways as a measure of a server’s strength.

Zerging is the current meta mostly because it’s all around the most effective way to do things in the current wvw.

-More people means more supply so you can build more siege to take things more quickly. Taking things more quickly means less chance of a defense.

-Safety in numbers. Having numbers means it will take numbers to wipe your group.

-It’s generally more fun and profitable to zerg than it is to sit in a keep waiting for someone to attack.

Jayne.9251:

Magni.2835:

Jayne.9251:

SkyShroud.2865:

i think that if people have to keep saying that t1 is the only viable place for sea and ocx, it just means they are not confident with that “fact”, thus is a propaganda.

Or the SEA/OCX players organize like the GvG guilds did and spread out over three servers in lower tiers (cheaper xfer rate, guaranteed fights, friends/family can join, etc.).

The GvG guilds first transferred into a single tier, then split to fight each other. The SEA and OCX simply want to do the same sort of thing.

Aye, that’s what I was suggesting

But the problem is that most are already in T1 and T2. Also what people are pointing out is that if they transfer down the servers they go to will end up in T1/T2 again; with presumably the same issue.

Edit: Kaineng was and example of this.

Jayne.9251:

SkyShroud.2865:

i think that if people have to keep saying that t1 is the only viable place for sea and ocx, it just means they are not confident with that “fact”, thus is a propaganda.

Or the SEA/OCX players organize like the GvG guilds did and spread out over three servers in lower tiers (cheaper xfer rate, guaranteed fights, friends/family can join, etc.).

The GvG guilds first transferred into a single tier, then split to fight each other. The SEA and OCX simply want to do the same sort of thing.

Guardian support is done mostly through boons with some healing and condi clear. Without specifics this is the most generalized info I can offer to you.

The support focused specialization for Guardians is Honor; which is usually paired with staff and shouts. You would pick something like Protective Reviver, Honorable Staff, and Pure of Voice to go along with that weapon and utility choice.

The Virtues specialization can add some support to your profession mechanic by using something along the lines of Retaliatory Subconscious, Absolute Resolution, and Indomitable Courage.

Back when HoD was in T1 there weren’t Leagues or Seasons. I seem to recall these existing because players came to the forums and asked for rewards for winning, to say it in a simplified way. This happened well after people left HoD due to mulit hour queues 24hrs a day.

The impression that I’m getting is that they will look at map rotation and possibly changing the Alpine map after HoT is out.

I originally assumed that the AoE cap was there to limit the damage potential of AoE skills for balance reasons. If I recall correctly support skills had no cap at launch, but they were later capped for scaling/balancing reasons.

The AoE caps keep the variance tight so those skills can be useful in both small and large scale fights. Without a cap AoE is either uselessly weak in small encounters or way too strong in large scale fights; sometimes both.

storiessave.3807:

Terrible idea.

For one, this actually encourages not winning. BG can stomp both JQ and TC easily when they try, but when we’re not in seasons, the winning server usually switches randomly, as most of us don’t really care as much about who places where. A server could easily tank one week and then roll over the other two the next week with the benefits third place would get.

For two, this doesn’t do anything to actually solve the issue. There’s a major population/coverage imbalance in many tiers, but crippling the most populated server in the tier isn’t a solution.

Honestly, I’d rather go up against BG in all their glory and lose while fighting, rather than winning just because they have some stupid debuffs from winning the previous week. That wouldn’t even be fun.

Also, your bit about the 2v1ing the top server – JQ and TC did that in Season 2, and it was the most boring kitten I’ve ever witnessed in GW2. Free-for-all fighting is so much better, win or lose. It would be a big mistake to encourage this behavior.

I think the OP is suggesting the buff/debuff apply dynamically during the match. If a server is leading in points Saturday they get the first place debuff. If they get overtaken in points on Sunday they get the second place version.

Similarly there is a difference between 2v1 the whole week and 2v1 based off of who is leading in total points or ppt at a particular point in time.

PPT rewards winning objectives, but awards points when there aren’t opponents to fight.

PPK rewards not losing fights/battles, but points can’t be awarded if there aren’t opponents to fight.

I think that overall it would be good to have both. Probably people will be more cautious when deciding to fight or run, though.

nirvana.8245:

Yes it is normal. A single player can lose a fight by rallying dozens of players and undo an entire groups efforts. It’s considered poor form to play on uplevels with a group who wishes to not have uplevels with them. That said, nothing is stopping him from at least trying to find a group who is happy to play with uplevels. Its currently accepted by the majority that EoTM is ok for uplevels, although it kittenes me off greatly.

Have you considered that maybe you should start talking to the dozens of players that couldn’t last longer than an uplevel?

munkiman.3068:

Tryxtr.6295:

-

This is pretty much how i envision scoring working. I’d add that objectives go neutral which would then have to be capped at lords (or the ring at camps) every couple hours. Imagine the fights over neutral objectives… Especially if all the NPC were hostile. Of course they’d only go neutral if they weren’t refreshed somehow.

I have been kicking around ideas about things going neutral too. The idea would be to have things to do to keep objectives so that there is a minimum pop req to hold all the maps at once.

One idea I came up with would put together several small changes that make it possible to have towers and keeps downgrade and go neutral.

1) Camps that don’t have an upgrade running or not being contested will have a window where it works as normal, 5mins for example. After that it will tier down an upgrade which can be repurchased. If there are no upgrades on the camp at that time it will go neutral.

2) Towers, Keeps, and Stonemist will have a similar system. When there is an upgrade running or it is contested it works as normal. If not the workers will start grabbing supply to rebuild and repair gates, mortars, cannons, and oil. Finally if those conditions aren’t met the objective will tick down supply as a “maintenance” cost. Once the supply reaches 0 there will be a window to have a yak deliver more supply, again 5mins for example. If the supply stays at zero and the objective doesn’t become contested or have an upgrade running the objective will tier down an upgrade. Finally an unupgraded objective will flip neutral.

A system like this would require a minimum amount of people to make sure camps are staying owned so they can send yaks. Opposing servers could also snipe yaks not only to prevent upgrades, but also to remove upgrades if they can’t pull enough people to take it outright.

I see two issues with timeslicing/scoring periods.

First is that if you keep the upgrades etc at the end of the scoring period, you basically are just doing ppt. Calling it a tick or timeslice or scoring period or whatever doesn’t change what it is. The problem is that consolidating all of the activity of 8 or 4 hours into 2 points, 1 point, and zero points is possibly worse than the current system when population is close to even. If you use bigger numbers with the same mathematical ratio (100% vs 50% vs 0%) it sounds silly. Does having one server get 500,000 points vs 250,000 points vs 0 points at the end of 8 hours of NA prime sound good? Will people complain when a server dominates for 2 hours and gets the second 2 free because the other 2 can’t come back in time?

The second problem is that not everyone can play hours on end. If a player can only get in during the last part of the scoring period and it has already been decided who will get the points for the period they may likely just not play. If this happens every day I think you can see where this will go… people will stop playing or transfer to the winning server.

Dropping keeps to 15 ppt and sm to 20 ppt would lower the total possible ppt. This would soften the impact of servers taking most or all objectives for brief periods.

For main hand + off hand builds I’ve tried many combinations and builds, but I personally enjoy sword+torch / scepter+focus.

LanfearShadowflame.3189:

Magni.2835:

I’m beginning to think that Mordi’s influence on Sylvari and the Nightmare are the same thing. If that were the case, it would mean that he would know what the nightmare court knows.

Had that thought too. wasn’t going to suggest it though. Getting tired of being told that Mordi and the Sylvari are not connected. In any way, shape, or form. for x, y, and z reasons. (Can you tell I’ve had that discussion a few times?)

Heh sounds like it. Perhaps there are solid reasons why it isn’t possible, but it would still make sense and be interesting to me if the nightmare was Mord’s influence and the dream was Melandru’s.

LanfearShadowflame.3189:

BrotherBelial.3094:

But glint had been around the young races for a long time. And we don’t know how if glint learned how to communicate with us or if she just could. Also I said it would make sence for a thrall or minion of the dragon to have a link as they are no longer who they where. It is also said ingame that the risen retain no knowledge of who they where.

Admittedly there is a lot we don’t know, but obviously he can communicate enough to make these characters do what he desires them to do. That implies a relative level of understanding on his part.

As for who scarlet was talking to we do not know. She may have just been mad as a bag of spiders, or it could have been The Nightmare, another Tree, the Muerrsat or indeed Modri. There is no proof that it is Modri 100%. People are just claiming it is to fit there theories. Until it is stated in game that it is Mordi, I’m not going to assume anything.

You’re right we don’t know. As someone threw out in another thread it could Menzies or even Kanaxai. However, then you wonder, what entity, and for what reason, would desire the awakening of an Elder Dragon?

Considering the human gods can’t touch the world, I think we can rule them out. I can’t come up with any logical reason any of the other options would desire the outcome Scarlet gave us.

If it’s another tree talking to her, or even Nightmare, and it shoved her into taking the steps to awake Mordi, wouldn’t that imply that they are in fact wayward minions?

Mordi being the one in their heads makes sense logically, but I guess we wait and see on that front.

It could be she was simply as mad as a bag of spiders as you put it. And apparently it was contagious, because Aerin seems to have caught it too.

My problem with Concordia is where it is. There are a load of Zones on the way that are not under attack from dragon forces. The only forces now that are active for a story point of view are Jormags in the Northern Shiver Peaks and The Crytal Dragon in Ascalon(I forget how to spell his name). The nearest front is far away and with the pact forces there Mordi could have just rolled everything from Drytop to LA. It just don’t make any sence unless he wats to outflank the pact, but then it makes no sence dew to the HQ’s remaining intact.

Yes the HQs are still there (although they took a beating in the personal story), but how much of their force remains there? With the creation of the pact, how relevant are the HQs at the present time? The general consensus is under the impression that he’s lashing out at the pact as a preemptive measure. He perceives it as a threat and he’s neutralizing it (or attempting to). That implies a level of intelligence on his part. The thorns have been seemingly crawling their way across the map for days now (currently eastern side of Kessex), so it seems like they are headed that way.

I’m beginning to think that Mordi’s influence on Sylvari and the Nightmare are the same thing. If that were the case, it would mean that he would know what the nightmare court knows.

The vine at Tunnels Waypoint in Brisban is now grabbing the waypoint and appears to be pulling the energy out of it.

It looks like the waypoint in the video is broken and laying on the ground.

I agree that the commander system could use a redo.

Most of the rest of it I could do without.

If you are talking about multiple opponents, one possibility is that there was an engineer that had the elixir that creates the remove conditions/heal downed players field with the tool-belt skill. It can be thrown so it is possible to rez a downed player with that and not be close to them.

CuddleStrike.8215:

Score Update!

Hanging with my mate…. till he got murdered……

I shall forever mourn the loss of him……

ADORABLE SANG

How did that Quaggan get a person on its back?

Arrows lose energy from air resistance (friction) only, not gravity. High arcs have longer travel time and therefore lose more energy from friction.

Another reason not to trust internet forums for your info.

I think removing the AoE limit would do more harm than good.

I like that large group fighting in this game allows and promotes close quarters combat. Having it so that most people will be ranged and staring at each other from max attack range or inside keeps/towers is boring and lame. Removing the cap would be a big step in that direction.

I’m trying to see how many enemies were culled in that video. It’s kinda hard to tell with the mezmer clones popping up as well.

IMO the point where things took a turn was Saturday night/Sunday morning when BG decided to attack JQ on SoSBL while SoS was defending bay. A lot of fun fights were had, but I think in the long run that hurt BG.

Personally I think holidays and breaks do play a role in the match up… the out of game ones. We are now in something like week 9 or 10 out of around 12 of school break for students that are in summer. Last week was a break for students where it is winter. Maybe it’s just coincidence.

Classically meta-gaming would refer to creating rules on top of what exists in the game. Examples of this in the context of GW2 would be things like “no fighting in JPs” or “location X on the maps are designated for 1v1 fighting”.

For some reason it appears that players here in GW2 are using the term in an extremely broad sense to mean strategies and tactics that are common.

SoPP.7034:

Magni.2835:

Sounds a bit over-analytic to me to say that this situation is happening in WvW. There are really much more straight forward ways on deciding what to do strategically. A prisoner’s dilemma would only exist in your mind.

Over-analytical? I’d argue that’s an over simplification but it’s still possible.

Exists only in my mind? The whole point of a theory is to explain something. Given the people and institutions involved it’s an aspect of Games Theory that should be considered.

While people like to think they are independent vessels of change, if you place them into a scenario with specific conditions in place you will find people uniformly behave the same each time.

I’m not saying the theory exists only in one’s mind or that humans don’t exhibit behavioral patterns when given the same set or circumstances.

SoPP.7034:

@ Jahva

Your grub is not the problem.

JQ came within 4k of 1st so SoS will make a point of keeping JQ down, concurrently SBI will want to ensure that they stay t1 so they will hit against JQ to maintain that. This will continue for the rest of the week unless significant changes occur and SBI creates an unassailable lead over JQ in 2nd. Most likely next week it will be SBI getting doubled teamed.

I wonder if anyone at ArenaNet is familiar with Games Theory. If they did they’d recognise the pointlessness of ‘outbreak’ it’s a small fix to a much bigger problem.

You can’t stop human behaviour.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma

Sounds a bit over-analytic to me to say that this situation is happening in WvW. There are really much more straight forward ways on deciding what to do strategically. A prisoner’s dilemma would only exist in your mind.

Leo Paul.1659:

Are we gonna see any shuffling of servers in tiers next week if things continue to go as they are? Or are the matchups pretty much fixed for at least a couple of more weeks?

From my understanding, the large movements of servers in the various tiers are a result of people leaving HoD and ET at the beginning. As in matches having these servers were very lopsided which caused the winning servers to gain a lot of rating especially when HoD and ET were up in the top tiers. Also the servers lower in the tiers that got a large influx from HoD/ET also caused volatility in the tiers. Now that things are pretty much settled there probably won’t be big changes in the tiers w/o something like another large transfer.

If a server is going to drop out of T1 it probably won’t be next week, and if/when it happens will depend on what happens in T2.