Guild Wars 2

Since just before the update on Tuesday (maybe an hour) it takes me longer to log into my account in the launcher… then when I try to select any character on the select screen I either get an endless loading map or it boots me directly back to the game launcher. Not sure if it is related to what everyone else is getting, but it spits out Error Code 58:11:2:1064:101 (can’t connect to log-in server). I don’t really understand how to fix it, my internet connection is perfectly fine O.O

Yeah, I have had the same massive ping issue just recently, and I live in Eastern Canada… and so was the 3 fractal groups (that lag killed us) and most of the LA map I was in. I did not have any problems when I was playing earlier today or yesterday.

Looking for a guild to do Fractals with, been getting tired of LFG’s somehow stellar ability to group me up poorly. A guild that is NA timezone and not 100% rep would be perfect (just when I want to find a Fractal group or chat for a bit). Send an invitation to my account name on the left!

This has been posted multiple times many months ago, but Circle of Light and others cannot be attuned for some reason. This just came to my attention when I tried to attune my Circle of Light today when I was dusting off an old character of mine.

Rocketmist.5436:

As a guild that is fighting this “hacker” group it is super annoying. Have to leave scouts at all the lords on two maps… The guy just ninja’d a T3 ramparts with tactics. He has legit flipped maybe 40-50 objectives this reset over the last 5 hours.

I can confirm that, we have been trying to catch him (or them?) all night.

insanemaniac.2456:

i got 1 thing from this:

loooooooooool jq gittin farmed

Check out the links Virtute provided, it seems that JQ and BG data is exaggerated (I don’t understand that stuff but I am sure a lot of peeps do). Until the dev working on this can fix it, I think we should uphold our opinions of worlds getting farmed (eventhough it is fun to say though :P)

I just did the simplest way possible, I’m not some sort of stats genius so don’t put your expectations too high lol. Of course it’s imperfect but looking at the current WvW rankings and their WvW activity levels, it’s somewhat on the money. There’s no question some worlds are in weird spots (Sanctum of Rall for example), but Kills/Deaths stats leave out so much other information that the devs have access to and we don’t I am not surprised.

@Virtute I read your thread on gw2wvw and it does look like that there is something wrong, particularly with T1 data. Wouldn’t T2 data for Kills and Death be far too high then? It seems the Kills for BG and Deaths for JQ should be more in line with YB, making T2’s numbers much higher compared to the other worlds.

Alright so thanks to WvW Intel, we can see the kills and deaths of all the NA servers now (no idea what is going on with EU atm)! From this we can get a sort of rough idea as to what the current populations look like on all the servers and how accurate what ArenaNet is currently doing. I set it up into 6 different population brackets: Full, Very High, High, Medium, Low and Very Low. I separated them into equal intervals based on the biggest number out of all the servers (whether kills or deaths) and laid it out on a table. This does not reflect the population of servers that in general are avoiding fights due to a strong rival or not coming out due to a bad matchup, but it still displays how their system is not working very well. Compare what their population states in-game (the 5th column on the right) and the colour relating to their KD indicated pop and see for yourself!

I made this at 8:00 AM EST on Oct. 12, I also added an “Anet version” with just Full, Very High, High, and Medium.

Notsoperky.4291:

I do wonder why anyone bothers spending time coming up with these ideas when you have slightly more chance of winning the lottery than the idea being implemented.

I don’t mind coming up with these ideas, some people (like me) simply enjoy theorycrafting and enjoy discussing it with others. And also I advise against pessimism, it’s no fun ^^

Not sure if the fix will come since the Borderlands are getting swapped out in a few weeks :/

Yeah, I see the logic in what you are saying and I agree with you that both are on two ends of the spectrum. So what I have gathered is that there would need to be a middle ground method. So, what do you (and everyone else) think of 1U1D occuring off and on regularly on a set interval with the current Glicko-based matchups? My full explanation on it is at the bottom of my original post for a better idea of what I mean.

I also thought of another method that could be better where 1U1D weeks only occur when certain servers gain or lose a particular amount of Glicko in the current week. I think its pretty smart, because the system actually recognizes imbalances when they happen and acts to adjust them immediately in the next week. The 1U1D matches would continue until any servers stop losing or gaining above the threshold amount. It would essentially fix what is wrong with Glicko, because the system would actively eliminate innaccuracies, maintain even matchups when no changes are required and allow servers to move up and down the ladder when they need to. I am just going to toss a number out there: maybe when worlds gain or lose 25 rating during one particular week.

I agree with you, I personally think that someone should be considered an average WvW player (in person-hours or standard population) when they transfer until their game data proves otherwise. When it is determined that they are not, the person is unflagged and the population reading on the server-select screen adjusts immediately (they could be flagged for 1 week or 2 depending). This is to avoid getting players “laying low” so they can cram as many people as possible into the server.

Adjustments in increasing population should be adjusted immediately. This will prevent over-stacking.

Adjustments in decreasing population should be every 3 to 4 weeks. This should prevent blackouts from opening up a full server.

I think the current way it is implemented is only good for decreasing populations…

TexZero.7910:

Glad you like attacking the poster and not the issue.

The sad fact is up 1 down 1 aka relegation does nothing to solve the problem and will only lead to more tanking and other exploiting of the system than is currently in place with glicko.

It’s a half-baked solution to a problem and one that should never be implemented. Yes glicko is far from perfect, but so is relegation/swiss or whatever name you choose for it.

I’m not saying we stick with an imperfect system until perfection arrives, but i am saying there’s little point changing to another system which will be gamed equally as hard.

Sorry it seems I misunderstood you, because I thought you were talking about the catch-up mechanic not 1U1D, because it’s the primary topic of the post, so I was trying to pair relegation with the wrong mechanic. Wording mechanics in the way the original poster stated it goes a long way in better communication of ideas. That was also why I was critical with you so you would spit out a more thought out opinion and I had something to discuss with you (being aggressive tends to work on forums ^^). Check out the update I put at the bottom of my original post, which I think solves some qualms with 1U1D that I discovered after the feedback I got in the other post I made.

And yes, I tend to stick to my opinions until someone gives me enough information and reasoning to change my viewpoint a bit, because otherwise how fun would it be to debate with someone who accomadates everything everyone says and doesn’t think for themself?

One of the best things about 1U1D is to force NA-server players to spread out like in the EU servers, because everyother matchup would be lopsided. Sure matchups might be bad initially, but hey spread out and it will be a lot more fun. I think I should have highlighted that more in that other thread. However, with Revenge some form of system other than Glicko variance is necessary, there is no way getting around it…

TexZero.7910:

Posted this before.

The relegation system is far more destructive to WvW than Glicko.

What the heck is a relegation system? I had to look up what it meant in a dictionary and it has nothing apparent to what I am discussing here… cause this mechanic is not simply distributing points more evenly if you read it properly. And you are in no place to say it is far more destructive than Glicko, because the system is not even implemented and you did not reply with sufficient evidence pertaining to why that is so based on my mechanic’s specific design. Don’t just come into a thread and put down one measly sentence that holds no water…

Edit: I found your post, and once again your opinion lacks any sufficient backbone. Whose going to agree with you that it is “poorly thought out” when you don’t take the time to give properly good feedback… that just reflects badly on yourself.

Or ArenaNet could use my Revenge catchup mechanic idea, which is not as complicated as what everyone here is suggesting and could be something more feasible given that it not only keeps scores closer together but it also promotes playing WvW in a desirable fashion to get those points (attacking the leading server and defending). Check it out, it got propped up by someone a few days ago and is getting a lot of positive comments (its in my sig).

Macilien.3078:

The main problem I see is that the revenge system will shift the focus of a matchup to the end. It wouldn’t matter if your server is strong on weekends and can get an advantage, the other servers can easily catch up.

In my eyes revenge would affect matches that are now even more than other matches as the server that can organize the strongest Friday coverage wins.

Yeah, I was wondering about that, and I have no idea how it would play out in an actual matchup. Hence the reason why I posted this, so I can convince ArenaNet to try this out! While I do think servers can play more at their leisure (which can be a good or a bad thing – it could decrease average hours of WvW play, but some of the big commanders do not need to put in as much time and in general morale is higher across the board due to closer scores), the odds of you coming back from a 20,000 point deficit on the last day is virtually impossible I think, because actually earning the points is no walk in the park. Not that its completely hopeless mind you, but it does take flawless tactics due to the counterplay put into the mechanic, the fact you have to take stuff from the leading server and the points earned from Revenge get smaller and smaller as you close the gap since it is all percentage-based (you do have some small comfort in knowing that the 3rd or 2nd place server could be helping you).

Swamurabi.7890:

This is my only issue with revenge:

If you are on a side that’s losing, it’s probably because you can’t hold your side of any map. The longer you can’t retake your side of the map the more players you’ll need to flip a t3 tower/keep.

I’ve been in so many matches where right after we flip our side of the map the first place server comes around and ktrains our side of the map.

Now with the server caps, a full server won’t be able to have coverage on all four maps.

Yeah its a valid concern, but I do think even the weakest server is capable of meeting the requirement. I am only saying this, becuase it was possible even when SoS was being quite brutally crushed to hold the two towers and the garri on our home bl for extended periods of time. And that is the worst case scenario for a matchup you could possibly have. All the matchups this week have the ability to hold at least their side in one map, so its a good sign that it will work. Also, the mechanic needs more than one type of counterplay to be considered “good design” or else it just feels bland for both the leading server and the losing server.

With regards to the effectiveness of a system like this, I think the actual design of the Revenge mechanic would work really well, it is just a matter of adjusting the percentage points given on capture and upgrade to find a sweet spot. And also to reply to dancingmonkey, the reason WvW needs a system similar to this is: 1) There is no “good” way to balance populations, 2) WvW matchups are a very long making and the way scoring is structured makes run away matchups all too easy, 3) There is hardly any rules in WvW other than holding as many points as possible, therefore more structure through Revenge could balance out matchups better through promoting double-teaming and defense. WvW has never been fair, so why would you make a claim that it needs to be now? This will just make the scores much closer in an already unfair environment, making matchups more exciting and more fun as a result.

Johje Holan.4607:

Not sure how I missed this great post. There have been suggestions of giving more points for attacking the stronger server for a long time. But this is very detailed and well though out.

However I’m not sure about certain aspects of it. Particularly regarding how much it would actually help as its designed.

1. The requirement to own your corner of the map. I think this might be too restrictive.

• If you’re losing, especially by a considerable amount, presumably you are having trouble holding your stuff so this requirement may not even allow you to take advantage of the revenge mechanic.
• What happens if you do take your corner. Then proceed to go to the leading server and set up sieging their side. Can they just go and take one of your paper towers and you lose the buff?
• Taking Bay or Hills in a leading servers BL is a feat in and of itself. So having to take that first before you even can get the buff is problematic.

2. I’m not sure how its going to help smooth out population and timezone imbalances.

3. Will it encourage the two losing servers to attack the first place server? Especially since its not just the leading server that the third server can get revenge points against. Wouldn’t this encourage just attacking second place by both 1st and 3rd?

4. I’m not sold on 1U1D. If a mechanic like this were put into place definitely the matchmaking process would need to be changed for the reasons you listed. But would 1U1D really be better?

Overall its a great idea and I hope Anet does something along these lines. Perhaps they can have a test month with this and see how it goes. If it turns out not to work it can be tweaked.

Just to address your points in order:
1. When I thought of that, I was thinking about it with close matchups in mind and to also shoehorn a defense promotion aspect into it so there is some more depth to the mechanic.

• I do feel all servers do have a “strong timezone” where they should be able to hold their side and launch an attack on the leading server, at least on one map (since you only need one map to reap benefits from this). Don’t forget there is also a server in 2nd or 3rd place also with similar intentions to steal points from the leader, so the pressure may not be as great.
• I wasn’t sure about this one tbh, but looking back to it I think you shouldn’t lose the buff on objectives that are already captured, however you will lose the buff in general as in you cannot earn additional points if you capture another objective without it being active.
• Well all I can say to that is that you have options. You can gain points potentially on all maps, so if you are not confident you can take it there, you can go to another map where it should be easier (like your Home BL). It still makes sense to have the “hold your side” component despite this, because if it was just any point that the leading server holds a lot of the flavour of the mechanic is lost and reduces the importance of holding your territory, which I think is a mindset that is important in WvW.

2. It isn’t explicit balancing of populations and timezones, it is sort of “artificial” because it is a catch-up system after all. Worlds can make up the imbalance in points to make it seem that the servers are actually much closer together in terms of size and strength, therefore smoothing out populations across timezones.

3. I think that may be a problem, because initially I was assuming the 3rd place server would see that, “ok we will get more points back if we take stuff on the leading server’s side so we will only attack them”. I didn’t account for how hard that could actually be, so maybe removing the option of gaining points from the second place server entirely would be better. I think that is something that would be easier to figure out if this was live tested.

4. I did a post about 1U1D again that seemed to get a lot more feedback than this and based on that I think a mix of 1U1D and Glicko-based matchups is the “sweet spot”. 1U1D can be done once every other month in the form of a season like ArenaNet has been doing before except there are no Gold/Silver/Bronze tiers. It is all about increasing the accuracy of the Glicko so when it comes back a month later you have matchups that have each server where they need to be.

Looking back on what people have been saying and going back on topic, I think this idea would be better suited to occur on and off, perhaps once every other month (or two). Maybe ArenaNet can make it the new season format, except every server is in the pool and it is not separated into Gold/Silver/Bronze so the servers at each of the old thresholds can intermingle. I think that would satisfy me enough to be honest…

Ben K.6238:

We had winner up, loser down in one of the tournament seasons (2, I think). It caused blowout matches every week of the tournament. Put that in WvW and you will kill off what’s left of it.

With the current population modifications ArenaNet is making and actually looking at the Season 2 scores right now (match-making is indeed similar), I disagree. Not all those matches were blowouts not to mention the servers were segregated into 3 tiers. Movement between all tiers is necessary for it winner-up/loser-down to function properly (who knows how strong the 7th place server at the top of the silver league was compared to the 6th place server in the gold league by the time transfers did their thing). I think right now it will be a lot better than it was back then because of those very reasons.

Drakh.3128:

Glicko implemented properly works just fine. Before tiers were added and match-ups were random, it worked great. Creating tiers and arranging match-ups by glicko rating is where it all went terribly wrong. In order for it to work, all servers need to play regularly against all other servers. But people kittened about loosing to stacked servers when they should not have been concerned with winning or loosing, just doing better that match-up than glicko expected them to in order to gain points, or worse to loose points.

Yeah it does work fine if it is implemented properly, but I think all servers having a chance to play against eachother is not such a great idea, because losing heavily is not fun at all. The match-making system I am talking about here is sorta middle ground between random matchups and current Glicko-determined matchups, which makes it nice. You get match-ups determined on your performance each week, allowing you to check Glicko with a lot of servers. Those servers you played with last week go against others and check Glicko with them, so there is a nice trickle effect going that is probably even more efficient than actual random matchups, since a lot of players do not play WvW when their server is being crushed due to a bad random roll. You get more freedom while maintaining a good structured way of matching servers together, so the best of both worlds basically ^^

displayname.8315:

So they haven’t said it will be mechanic per se but they seem to be working on something.

It would be a dream come true if they did something like that mechanic, because it is not only a method to earn points back but also makes earning points a little more interesting since there are a bunch of conditions on earning points from Revenge that promote defense and wariness of overextension.

Going back to the original topic, I wonder if this is something they seriously have on the table since they did say a lot of things would be looked at once HoT comes in a month. Heck, they could even be making the changes beforehand considering all the tweaking other portions of the game are getting…

displayname.8315:

Oh so your saying use glicko to determine who the winner is? I was thinking more like 1st place is the winner 3rd place is the loser and there would be no need to have glicko at all. Your way would be even more balanced tho I like that. Just don’t want it to create more overtime pushes and trolling tho as glicko is doing right now.

Looks like Anet is going to do some kind of revenge mechanic as you have talked about that should be neat. Hope its not too OP.

No not really, I guess an example would help actually. Take this week’s matchups as an example. Since Isle of Janthir will win their matchup this week, they will move up to T6 to face Borlis Pass (who will come in 2nd in T6 so they remain in-tier) and Ehmry Bay (who came in 3rd in T5, so they move down to a T6 matchup). And something like this would happen every week, so IoJ would move back down to a T7 matchup the week after (assuming they come in 3rd).

Glicko has no role in choosing matchups at all, it will act as a just a calcuation to change the rankings of servers on the leaderboard. Those 3 servers have not squared off with eachother in a very long time, which shows the ability of the matchup system to adjust Glicko ratings much more quickly through all servers checking their ratings’ accuracy with a variety of servers. Glicko will obviously not be able to keep up with it, but I think that is alright given how differently a server could perform week-to-week (more stability in the physical rankings on the leaderboard).

Also, did you actually hear that they would use an idea like my Revenge mechanic? That would be pretty sweet if they were not gonna lie lol. This matchup system is much more suited to be in place with that catch-up mechanic so there are no massive blow-outs (or significantly reduced) with the greater variation of matchups that this would bring…

Crimson Clouds.4853:

I live in Norway and I’ve seen physical copies of GW2 in Gamestop. Albeit not many copies (usually just one or two boxes on display, rather than the huge amount of WoW boxes and other popular PC games).

Went to my local gamestop a few weeks back and saw a HoT preorder box on display- I’m not sure if I saw the basic/core-game box that time, though.

I think Norwegian ratings are based off of a general European rating (not sure?). Most Norwegians are pretty fluent in English, so the game not being in Norwegian/a Scandinavian language doesn’t really pose too much of a problem.

I’m pretty sure that other countries’ equivalents to GAME or Gamestop would still stock GW2, even if the box isn’t necessarily in their native language. They may have a description of the game in their native language, or a translation of the blurb.

Here’s a list of officially recognised retailers. Unfortunately, the countries you gave as examples are not listed on the drop-down list. Almost every country is in Europe on that list, apart from USA and Israel. Israel’s national languages are Hebrew and Arabic and I can only assume that out of the 5 different retailers there are listed here, they’d sell boxed versions of GW2 in their stores.
https://www.guildwars2.com/en/retailers/

Interesting, I still wonder how Australia is able to get a hold of game copies… I find it surprising they got it selling in Brazil but not over in Oceania

Ithilwen.1529:

I found a returned copy of gw2 at Best Buy in the games section. That’s now my second account.

Doesn’t Best Buy only exist in Canada and the U.S.? That does not really answer my question

Just a flesh wound.3589:

They can always check their local stores that sell video games. Those stores might even order a copy for them if they don’t have one in stock but they do have it in their catalog.

Hm, I would have thought that illegal, because I always just assumed that game shops in all countries could not sell games that have not been screened by their country’s game rating board, even if they are only on catalog.

I am curious. Can you find Guild Wars 2 sold in stores in other countries other than ones in North America and the European Union? I would guess people in countries like Japan, Russia or Australia would have to order them online off of Amazon or whatever they use since their language (not counting Australia of course) is not supported and I assume the game is not rated by a review board in their country.

I don’t have an issue with Glicko itself, I have a problem with the matchups system that is hurting its ability to function like useful data (which is what I said). If a winner-up, loser-down matchup system was in place, it would allow servers to constantly check their ratings with servers above them, leading to better accuracy in the Glicko rating. Also, I would hope with the unstagnated matchups, it would promote spreading out populations to ensure closer and thus more interesting matchups. Sure you can fudge it up and lose and ruin some matchups below you, but for an entire server to collectively want to lose (when they obviously can get 1st and 2nd place if they try) seems unlikely and would be met with a lot of resistance since you cannot control everyone. Me, my friends and server-mates are all pretty kitten competitive, we wouldn’t stoop so low as that. Well even if a strong server intentionally falls down a bit, at least with this system they will hop back to the top incredibly quickly.

If someone can convince me of a solution that is better than this one, I would love to hear it. At the moment, it seems like the most reasonable option to get what we want from match-ups. Every solution, especially when it comes to something as complicated as World vs. World, is going to have a few flaws. However, those flaws shouldn’t stop it from being implemented, because an improvement is an improvement, and ArenaNet can’t just sit on their butts waiting for the perfect one to strike them (look at how traits went through 3 transitions before they came to Specializations)…

I am not too much into repeating a topic that people have been trying to get ArenaNet to change for a long time, but some more blantant evidence that it doesn’t work just showed up in the NA T4 and T5 matchups this week. The whole point of the Glicko rating system is to be accurate, because it is data after all. Everyone else and I expect data to be factual, truthful and unbiased. The current data spread has none of these crucial traits, which is why it is essential for something to be changed. I believe it is not the Glicko calculation itself that is the major issue but how ArenaNet determines matchups.

It is not factual, because a server that has a rating over 100 points below another should not be able to be ahead by any stretch (see T4 this week). This data is clearly not fit for comparison whatsoever.

It is not truthful, because many of the higher tier servers have their ratings nicely padded and it does not reflect their true strength.

It is biased, because it is incredibly hard for servers to move up and down rankings, putting higher tier servers in a nice comfy position.

So yeah, the current matchmaking system is garbage. ArenaNet’s method is way more complicated than it needs to be. Stop trying to create matchups using the +/- 100 variance in Glicko (or whatever it is, I don’t understand it) and put a winner up, loser down system in already like so many people have suggested. It’s simple, it makes for easy mobility up and down the rankings, keeps the matchup scene fresh for everyone and allows Glicko calculations to be more accurate. It also won’t produce terrible matchups like when the matchmaking system was allowing any servers with 200 rating over or below another to be matched up. This whole situation (among a multitude of other things WvW-related) reflects poorly on ArenaNet’s ability to design content, so listen to your fans and make it happen… being interactive is something the company is becoming known for so let’s see it for World vs. World too for once.

With ArenaNet moving server size to be in-line with World vs. World activity, I think it would be interesting to think about what it would be like if they pushed that idea to it’s logical conclusion: a transferring system that is so rigid that it will funnel players straight to the least active World vs. World server. That appears to sound pretty horrid, but I think looking at how a system like that would function would still be beneficial. Here is a few ideas on how it could work:

• Measures not only the WvW activity of each server across all timezones (I am assuming it does that now), but also their WvW activity each in each timezone (eight timezones in total). This could be possible given what they are already doing now.
• Measures which timezone each player (active WvW’er or not) spends most of their time in. I don’t know if this is possible, but let’s say in a perfect world it is. This would be an ongoing measurement that adapts over time to the changes in a person’s playing habits.
• The server select screen will display an additional column related to the timezone you are associated with. All servers except the weakest one(s) will have the word “Closed” next to their name and overall WvW activity. A little explanation on why they are closed should be given when your cursor goes over them. The servers people can transfer to may be different depending what timezone they are in. It will be much more specific than it is for the WvW activity info we get now. For example, you should only have a choice of the two weakest servers in EU and NA initially.
• Transferring would be free (no gem cost) since the system is heavily geared towards balance.
• Upon transferring you are initially recognized as an average WvW player until proven otherwise to avoid gaming the system.
• Once WvW activity in a timezone has reached the threshold of another server, that next server will be opened up to free transfer. It would (in a utopia) continue until the timezone is balanced for all servers.
• Players will have the option to queue for servers that are currently closed by right clicking on that server’s row on the transfer screen. When that server opens through the balancing of your timezone or another player in a relatively similar timezone wishes to swap places with you, you will automatically be brought to that server. You will not be able to queue for servers where their overall WvW activity is listed as “Full”. This means players on these “Full” servers have no choice but to move to the least active server in their timezone and then queue for the server they wished to enter initially.
• New accounts must choose during which timezone they believe they will be most likely to play then given server options based on that timezone choice. They are not considered an average WvW player upon choosing that server like an existing account would. A short description on why it is like this and how it will not affect their interactions with players in other servers in PvE and PvP will be necessary.

This is probably as hardcore as you could possibly go with the server transfer feature without actually forcing people to move (that would never happen… what a catastrophe that would be). I can see something like this not sitting too well with a lot of people, but I think I would be OK with it. The idea of cutting friends, family and guild members off from playing with eachother in World vs. World is best to be avoided. However, it could work, and is just another theory to balance this unbalanceable gamemode!

Well, what I wanted to be done to Assassin’s Reward was instead put into the Daredevil trait line as a Master Trait. Not happy about that, this would make and fit Assassin’s Reward so much better! 2 endurance for every point of initiative spent is 20x better than what that GM Trait is doing now…

Hey everyone, I thought I would toss this idea out there since we are on the cusp of HoT and the devs seem a lot more active on the World vs. World end of things (I’m optimistic basically). Before diving into it, this idea is not a massive rework of WvW, but could still potentially give good results. Easy to implement = low cost = easy to test. I think something like this would be acceptable and fair in WvW since we all know the scoring system is not competitive 3/4 of the time. Population/timezone imbalances are simply too hard to control. In doing this I would hope that this will smooth out population/timezone imbalance so it is not as pronounced, because there truly is no perfect solution to finding a balance through managing transfers, server WvW activity caps and map caps. I think this idea, while somewhat complicated and has its imperfections (like all great solutions), still gets us to where we relatively want to be while adding some more depth to the WvW experience. Read on!

Revenge
This will be a buff that will appear like the “Outnumbered” buff when the favourable conditions are present. In general it works like this: Gain points based on a percentage of the difference between the score of the server who’s ahead of you and your world’s score for capturing and holding objectives in their territory (referring to total current score, not PPT). For example, if Server A is at 100,000 points and Server B is at 75,000 points, the percentage of points gained from Revenge comes from the 25,000-point difference between the two servers.

When are you eligible to gain the Revenge buff?

• 1st Place: Cannot earn points from Revenge (ineligable)
• 2nd Place: Can earn points from capturing objectives in the first place server’s territory
• 3rd Place: Can earn points from capturing objectives in the first and second place server’s territories

What are the conditions to gaining the Revenge buff if you are eligible?

• You must hold your side of the map before you can gain and utilize Revenge to your advantage (excluding camps). Much like the Outmanned buff, it is effective only on the map you are currently on. You must hold your side on each of the other maps to gain Revenge on those particular maps.
• In Eternal Battlegrounds, your server needs to hold the four Towers and the one Keep that is closest to your spawn.
• In your home Borderland, your server needs to hold the two Towers adjacent to your spawn and the Garrison.
• In the enemy Borderlands, your server needs to hold either Bay Keep and Briar Tower or Hills Keep and Lake Tower depending what side your spawn is on.
• This is done to incentivize defending your own points before going on the offensive and gives counterplay to the other servers to potentially stop you from obtaining the buff. This does not stop the server from earning points from Revenge on an objective they already captured in the 1st place server’s territory.

Once the Revenge buff is active, how do you gain points?

• Example: If you are the blue team and you are in second place, while the green team is in first, you can take and hold objectives in the Lowlands of Eternal Battlegrounds, the two Towers adjacent to their spawn and Garrison on the green team’s home Borderlands and Bay Keep and Briar Tower or Hills Keep and Lake Tower on their enemy Borderlands (varies depending on what side their spawn is). Camps are not included.
• Points are awarded for the initial capture of the objective and each time it is automatically upgraded to another tier. It can therefore award points a maximum of 3 times.
• If you capture an objective in green territory while it is owned by the red team (3rd place), no points will be rewarded by Revenge on initial capture. However, you still earn points from Revenge upon the objective upgrading.

How much does each objective type award?

• Castle: Awards 20% of the difference between the scores of your server and the server you captured it from on initial capture and each time it is automatically upgraded to another tier.
• Keep: Awards 14% " ".
• Tower: Awards 6% " ".

What is the counterplay against with Revenge?

• The server who lost an objective against a server who possessed Revenge can recapture the objective, which will give a time penalty to the invading server depending on how upgraded it is. During this time period they cannot gain any points from Revenge on that particular map.
• This is in place to incentivize the invading server to defend those objectives and to be wary of overextending themselves.
• If the objective is recaptured when it is tier 1, the server is dealt a 30 minute penalty.
• If the objective is recaptured when it is tier 2, the server is dealt a 15 minute penalty.
• If the objective is recaptured when it is tier 3, the server is dealt a 5 minute penalty.
• No penalty will be dealt if the other invading server captures the point instead of the 1st place server (or 2nd place, depending).
• The penalty does not nullify points from Revenge on objectives that the server captured during the penalty that upgrade after the timer is lifted.

In summary, here are some advantages why ArenaNet should seriously consider introducing this after Heart of Thorns has launched: 1) It should do a nice job smoothing out population and timezone imbalances. 2) It is relatively easy to impliment and modify as the mechanic is not “physical” except perhaps some new dynamic events to show the presence of Revenge on an objective. 3) It promotes double-teaming the strongest server naturally without explicit coordination, which will greatly increase the closeness and excitment of matches. 4) It introduces more rules to the highly simple WvW rule-book, therefore adding more richness and depth to the experience. 5) It improves motivation and therefore competitive spirit of servers to win because they always have the feeling that they can close the gap, as opposed to right now which seems like an insurmountable challenge. 6) It gives clearer goals to servers on what to do, therefore allowing for easier participation (an emphasis on integrating GW2’s dynamic event system will be critical to ensure Revenge’s rules are clearly understood). 7) The matches are closer, but the win must still be earned because the bonus points from Revenge get smaller and smaller the closer the scores get (percentage based).

Finally, the Glicko2 rating system would no longer really be of use with this new Revenge mechanic because the scores are going to be inaccurate due to the fact that they will be much closer than they would be otherwise. Therefore, moving away from Glicko to a winner-up/loser-down system (or 1U1D) will be much better. I have made some changes to my idea since the original post and have 2 different options. You can read them below! 1U1D basically means that the 1st place server of a matchup moves up 1 tier, the 2nd place server stays within the tier, and the 3rd place server moves down 1 tier. This happens across the board, creating a large variance of matchups. I firmly believe that adding these two features will retain players better and create a more healthy, competitive and fun environment for WvW in GW2. Thanks for reading!

Update 09/28/2015: Standard 1U1D simply won’t do, because it is too volatile and gives servers too much control over matchups, so I am going to present 2 different variations here that may solve this:

1) A combination between current Glicko-based variance matchups and 1U1D. This will function similar to what ArenaNet has done with Tournaments. The 1U1D matches will come around every other month for 2 weeks, then standard Glicko-matchups will resume for 4 weeks til its time for the next 1U1D portion. What’s different is that there will be no Gold/Silver/Bronze so Glicko adjusts itself across all tiers in the most efficient way possible. Hopefully these bit-sized portions of 1U1D will incentivize the NA servers to better spread out, becuase half the matchups during 1U1D have the potential to be lopsided (or all of them if your regular matchups under Glicko are terribad). This is because the server who is weakest in the tier above you and strongest in the tier below you (assuming you earn second place in 1U1D meaning you stay in your tier) will pay you a visit every other week.

2) 1U1D determines matchups in the following week when a certain server or servers gain or lose Glicko rating above a certain threshold in the current week. I think this one is pretty smart, because the system actually recognizes innaccuracies when they happen and acts to adjust them immediately in the next week. The 1U1D determines the matches week after week until any servers stop losing or gaining above the threshold amount. It would essentially fix what is wrong with Glicko, because the system would actively eliminate innaccuracies, maintain even matchups when no changes are required and allow servers to move up and down the ladder when they need to. Right now I think a number like 25 could be good (as in if a server loses or gain above that value in 1 particular week).

It’s called an Elite Specialization for a reason, I agree with ArenaNet’s current design. They would have to change the name of it if they were going to do what you said, meaning it is highly likely it won’t happen, because the point of an Elite Specialization is to progress your current self into an elite form. That only makes sense on a level 80 character who has the knowledge of the profession and is therefore worthy of using it. Doing it at level 60 or any level before 80 would be a bad idea, because you only have an idea of the profession. It’s not until 80 that you really flesh it out with solid builds. People below 80 don’t have the armour/weapon/trinket stats, foods, oils, skill rotations and trait setups thought out enough to be considered “elite”.

Hey, I was just wondering if ascended Giver’s stats will be available on armor and weapons when Heart of Thorns comes out. I would very much like to upgrade from my current exotic Giver’s weapons!

I think this is a valid concern, because based on how it has been stated it, it seems raids are become something very frequent in future updates. Will this severely hinder other updates and bug fixes elsewhere in the game? I have heard that raids typically take up a lot of time for developers. I am pretty confident that ArenaNet has the resources it needs, but I know that they have sort of left some things sit around for awhile with no updates, like World vs. World (that’s the most well-known example, along with World Bosses and Dungeons). It leaves me worried that this component of the game will overshadow updates on existing content.

Fatherbliss.4701:

A few guild members noted that FA and SOS were listed as “Very Full” this morning. Which points once more to participation/population being part of the equation to determine transfer status. I’m suspecting that will once again cause stacking issues. Reducing overall server count makes sense but there are a ton of reasons why a game doesn’t want to do that (including feeding a mindset that a game is “dying”).

Very Full? Is that even possible?

That is rediculous, they need to fix that asap (the patch notes said they did something about it, but I guess not). I don’t know if they will do a fix for it in the near future, but since it seems someone is working on it, the possibility of it coming is much more optimistic.

displayname.8315:

If that article is real it goes on to say possible limitations are..

•Only one or two character slots
•Limit of level 15
•Seems like a limit on how high a “rank” you can get (specific to trial or possibly PvP related)
•Only able to send mail to friends.
•Can’t send items or gold through mail
•Can’t speak in map chat
•Can’t access Team Arenas
•Can’t access main WvW maps (EB and Borderlands)
•Can’t sell items on TP.

That sounds great, those are the limitations we would be expecting them to implement.

I just joined recently and I am really enjoying my time with the pW crew, there is always someone to play WvW with when off of raid time and I enjoy our outnumbered fights with YB! I highly recommend the pW and SoS communities as your destination, lots of great people here!

Jay.7546:

Win and go up, lose and go down. Sounds simple enough to me. I don’t feel like enrolling at University again to figure out the glicko. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that YB is stuck in T2 even though they have the numbers and coverage to get a taste of T1. I know it’s not skill that will get them there but at least they can go back to their roots hugging towers and keeps and siege capping everythng they own.

Why is T1 so exclusive? Every tier has had blow outs at some point so why not T1? Is that by design? It definitely seems like there’s some sort of deal or rotation system up there but enough is enough. FA was so strong for months and they should have cracked T1 for at least one week. And now YB is a juggernaut and stuck. Is the T1 lock out really good for the game or fair to those on other servers?

I don’t think ArenaNet intended it to be locked out, but I do think it is unfair because none of the servers below the top three have the feeling that they could be #1 if they pushed for it. That’s the biggest fault of this system, the inability for servers to aim for the top. The incentive is totally lost. At least a win up, lose down system would bring some of that feeling back. Using higher variance and messing with glicko in general would be total anarchy, you can already see how fidgety T5 to T8 is in NA.

I like the idea, but maybe not now cause SoS and FA have a really good chance to restructure before our ratings drops too far. Once everything in T2 has settled down I would like ArenaNet to at least try it out for awhile. They tried that terribad higher glicko variance model for awhile, and this is way better than that.

YB has a 32.550% of getting a T1 matchup now

Haha this gave me a laugh, I am in SoS and live in Ontario, but I have a strong server loyalty complex so the chances are slim unfortunately :/

Je te souhaite bon chance toutefois!

Well, I think SoS and FA still have fire in our tanks, it just needs to be rekindled by a close matchup. I am not doubting we both have fairweathers coming out of our noses. That High population for my server is a little concerning though, not that I didn’t know it was going to happen. People tend to lose heart knowing they have little chance of holding points (which ends up making it worse). It did make it cheaper to transfer a bunch of people that were interested in joining the SoS community, so that is a bright point.

Turamarth.3248:

Free accounts can only access Eotm would probably be the best in my opinion.

Yeah that is a great idea, I would be behind that for sure. However, as people have said, we don’t even know what they mean for it to be free. I would hold off on the feedback concerns until they have given concrete details about it. I find it hard to believe that they would make it totally free.

ArenaNet, if they are at all reading this, they NEED to put Yak’s Bend up to T1 next week and once they have been satisfied, put Fort Aspenwood into T3 for the week after that. As someone in SoS, I am not very confident either FA or SoS can handle the T3 servers at the moment. That is how bad it is… FA and SoS really need something fresh so we know where we stand. ArenaNet knows very well that they can change the matchups, and why they are not taking an active role in it is just flat out bad customer service. Don’t tell us your “working on HoT”, this is one of your CORE game modes and needs someone to actively manage it to keep it balanced. If there is someone in that job position right now, they are not doing their job, and proper steps need to be taken to remedy this situation.

Yeah, it doesn’t really make sense, it is definitely one of the many things ANet has “forgotten” to do because other content is more important. They should at least patch this with Heart of Thorns, they are changing the BL maps anyway so might as well do it while placing the merchant NPCs n’ stuff.

Yeah, I’m on SoS too and I really can’t wait until it balances out a bit. Right now we (and FA I would assume) just feel so constrained in a number of timezones that it makes it difficult to play and then to have success when we do come out of the woodwork. It would be cool if we could coordinate something with YB to get it balanced out faster, cause that would probably be a lot more fun for all of us tbh.

I recommend Darkhaven or Ehmry Bay; They are both stable servers and have Medium populations, so the transfer is cheap. I don’t know anything beyond that about those two, but I am sure they have good communities. Dragonbrand is growing atm, so I wouldn’t go there until they stabilize, because I am sure you want a stable server instead of one where its future is uncertain (not discrediting the ability of DB’s community to maintain itself over a long period of time, its just that its better to go with what is stable now).

morrolan.9608:

What low servers?

JQ is not massively overstacked compared to other servers in the same range.

I think this confusion is pretty common, because we don’t even know the benchmark they set for what is full and is not full. They may have a “score” that relates to the level of activity they want on a full server. Technically a full server should be balanced with all the other full servers, because they have all attained the activity cap. However, since ArenaNet was very late in implementing this system and deemed the activity cap they desired was lower than the level T1 servers are currently playing at, there is some very large disparities between them. So that would explain why a server like Fort Aspenwood, which is quite measurably smaller than a T1 server (Glicko rating is almost 300 points below JQ), is full.