Guild Wars 2

TC-JQ-DB!!

Although it would also be pretty cool to face an EU server :O
But that’ll never happen hahaha

Tarnished Coast

I’m dying to fight JQ already!! We’ve faced all the top servers except them, so…

TC-JQ-DB
TC-JQ-FA
TC-JQ-BG

either of those 3 combinations sound good

1. Elementalist/Guardian
2. Mesmer
3. Necromancer
4. Engineer/warrior
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
99. Ranger
100. Thief (except for soloing, but that will get lonely and boring)

What have we learned from the new match ups? We learned that ppl will always have something to complain about! We asked for this, and we got it because the old system was too stagnant.

Blackjack.2083:

Neeho.3859:

The answer is obvious, isn’t it? Drop the que threshold by half. People will get frustrated by long que times on high pop servers and transfer to servers with less of a que. This will also allow the low tier servers to compete more evenly against the higher tier servers, as it cuts the number of people per map.

Yea the que threshold needs to be reduced or used as a gate to help maintain a better level of balance. Long que times for overpopulated servers would help to promote transfers to less populated servers.

Umm what if I like my overpopulated server for more than wvw? How is making longer queue times fair to ppl who don’t just wvw?

JudgeRAW.4632:

Dawdler.8521:

I want less animals and many, many more patrolling guards. It should feel like areas are controlled by a faction, not just be random cap locations in the middle of nowhere where are couple of guards are lazily sleeping on their post.

Best suggestion ever, especially in areas where there are multiple caps ( tower + camp + keep) I think this would be a great way to mix things up so it’s not a full-on zerg fest as you’d need players cleaning up NPCs more.

What? This would mean more zerging! Small groups would be crippled serverly by having to take out even more PvE trash. Zergs could just roll right through like nothing’s there. This is a terrible idea. More NPCs, more PvE, more of the unfun CHORES to get through before actually playing WvW

AmphibianX.7042:

Why are servers ranked by their WvW Performance?

Because the ranking system is used to determine WvW match ups. Duhhh

kyro.8162:

How about Anet removes the siege timers, and add a new skill to all the siege like skill 6 or something. That skill would be called something like “remove siege.” And when used, the siege has one tick to it. Once it gets 10 ticks from 10 different players, it would be removed and in its place 10 supply. That way, armies can recycle supply (go green!) and people can prevent siege grieving. The chances of sabotaging another server would be lower as it would require 10 people to remove key sieges.

This really is the absolute best idea. I’ve seen it before and suggested it myself, but it would have to be 25 ticks not 10 because it would be too easy for 10man grief/sabotage squads to to roam the enemy servers. But I totally agree, this NEEDS to be done!!!!!!! Except on rams, those should despawn after 10 minutes.

The ppl who post on the forums asking for nerfs on classes

Lyonell.1753:

Down state is garbage, plain and simple, you’re doing your kitten in WvW, random elementalist jumps down, spams all his cool downs you “Down him” he turn into mist runs back into the keep/building lalala self res himself via #4 comes out and do the same again. Now a warrior comes out, he spams his cool downs you “down him” he throws his hammer and get’s killed right after cause there is nothing else he can do.

Thief and warrior fight, thief “downs” warrior and thief got 2%? of his hp left, thief stealths goes behind the warrior and finish him no problem. Same Scenario with warrior downing thief, warrior starts his lame animation, thief downs him due to high down damage warrior goes down, thief continies pressure, warrior res himself, if his frenzy goes off cool down, thief #4 while warrior is having his glorified summon of a lame stick > when he is about to hit thief tele’s behind him, warrior runs to him, he stealths, by the time warrior starts a 3rd attempt his vengance is over he dies anyways and the thief rally :P.

Big keep I down 5 people, they down 1 they focus fire that 1 and all 5 rally bam balance right there. Warrior drops his elite banner rally all 5… downed an elementalist he runs back to his friends for res so on. Mesmers got the worse down state imo. All they can do is clone to die… so yeah. Downed state only makes WvW lame as kitten, is good for pve maybe but pvp and WvW no way in hell.

Hey underwater combat is fun! If you’re a Ranger or Mesmer :p

it would be a funny way to “nerf thieves” since we all know thieves can’t swim. But that aside, underwater wvw would be like a whole new game. All the towers would have to be redesigned somehow so we don’t just swim over the wall :p :p

Sounds like another chore event like the ogres, dredge, and hylek events. Not fun, just a chore to get over with.

Pssh, who uses oil anyway

Siege despawn. Not a bug, but stupid stupid stupid

30 minute despawn is the studidest, worst change (I mean fix) ever brought to wvw. Totally ruined it for me. But here’s what I think should be done instead. A friend of mine came up with this idea, and might have posted it somewhere already, but I think this is the best solution, so here it is:

Make it so there is an option to remove siege by right clicking and selecting it. Anyone can select this option, BUT it takes 10 “votes” from 10 different accounts for the siege to be removed. This would be very similar to how it takes 10 ppl to start a breakout event.

It would be difficult to pull together10 griefers, and letting commanders alone have the option to remove siege on there own opens the way for griefers to buy commander icons, and we all know how well Anet responds to griefing reports, if we report said commanders. With the option above, ppl could ask over and over again in map chat for other ppl to select to have siege removed, and it would get done. It would be another regular thing shouted in wvw map chat or team chat whenever necessary.

When will ppl understand that nerfs ruin games? Why would anyone ASK for a nerf?

“Oh this dungeon makes ppl rich, make it suck so they have to be poor like me!”

If anyone is lazy here, it is the lazy, selfish, idiot who wants to ruin things for everyone else because they don’t like it. Get over yourself! Nerfing CoF means everyone would find a new dungeon, which would get nerfed, and so on until there’s nothing left.

Here is how the despawn should be:

Rams: 10 minute despawn, they don’t need to be out any longer than that

ACs/ballistas/catapults/Trebs: no despawn, they stay till destroyed

Golems: 2 hour despawn, any longer and every server will just pile up a hundred golems in the spawn to nightcap the others, and any less than 2 hours is just ridiculous

30 minute despawn ruins the game worse than anything else ppl complain about. 30 minutes in the game feels like 30 seconds.

Lyndis.2584:

jojojoon.8607:

When I saw the siege capping exploit first occurring, I knew at the moment that if Anet did not act quickly and decisively (banning them), it will become a huge problem as it becomes part of the “meta.” Now, we have multiple servers sending spies over to other servers to siege cap to help their server win. The server that does this sieging capping the best will have a huge advantage in wvw.

Eventually, it won’t be just normal coverage that will cut it, but also spy and sabotage coverage.

Such a shame.

By taking no action, Anet ENCOURAGES this kind of action which really takes the fun away from the game. TC spent 2 weeks screen capping and recording videos of 2 certain players siege griefing, and Devon carter even said Anet would hold a meeting about it on Monday last week, and would bring down “the ban hammer” if they found it worthy of taking action against.

Guess they decided they like griefing, spies, and sabotage; cuz no action was taken.

I would choose a 2am reset over the 6am reset on a Saturday morning all the ppl playing in Asia have to deal with now >.<

Moving reset up 2 hours was a bad bad bad idea.

Everyone on the west coast of North America, and everywhere west of there basically got kittened by this

Actually when there’s really bad skill lag, if you hold down number 6 instead of tapping it, the heal will go off. I’m pretty sure it works that way with other skills too, but if it’s an AoE clicking power, well then you’re kitten-outta-luck :/

Replace the maps

3 identical maps? Come on, we need more variety than that. We need a real urban map with narrow streets, like that other guy’s “divinity’s breach” idea or something like that.

Or go with that unique borderland based on server name idea. SBI’s map looks like blood tide coast, SoS gets a bunch of islands and underwater combat, etc. except places we can’t get to yet like CD or IoJ would probably have to have the old, regular, boring BL map for now :/

yiishing.9057:

challenge accepted.
around 60 golems from elonas reach – around eastern

stinkypants.8419:

+1 – urban/guerrilla fighting maps, not sure how this could be done, but it’d definitely be neat!

Just imagine being in the narrow, winding parts of divinity’s reach or lion’s arch, then imagine zergs running through those streets and allies with ACs on the rooftops and all those potential choke points and hiding places for surprise attacks.

This could possibly be the best thing ever

As would this

Sokar Rostau.7316:

1. Each server gets their own borderland that reflects that server’s name. Dragonbrand actually is in the Dragonbrand, Maguuma actually is in the Maguuma jungle. These are released over a period of eight months to cover the eight tiers.

Urban warfare would be totally sick

And so would island warfare

……just pleeeeeeease don’t go sticking karka NPCs on the islands!!!!

sdsakuragi.8170:

MrChandMan.8253:

But this

whiran.1473:

Give people in a zerg MORE things to do so it becomes more enjoyable.

That is innovative thinking in an entirely different direction. That is the approach that should be taken. Zergs are here to stay. Adding debuffs or anything to lessen the zerg experience will destroy the game.

Two things.

Does anyone actually have any idea of what “MORE things” is exactly? More control points on the map? Unless we have concrete and specific suggestions, we may as well be Congress, clamoring for more public works and less taxes and no idea how to do both at the same time.

And also why exactly would encouraging a single zerg to split off into multiple smaller groups destroy the game? We already scale up world bosses to counter the zerg. It actually takes less time for 15 people to kill the Shatterer than it does for 80 people. Has this destroyed the dragon fights? Are people deserting the game in droves? Zerg based debuffing, would actually encourage multiple commanders per server per map and thus more interesting tactics and resource mobilitly. If anything the zerg is what’s ruining WvW. In T3 right now there’s certain times of the day where 2 of the servers are so outnumbered that it’s actually not worth logging into WvW unless it’s your intentio to donate free badges. How do you convince outnumbered servers to stick around and fight against the zerg if they have no hope of doing anything significant against it? This morning one server help over 90% of PPT. How does this help make the game better or more enjoyable? Would giving a greatly outnumbered force a fighting chance and thus a reason to stick around and fight, instead of WPing back to spawn, really “destroy the game”?

Edit:
Also to address you point about nerfs. Nerfs to certain classes and builds ruin games, because this is usually seen by the player population as favoring one class or build over another. Complete mechanic and scaling changes across all servers and class are balanced and fair in every sense of the word. Was there a mass exodus of players when the level downscaling changes were implemented in PvE to make high level players weaker because they were still 1-2 shotting most mobs? Did people rage quit when guaranteed rares from meta event chests were changed to account based from character based?

Zerging is known as emergent gameplay. In other words, a meta which develops due to manipulation of the rules. Change the rules the meta will change along with it. League of Legends has one of the most wildly swinging nerf bats of any game I’ve played. If what you say is true, that game must have no active players left by now.

“Encouraging” a single zerg to split into smaller zergs by debuffing and weakening the big zerg is not the way to do it. Incentives for smaller zergs mist come as a positive effect to smaller zergs, not a negative effect to big zergs. Of course there are incentives already though. A server that wants to rack up ppt points most efficiently already knows that it’s better to have multiple zergs hitting multiple targets. Or one big zerg to distract defenders while small groups cap empty towers is another good strategy. We don’t need weird debuffs added for this to happen. The “problem” will fix itself as more servers play strategically.

But to the other point, I like the idea of scaling capture events in wvw based on the current population at that moment. If one server has 60 ppl on the map and there’s 10 defenders on the map, then it would be nice to buff up the NPCs or something like that. That way there’s less pvdoor and server skill isn’t based solely on coverage…….but that sounds extremely hard to implement. I can’t even imagine the coding that would take, and how it would work with 3 servers. Plus, what can you do when the Lord is already a lvl 83 legendary?

sdsakuragi.8170:

So the only way to keep zerging from being overly rewarding is to apply resistance, and that means special rules and conditions when you take part in a zerg. I’m not advocating an end to zerging completely, I’m just saying that during off peak server hours when there’s only 20 players from your server on an entire map and a 80 man zerg appears, you have more options than to just WP to spawn so you’re not just free badges.

I’m also not suggesting rewards in WxP or coin, etc be reduced for zergs. And as more and more of the zerg is depleted, remaining players get stronger. The zerg still has it’s advantages. And if it’s a zerg on zerg battle, if everyone is under the same debuff, then the fight is still fair and exciting.

Nerfs and debuffs are not the answer. Nerfs RUIN games more than anything else possibly could. People need to stop asking for nerfs. Think about what is really being said: “this is working too well, make it suck more.”

But this

whiran.1473:

Give people in a zerg MORE things to do so it becomes more enjoyable.

That is innovative thinking in an entirely different direction. That is the approach that should be taken. Zergs are here to stay. Adding debuffs or anything to lessen the zerg experience will destroy the game.

Q: Whats a strong WvW roamer class to roll?

A: Thief

Nuff said

Red or Blue, which third in EB do you think is the stronger position to play from?

Server ratings aside, which area is better? It is an indisputable FACT that Green has the biggest advantage, so try and keep that out of the question. But between Red and Blue, which one is better? Or are they both perfectly, evenly balanced?

Here’s my thoughts on this:
Red is cursed with speldan, ANZ, and Mendons which are all a joke; but red also has OL, ogrewatch (OW), and Veloka (VS) which make a hard-to-penetrate trio of towers that are practically on top of Pang which refills all 3 very fast.

Blue is cursed with Durios and QL which are always being trebbed from SM; but blue also has Lang, valley keep (VK), and Brav which are another hard-to-penetrate trio.

Upon first glance, most ppl would say blue is the worst color to be, but I would argue that blue is much stronger/safer than red. Red’s trio can be trebbed from SM and orgath while blue’s trio cannot. It is extremely difficult to defend against these, especially in OW. Blue’s trio is safely away from QL, Durios, and SM which keep it safe from being trebbed from another structure. But remember this goes both ways. Blue has a much more difficult time trebbing SM than red does. Red also has to operate on just one supply camp 85% of the time. Speldan is so far away that its yak almost never makes it to the keep and if it does, it’s like once every point tick. VK protects Brav and Lang, the same way OL protects OW and VS with mortars and Trebs.

So what do you guys think? Which area is better? Or are they evenly balanced with niether having an advantage?

sdsakuragi.8170:

Here’s an idea:

For every additional allied player within radar range over 20, you’re hit with a % debuff to all stats other than boon/condi duration and % crit damage. This could be 0.5%, 1%, or whatever works best. And this debuff would stack up to cap, say 30%. Defeated (not downed) players would cease to count towards the debuff.

So for example, if a 80 man zerg attacks a keep defended by 30 players. Then the attackers would be debuffed to a full -30% to all stats and the defenders would suffer a a minor 5% debuf, assuming the debuff rate is set to 0.5% per additional player.

The defenders use this to their advantage to wipe out 30 of the attackers but suffer 10 casualties of their own. Now the 50 remaining attackers’ debuff is reduced to 15%, and the 20 remaining defenders have no debuff.

I believe with this system, smaller groups will form and attack different parts of the map, breaking up some of the zerginess. But since the debuff is capped and goes away as more and more of the zerg is wiped out or chased off, there is still a small advantage to be had with superior numbers, but it’s nowhere near as hopeless as it is now. What do you guys think?

No

Because this goes against Anet’s group philosophy. They never want a situation to arise where a player sees a group event and is hesitant to join in for fear of being reprimanded by those already there who will now be faced with debuffs or diminished returns or anything like that because someone joined late.

Anything that causes that uncertainty/awkwardness goes against what makes gw2 gw2, and does not belong.

Unfortunately this doesn’t translate as well to wvw as it does to pve, but that’s how it is.

Zergs are here to stay.

Isn’t it like this already? Just make sure your party is in range

DelphiFaela.6823:

Seriously, it’s not funny. I mean they are nice and all, but when 30 people in a zerg are spamming them, it hurts! And people ignoring repeated requests to stop, nice. I was begining to regain my faith in humanity, then that happened.
So Petition to ban the fireworks in WVW? Go go….

Dont go ruining everyone else’s fun because you have a problem. The official forums are already a cesspool of ppl complaining about thieves and zergs. Don’t need to fill them up with even more complaining about things most ppl like.

Nyta.4769:

/signed

Gives many of us a headache, causes tons of extra lag in already large laggy fights, makes it hard to see what’s going on, makes it annoying trying to pick up bags, and makes people using them completely useless since they aren’t fighting.

And it contributes absolutely nothing. No positives, tons of negatives. Please remove fireworks from wvw.

The way you put it, it makes fireworks sound like a good strategy in zerg fights. Blind them and lag them; not bad :p

So since it’s petition-starting time, I propose a petition to ban petitions that ban things which I guess if it passes invalidates the petition so it could never pass…

Based on the original post, tarnished coast seems like it would be the perfect place for you, no joke. On tarnished coast, it’s all about the community. WvW comes second to that; but don’t get me wrong, we’re currently sitting in the green position in T2. Our tier has what is probably the most balanced and fun match up out of all the theirs right now.

TC is community based and loooooves to have fun! We refuse to let the grinding, tedious aspects of wvw get in the way of enjoying ourselves. We participate in fun random things like the weekly dolyak parade, naked zergs every once in awhile, dancing with the enemy, even our sentries in towers know how to have fun.

Our website is filled with tactical strategies for all members to see including picture guides to siege placement; as well as random chatter about anything and everything.

All the things you asked for in the original post are what TC is. We’ve been called the zombie coast because ofmur never give up attitude. We win slow and steady, not by bandwagoning guilds. TC is a militia based server, with a free mumble account for anyone to use. You should honestly give it a try we can probably help pay for the transfer if you want. Just ask on our website tcgw2.com

Pinko.2076:

MrChandMan.8253:

Siege despawn timers need to be removed entirely.

What is the point of pouring money and supply into something that’s just going to disappear for no reason at all. Don’t tell me about map capping siege and troll siege. These problems work themselves out in a balanced map. Although the troll siege griefing is really a problem, but that’s being dealt with by Anet. Offense already has a huge advantage most of the time. Defenders would rather be able to play the ga,e instead of stopping the fighting to go run across the keep to tick siege on the other side.

If there’s no siege limit and no despawn timer, there could be some very big issues. It’s not a realistic change they could make since it would spawn more problems.

I’m not saying to get rid of the siege limit. Anet made it very clear awhile back why they need that, and I agree with them. But the despawn is just stupid.

Ticking siege is the biggest CHORE in wvw and takes away from the fun in the game far worse than culling ever did imo. The only reason, I think, that it hasn’t become a big deal already is because very few players actually do go around ticking siege, compared to now many ppl are affected by the other problems in wvw.

There is not one good reason for siege other than rams to despawn.

Siege despawn timers need to be removed entirely.

What is the point of pouring money and supply into something that’s just going to disappear for no reason at all. Don’t tell me about map capping siege and troll siege. These problems work themselves out in a balanced map. Although the troll siege griefing is really a problem, but that’s being dealt with by Anet. Offense already has a huge advantage most of the time. Defenders would rather be able to play the ga,e instead of stopping the fighting to go run across the keep to tick siege on the other side.

Basedgod.7328:

I still think that the server with the lowest rating in the bracket should have the Red side of EB with the strong overlook keep.

It is funny though when there is a colour change after being one colour for so long. Just today, while we on FA (Red) were hitting Hills on TCBL (Now Green), I saw a Kaineng try to run into the door portal to a keep that was not theirs, I assume that the particular individual thought they were still in green. Hilarious.

Lol I don’t even want to say how many times I’ve tried to kill my own sentries when the colors change >.>

DeWolfe.2174:

I think the developers did a good job of making the zones balanced and a slight edge to the 3rd place world.

I agree. The map is very balanced, but I still say the slight edge goes to the green world. Red has pang, the easiest camp to defend, but it also has speldan, the hardest camp to defend. Red can Treb SM, but it can also be trebled by sm, which is a major headache to the weakest server who most lack the means nessecary to counter the sm Trebs.

Green is the strongest in EB because all 4 of its towers can be defended from LLK by the mortars. Blue only has a trio of Brav-VK-Lang, and red only has a trio of OW-OL-Veloka. And to make red even worse, OW can be easily taken from orgath or sm via Trebs, and there is practically no way to counter it, making Red’s trio highly vulnerable. I don’t even meed to mention Anz or mendons. Blue is weak because Durios and QL are every SM-owner’s favorite Treb spot, plus it has the mess of ruins right in the middle of the area making it easy for attackers to hide, and easy for defenders to get lost around their keep >.>

But green….

4 towers and a keep all tightly packed where they can all defend eachother, 2 supply camps that are extremely easy to kite around enemy zergs until your zerg gets there… Green is without a doubt the strongest position.

I hope the colors really do get randomized every week! Green is undoubtedly the strongest 1/3 in EB and it’s unfair that the strongest server gets the easiest 1/3 to defend. It would be so nice for the weakest server to be green one week, then red the next, the blue, and so on randomly to spice things up. Being the same color for weeks and weeks and weeks gets pretty boring after awhile

Kalkz.5297:

SilencingMachine.5049:

From the QQ in this thread, I am guessing you do not have GOOD people in your /m or /t or on TS that are broadcasting the countdown timer on those WPs, eh? You DO know that as they “defend” countdown timer goes to zero, you can spam click the WP and use it. (ie. it goes uncontested for a brief period).That’s why on JQ (where the boss WvW-ers live apparently…haha), you see people in chat with “10 sec on gari wp…starting spamming now!!!! GET HERE!”. Try that out and stop crying about 1-3 WP’s that you mostly don’t use anyways.

Stop Crying ? You’re a boss, JQ is a good WvW server, We get it, Now let the other 23 servers talk, we dont have WvW population as you do, When you have 10 People in your whole BL and your enemy outman you and you see your 3 waypoints getting contested due having 1 thief slapping doors over and over You basically cant do anything, Use your kittening brain

I’m with mr JQ boss on this. It’s not that hard to have someone call out the WP timers and if no one’s doing it, then ask in /m or /t “what is the timer at at such and such?” Everyone does this in T1 and T2. It’s basically common knowledge that every person knows about. Only having 10 ppl on the map is no excuse for not having scouts in the area. Have 1 person at each keep calling out who’s attacking and how many, that way the rest of the team knows which threat to respond to and which keep to let fall.

Asglarek.8976:

MrChandMan.8253:

Just like how crafting is buying regular exp, buying upgrades should reward wxp. The more expensive the upgrade, the more wxp is rewarded.

Building siege rewards regular exp, why should it not reward wxp too?

There’s no need to “break up the zerg” or nerf this and nerf that. Just make it so there is at least some incentive to pouring money and time into the non-glamorous, tedious, difficult task of building up defense in keeps and towers. I’ve never had a problem with zergs. I always liked running in huge zergs for a little while, then stopping and focusing on defense. I’ve always liked the defensive aspect of the game, but now zerging is the ONLY way to get wxp. To not zerg is now not only rewardless, but it is detrimental to your character.

Rewarding wxp for upgrades and building siege seems like the simplest, most logical, common sense way to balance things out. If you think about it, it makes no sense that it’s not this way already.

You don’t play wv3 much do ya? I never zerg and I’m almost rank 10. There are tons of things to do that earn wxp outside the blob hiding in towers and keeps should not reward you and I wont even mention the wxp exploitation that would come with building siege since its already been covered.

So NO!

What by sniping yaks, flipping sentries, and flipping supply camps? Yes that is fine too but it doesn’t give as much wxp as fast as zerging does. But as the person before said, seige building giving wxp is a bad idea. But ordering upgrades and keeping supply flowing to finish the upgrades is not hiding in the towers and keep. That is a critical roll that gets almost no reward. It would be nice if escorting a yak from camp to keep would give exp and wxp too.

shortcake.8659:

Until someone blows all 1700 supply in your keep building flame rams to farm wxp.

That is a good point. But what about ordering upgrades? Shouldn’t there be some reward for that?

Just like how crafting is buying regular exp, buying upgrades should reward wxp. The more expensive the upgrade, the more wxp is rewarded.

Building siege rewards regular exp, why should it not reward wxp too?

There’s no need to “break up the zerg” or nerf this and nerf that. Just make it so there is at least some incentive to pouring money and time into the non-glamorous, tedious, difficult task of building up defense in keeps and towers. I’ve never had a problem with zergs. I always liked running in huge zergs for a little while, then stopping and focusing on defense. I’ve always liked the defensive aspect of the game, but now zerging is the ONLY way to get wxp. To not zerg is now not only rewardless, but it is detrimental to your character.

Rewarding wxp for upgrades and building siege seems like the simplest, most logical, common sense way to balance things out. If you think about it, it makes no sense that it’s not this way already.