Guild Wars 2

Jayne.9251:

morrolan.9608:

Alteros.3019:

briggah.7910:

If you ask me. You need to push your recalculate/refresh/re-something button since medium servers are now getting transfers and out numbering high status servers..

For 3 weeks now we been outnumbered by medium servers.

Same here. The server I left behind, which is presently a virtual T8 wasteland from what I’ve been told by the last few folks who stayed behind, is listed as “medium” population.

Meanwhile, it appears that at the upper tiers, the blob wars are in full swing with some servers woefully outnumbered.

Its difficult while I don’t discount JQ being full for the moment the fact is we barely get any queues any more.

Is it possible that JQ is doing a SFR and you’re just out of the mandatory logout loop?

What is up with SFR anyways, I’m from NA, but I track EU matches as well. SFR hasn’t lost in forever, and by this much is incredible too.

Yes, except that you can’t have both at the same time.

The ability to display both server, and local time on our minimap? I know its relatively unimportant, so I wouldn’t be disappointed if it can’t happen, but it would still be nice.

I don’t know what to do with mine, they are completely useless for me. Unless there is a way to convert them to gold.

Start with 6 factions. These factions operate in a similar way to the Vigil, DP, and OoW, as they are not technically enemies, but they vie for resources type of thing. There are two, 3 way matches going on, incorporating all 6 factions. However, here is where it is different.

Instead of competing against only two other factions for that round, you are actually competing against all five. All placements and matchups (1st, 2nd, so on) are dynamically changing based on score. If the fourth ranked faction gets more points than the third ranked faction, then the fourth ranked faction takes third place, and the third place faction drops down to fourth. Now here’s the real kicker, this can happen mid matchup.

Example, Faction D is in third place, and holds 100,000 points on wednesday. Faction A is in fourth place, and thus in the other matchup with 5th and 6th place factions, but has 140,000 points on wednesday. Because the points of faction A are higher than faction D, faction A switches places with faction D.

It is a six way battle, with an artificial barrier between the top and bottom three factions. Basically, the six factions are constantly changing matchups based on how many points they have. The faction with the most points, will occupy 1st place, but if, in the other match, the faction ranked number 4 gets more points than the 1st place faction, then the matchup readjusts itself to move the factions based on their rank point wise.

If the overloads turn out to be massively strong, then I am fine with the “high risk, high reward” playstyle, even if we lack the stab/evades/leaps, but only if they are very, very, powerful.

I feel like the low population problem could kind of fix itself. I feel the new keep lords are too powerful to take on with anything less than a full group. Also, the guards respawn insanely quick. If there is only one defender in the keep against the say ten invaders, then I think they could hold them off.

I take it for the reduction in CD honestly. I play a condi trap/burn ranger, so the lower CD on the blast helps when i want to blast a fire field, or when I blast healing springs.

They could buff rangers right now if they
-gave us back ground targeting for traps
-made spirits follow us again
-gave spirits more hp

Thank you! Its very nice to see this.

The Great Al.2546:

Dagger offhand already has some pbAOE spells (both earth spells come to mind, and ring of fire could count, too). It will probably be group might, group cleanses, etc. Based on the recent reveals, it looks like reflect is the new dodge, so I’m sure there will be a reflect as well. Probably very party support oriented.

Could be, I could see a party themed warhorn. Though I’m not sure where that would see much use.

With the teaser on Sunday, its no longer in question what weapon the ele will get. However, there is still much speculation as to what role it will play. As seen in recent reveals, Anet is willing to take weapons and mix up their role, such as melee staff, and slow moving GS. Love it or hate it, what do you think the WH’s role will be?

I personally think it could be many things, but I feel there is a strong chance it could be a pbAOE weapon, almost like a melee damage/aoe weapon. Because there are 4 attunements, Anet could also have it perform multiple roles.

What do you guys think?

I would rather see a no rally timer. After you rally the first time, it goes on a 1 min cooldown.

Alternatively, you could do a “no rally” but give outmanned servers the ability to rally.

Perhaps one of my greatest frustrations with this game, is the ridiculous way that waypoints are used. I both love hate waypoints, as waypoints are leagues better than mounts, but you actually have to unlock a waypoint to use it. It is so frustrating to want to do something in one area, but have to trek through the entire map simply to get there.
Example: My human character has never left DR, he leveled exclusively through tomes, wvw, or something else. Now he’s 80 and I want to do higher level stuff, like Shatterer. Now I have to spend forever, to simply get there to unlock that waypoint, so I can do Shatterer again in the future. The fact that there are no unlocked waypoints by default is so incredibly stupid. If I’m an asura and I have not yet gone to ascalon, and I want to go do the AC dungeon, I have to do a lot of mindless walking just to get there.

Now, I know the world completionists like their world completion, I get it, however, unlocking waypoints in key areas would not exactly hurt. Unlock one waypoint in each major city, this already greatly increases mobility while losing nothing. Better yet, unlock the waypoint next to each dungeon. There is no reason why we shouldn’t be able to waypoint directly to the dungeon.

Some of you might say “Oh well you will unlock the waypoints as you go along in the personal story.” Two things. First, I don’t like the personal story, chapter 2 was ok, but the rest was really boring. Second, you don’t go to every area when you play PS. As a human, really the only race I like, I never went to Rata Sum or any other areas.

Please Anet, change the waypoint system so it doesn’t require so much work to simply go places.

So I’m trying to create a build for WvW, but I’m not having any luck and metabattle is useless atm because they haven’t updated their site since the patch. Basically, I need trait advice for a WvW zerg build. Using fire/air sigils on my LB, and energy/force sigils on my GS.
Right now, I’m using Marksman, but I don’t know what other two lines to use. Nature Magic/ Wilderness Survival offer the best defenses in the form of boons and healing, but Beastmastery offers some nice stuff too. Any suggestions?

You can’t win a 1v1 against a bunker MM necro. If you kill his minions, he has enough time to exit DS and resummon minions before you can do any significant damage. Wait till after he uses DS 4 and 5, because then he is basically stuck with life blast, which is a long cast time and does pitiful damage on bunker. Really, you need to 2v1 him, or find another fight.

The new blood magic synergizes greatly with MM necro builds. The heals through shroud, and insane toughness and DS generation is unbeatable 1v1 and even 2v1 in spvp

Honestly, Necros can command very well now with the new trait changes. They can run an extremely tanky death shroud build that basically throws life force at you. All they would need in terms of group support is condi clear and stab.

I am just using this build, and it can kill very easily.

ArchonWing.9480:

Regular siege costs less supply! This is quite useful when you only have like 2-3 people and not everyone has supply capacity maxed. I would never toss a superior in those cases unless it’s one of those rare "every point matters’ matchups which is rare.

Not to mention those situations where say, the outer keep gate is half down and building a superior would be overkill, and you have to break in inner.

This is honestly the best option. Regular siege costs too much for its much lower effectiveness. I know we tend to shut it out as its not true WvW, but commanders in Eotm use siege also, and unlike guilds and pugmanders, don’t get a good supply of donations of superior or guild siege, thus they have to use regular. As someone who likes to command in Eotm for fun when i’m not WvWing, using regular siege is a pain, especially when I’m trying to pull together a zerg on overflow.

BrickFurious.7169:

In terms of a low-hanging fruit, relatively easy/cheap to implement solution to scoring that could have a large impact on making matches seem more fair and fun, I believe that the scoring periods idea has the most potential. I’ll try and illustrate why.

Here’s an example of a server matchup, broken into six 4-hour scoring periods per day. The table shows the average percentage of total players in the match commanded by each server during each scoring period over the course of one day:

                      1        2         3        4         5         6
Server X    85%   60%    25%   20%   10%    20%
Server Y    10%   30%    40%   35%    40%    35%
Server Z      5%   10%    35%   45%    50%    45%

As you can see, Server X is extremely dominant during the first scoring period, fairly dominant during the second, and not a force to be reckoned with the rest of the day. Server Y is weak in the first period, but more even throughout the rest of the day. And Server Z is largely MIA in the first and second periods, but makes a strong comeback in the rest of the periods and clearly seems to be the dominant server the majority of the day.

Let’s assume for the moment that a server’s current % of total player population in a match is linearly correlated with its current PPT (not a completely valid assumption in every situation, but I think most agree that population = PPT much of the time). We might intuitively assume that Server Z, as the dominant server the majority of the day, ends up with the most points. But here is what the scoring breakdown looks like using the current scoring system and that assumption:

                      1          2         3          4         5          6      Total (day)   Total (week)
Server X    9452   6672   2780   2224   1112   2224      24464         171248
Server Y    1112   3336   4448   3892   4448   3892       21128        147896
Server Z     556    1112   3892   5004   5560   5004       21128        147896

Server X wins the match easily, simply because its utter dominance in scoring periods 1 and 2 carries it the rest of the match. The weekly total also assumes that each server carries on with its normal player populations during the week. In reality, we know that as servers fall behind on points during the week, especially to a server with vastly superior off-hours coverage, those servers that fall behind are likely to see a drop in morale that results in less players showing up. So in reality, it’s likely that Server X would win by a far greater amount of points at the end of the week.

Now imagine instead, using the exact same population % values in the first table, that the scoring were based on each period, rather than total PPT accumulated over the match. Say, for example, that in each scoring period, the winning server would receive 5 points, 2nd place would receive 3 points, and 3rd place would receive 2 points (I happen to like this scoring allocation as it gives a lot of credit to the winning server without putting losing servers too far behind). Here is how the match would look with that scoring system:

                     1        2        3        4         5        6         Total (day)       Total (week)
Server X      5        5        2        2         2        2               18                       126
Server Y      3        3        5        3         3        3                20                       140
Server Z      2        2        3        5         5        5                22                       154

Now Server Z wins the match and Server X is 3rd place, which makes more intuitive sense given its their respective dominance of the match over the course of the whole day, not just isolated time periods.

*

This is definitely the best proposition for time sliced matches I have seen yet. It’s important to note that the upgrades from structures needs to carry over to different matches if time slices were implemented. In fact, you wouldn’t need to be logged out of WvW to even change the time slice. With the 5-3-2 point system, you just add the points of the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place servers like you would a ppt tick. Except that it would happen once every time slice (4 hours) instead of the usual 15 minutes.

Not sure why I am posting this, not sure if it will be seen (but one can hope!). If alliances were to be done, it would have to be done between a series of servers. Here is how it would work (At least for NA).

At the end of every WvW season one-third of the servers, 8 for NA, one from each tier, would be put together in an “Alliance”. Each week, two servers from the alliance would team up to battle two other double matchups. Then, based on the placement of your server team (the two servers, not the whole alliance), you would receive a number of points at the end of the week. Then you would add up all the points from all of your alliance’s battles and the alliance with the most points wins that week.

On top of this, individual servers would go up in rating, or down in rating based on their placement in that weeks match. Thus, it would be entirely possible, for lets say, TC and SBI (who were “matched together” one week) to both be higher in rating if they won against BG and DR (Who were matched against them). Therefore, a lower tier server in my example (SBI) could theoretically be higher in rating than a higher tier server, if that server (SBI) had a better winning record than the losing server (BG).

This system capitalizes on the ability of the alliance to work as a whole, instead of banking on one or two servers. For example, lets say that TC and SBI from earlier were a part of green alliance, and DR and BG were a part of red alliance. Even though TC and SBI are ranked higher because they won, their alliance could lose that week if the other 6 servers in their alliance did not get enough points.

Finishing up on this, every week, the matchups among servers in an alliance would shift, thus giving varied and fun matchups. This system also protects server pride by allowing servers to individually climb ranks based on their personal (and their co-servers) performance.

In order to prevent lets say, the tier 1 and tier 2 servers in an alliance from being matched up often, the higher tier servers would be mostly matched with the lower and mid tiered servers of the alliance. The opposite would be true of the lower tiered servers in the alliance, they would mostly be matched up with the top, and upper middle servers to prevent being squashed.

In conclusion, there would be three different “Rankings”
1. Personal server (Based on win/loss)
2. Alliance (The placement of 1st, 2nd, or 3rd, based on the points tallied between server teams)
3. Tier rankings. These would be determined every few months by a WvW season, where at the end of the season, tiers are given to the servers. Alliances would also be dissolved during seasons. Then new alliances are formed from the tiers. Basically alliances are remade once a year.

Notes.
In this system, rating would not be indicative of population like it is now. That would be left to the tier ratings, which is decided by the WvW tournaments.
This is not a “How to fix matchups” post, I am simply detailing how I BELIEVE alliances should be done if done at all.

Rewards in WvW have always been lackluster to say the least, but I think instead of rewards being increased or changed, they should change the amount of coin we receive.

What I think would work best, is to give players on WvW maps coin every ppt tick based on the amount of ppt you hold on that map. I was thinking around 10% of the ppt would be given to each player every tick. So for example, lets say my server has 110 ppt in Eternal Battle Grounds at the end of the 15 minute clock. Each player would then receive 11 silver for that ppt. Not overly rewarding, but with time becomes very successful (similar to other game modes).

Now in order to prevent people from switching to a map that had a higher ppt score for their server, there would be a debuff where you don’t receive a coin reward for the tick you entered the map on. This would only apply to people just entering WvW, not those map swapping. If you were map swapping, you would receive the tick percentage of the map you are currently on.

Pros of this system
-Increases rewards in an area most WvW participants lack which is coin (In relation to other areas of play)
-Encourages both offensive, and defensive play. All activity is rewarded in WvW.

Cons of this system
-Would release large amounts of coin into the economy without a gold sink to counter the influx of coin.
-Cant think of others but would like some input here (Same with the Pros)

Important notes
-This would not be released in EoTM, as it would give that area disproportionate amounts of rewards. EoTM will ,however, keep certain rewards which would make its reward system a little more unique (See below)
-Existing rewards in WvW would have to be adjusted to compensate for the large amounts of coin players will receive.
-Increase the amount of coin necessary to purchase siege.

How to balance the rewards. Here is where we have to give some to take some. This system could not be implemented without becoming too much. Thus I propose that the champion loot bags be changed ONLY IN WVW (not EoTM). In WvW, champion bags should be a little harder to obtain. They should only drop from towers/Keeps/SMC that has 4 or more active (not queued) upgrades. Objectives that have less than 4 would only give EXP, Karma, and WvW rank points.

I think I covered all of my thoughts, if anyone has something to add I would happily listen, and might even add it to this initial post.

EDIT: I remembered another important issue, in order to prevent players from going afk and reaping rewards, the coin reward would not be given to players that
1. Are in the starting safe zones (They would have to leave the safe zone for 5 minutes to receive their rewards)
2. Have been afk for more than 15 minutes, one ppt tick.

If GvG ever wants to reconstruct itself, it should do so on a lower tier server. That’s why GvG failed, because they choose to house it in tier 2 instead of tier 5 or 6. By housing GvG in a lower tier, you can GvG all you want without much pressure to ppt.

So I am logging in right now and I am downloading about 10k or more files, or about 25MB. This seems a tad large to me, is this normal after the release of a feature pack or am I just pulling at air here.

I think its fine if a server wants to set a loose “standard” for their colored tags, but pigeon holing people into the same system in a large universal way would be really bad. On TC we may or may not dictate color coding, but instead just say “Commander X with the purple tag is doing Havoc.” This way people can tag up with whatever color they want.

Another thing you have to consider is how the colors mesh with the surroundings. The above poster who said that red would be the offensive tag color may want to rethink that. In a sea of red enemy names, that red tag is going to be really hard to see. That’s where a purple or blue tag would work much better.

In the end I guess I am just against giving specific colors specific titles and jobs. The colors should simply give distinction to the different activities going on in WvW.

Vercinorix.3021:

If a guild has a tower or keep claimed on a map, every member of that guild on that map will get an automatic gold reward every PPT tick = 50 silver for every upgrade and guild WvW buff active. The guild itself gets the same amount added to the guild bank. Those guild WvW buffs become unlimited range and apply throughout the game except spvp. Add 2 new WvW guild buffs: +10% gold find and +50% WvW experience earned. The WvW status map would be upgraded to show the claiming guild’s banner and name. To reduce the chance of “claim-griefing” a minimum claim requirement can be put in place… something like 5 active members within the last 24 hours for a tower or 10 for a keep, activity being defined by an amount of achievement points earned which a bot could not get.

To balance this out, on the offensive side attackers get a guaranteed rare added to the capture reward for every completed upgrade. Yes, that means a fully upgraded tower or keep will award 12 guaranteed rares upon capture.

So you’re saying that for every siege and guild buff active in a keep or tower that said members get 50 silver? Just for one tower/keep? WvW would go from being one of the least profitable game modes to the absolute most. Dedicated WvW players with even 1 tower or keep would rake in hundreds of gold every week. Just for one tower!

What would stop me from claiming a tower or keep then mass building siege to increase my own gains? The potential for exploit is enormous. If you want to lower the coin amount and reduce the amount of things that increase the coin gain, then it would be fine.

The following would work better with your example without being broken, “For every tower or keep that is claimed by a guild, said members receive 3 silver for a tower, 5 silver for a keep, and 15 silver for SMC every PPT tick. For every guild bonus in a claimed tower or keep the amount of silver increase is 1. Max 1 tower, 1 keep per WvW map. Members of a guild with towers/keeps claimed among different WvW maps will only experience the money gains from their current map (EX. Member of guild X only gains coins from the map he is currently on even though his guild has claimed forts in the other 3 maps.)”

For offense, instead of the 12 rares, do something like this: “Capturing a tower rewards 5 silver as a base amount, this is increased in increments of 2 per active upgrade in the enemy tower. Capturing a keep rewards a base 10 silver as a base amount, this is increased in increments of 3 per active upgrade; if the keep has an active waypoint inside, an extra reward of 15 silver is given.” SMC could be similar but it rarely is upgraded far before it flips.

Thanks for regularly updating this Snowreap I really appreciate the numbers and such for matchup probability.

Looking at the stats, it seems that the biggest boon of being in tiers 3-5 seems to be a higher chance of different matchups. Tiers 1-2 and the bottom tiers seem to be stuck in a closed system of matchup chance, granted the lower tiers have it better than the upper two tiers. I am excited that TC is finally moving in the downwards direction. If the current losing streak on our part keeps up, we could finally be in tier 2 sometime in the fall.

Question: does anyone know when/if season 3 starts? I am considering moving to a tier 2 or 3 server.

Anmida.4058:

For there to be proper tragedy, there would need to be proper character development that makes one attached to characters. While the forums may be filled with “erhmagerd, this character!!!”, the average person doesn’t tend to pay much attention to the lackluster characters and the little development they get on screen anyways, both as of late and from the beginning of the game.
Simply put, Anet is very good at thinking many interesting character designs and personalities, but is extremely horrible at giving them any proper development in any way. The clutter themselves with too many things at the same time, then make a “Holding your hand forever” situation so that your character feels simply like a beholder, not a deciding factor. (The fact everything out there can literally be done regardless of whenether or not your character existed, as Personal Story tells us, being the prime example regardless of how much “We could have never picked those two bones from the floor without your help, commander/boss!” gets thrown around.)

TL:DR
Before this happens, they need to get the reins on their plot writting. They need to think less on the “what could be” and focus more in “what we can give the players and setting”, and translate that into their writting.

They won’t just yet, but I hope they will get down to it. Eventually.

This is exactly true, any character kill off in LS season 2 would be ineffective because said characters haven’t had enough time to develop. Ideally, end of LS season 3 would be the prime area to have a DE 2.0 kill off. It would give a whole season and a half to character development and would make for a great season finale. Anything earlier and it just wouldn’t work.

Gorani.7205:

We know they considered killing Marjory at the end of season 1 and did not have the guts to do it.
Taimi is safe (at least on screen death), because they can’t kill kids because of the game’s rating (I still don’t know about “Raisin” from LA).
The death of an iconic character matters to you as a reader/player/watcher of a movie if you have an emotional connection to that character. Did we have a chance to get to like Belinda? We practically knew she would die from the second the told Marjory she has to go to Brisbane Wildlands because something dangerous might be there (and that was the epilogue of season 1).

Which characters are we emotionally involved with? A few from Destiny’s Edge perhaps (For me it’s Rytlock, Eir and Caithe, but not Zoija and Logan), Traherne (who had at least a character development and gets too much hate from the community) and the new DE 2.0

PS: Game of Thrones hardly kills off characters you don’t care about. If you think that you have not read Steven King books.

Ya, Taimi is safe because of the rating rules, but who is Raisin? Also, GOT does a lot of pointless killing, not important character killing………not including the red wedding.

I think I should have expanded onto the way I envisioned tragedy to occur. First off, I am totally against pointlessly killing characters that don’t contribute much to the story, such as Trehearne, the Pale Tree, and others. Those kind of deaths do no good to advance the story or the main characters at all. I believe that with a main character kill off, it will allow for the much needed development of the current PC group.

Tragedy shouldn’t be tossed around lightly, which I feel it has. The writers need to pick a few select instances to create a big tragedy. Pointlessly killing off people Game of Thrones style, or introducing side characters solely to kill them off is poor story telling. Belinda served no purpose in the current LS, if she had been allowed to instead stick around longer and form more attachments and contribute more to the overall story, I believe her death would have been more effective.

lordkrall.7241:

I suppose killing thousands of people and destroying one of the most important city on the continent was not tragic enough?

I’m not saying it wasn’t tragedy, but something like that on a mass scale in a mmo is simply not effective enough to be considered the same as tragedy on a personal level.

Yep that’s right, tragedy. Every truly great story has some sort of tragedy that allowed it to relate to the audience. The Living Story as of now has some tragedy, but not anything that really shocks us or affects us on a deeper level.

Some people are advocating the death of Trahearne, Pale Tree, Queen Jennah ect; however this would be the wrong course of action, killing off hated or only semi lovable characters does little in the sense of effective character kill off.

I think the best thing to do during the next season of LS, is to truly build up the characters of Marjory, Kasmeer, Braham, Taimi, and Rox. Then at the end of the season, take two compatible characters that are closer than the others……then kill one off.

Here is where it needs to change, the PC needs to decide which one dies and which one lives. For example, Kasmeer and Marjory are split up and are fighting enemy forces, you only have time to rescue one and both know it.

What I’m trying to get at here, is that the story needs to have a bit more darkness in it. Everything seems to be going fine for DE 2.0 but in a world being torn apart by dragons that cant be the reality of the situation much longer if the LS wants to stay believable and immersive. I also think its crucial that the PC decides the fate of the teammates and not a one track dialogue where Kasmeer is the one to die in everyone’s story. If you want to make the options of the two characters static that’s fine, but its important that the PC is involved in the development of the LS.

In the end I just feel its necessary to make the LS a little darker, and killing a NPC no one cares about isn’t going to cut it. The original DE lost Snaff to a dragon, and it made for an interesting story as the guild tried to heal itself of his loss. I don’t mean that the PC group needs to fall apart, but it needs to be shaken up.

Any thoughts on if the LS needs to truly be a bit darker?

P.S. I don’t agree with killing Trahearne, it does nothing but give fan service to his haters.

Labjax.2465:

ShadowStep.3640:

The topic of SWTOR and its voice system came up earlier. First off, no dev team is the same, what one dev team considers more important may take backseat to another team. Anet is not Bioware, and Bioware is not Anet. While TOR does have more fleshed out voiced content, that content is always released in long intervals. Imagine getting LS episodes 3-4 months apart instead of 2 weeks. Additionally, many of the voice actor NPCs in TOR are voiced by a small pool of people. One VA voices over 30 different NPCs in the present game.

Right, TOR’s budget for V/O was insane (supposedly, they spent millions on it, though I don’t know if that’s accurate or not).

And TOR also suffered a lot because there was so much focus on the story content and so much pushing to get the game released. All over the beta forums, people were talking about how the game wasn’t ready to be released, but they had a release date to meet and so they met it.

The result was a game that felt like amazing potential without enough time for strong execution. That’s just my take anyway.

Point is, development is a game of tradeoffs. Every choice costs time and money at the expense of other options.

The budget was indeed massive, also considering that everything in the personal stories of that game was cutscened instead of the PC and NPCs talking against a background. I’m not saying that GW2’s way of doing the story is inferior, simply that its different.

BobbyStein.2315:

Mister Midnight.9837:

Why does the game have to be open world at the expense of the PC? That’s a complete cop-out.

Actually, it’s the reality of game development. You have limited budget and time to work with, so scope must be adjusted to fit. Features must be prioritized, and sometimes that means cutting content or systems.

http://www.ambysoft.com/artwork/ironTriangle.jpg

This is entirely correct, the reality of the situation when it comes to mmos, is that developer teams have a budget they must work within while also continuously releasing content. In order to do this, funds must be divided into different projects or areas or work. This is why certain game modes/types may get more attention than others, not because developers are purposefully ignoring that area, but rather because that area may require more time and money to develop.

The topic of SWTOR and its voice system came up earlier. First off, no dev team is the same, what one dev team considers more important may take backseat to another team. Anet is not Bioware, and Bioware is not Anet. While TOR does have more fleshed out voiced content, that content is always released in long intervals. Imagine getting LS episodes 3-4 months apart instead of 2 weeks. Additionally, many of the voice actor NPCs in TOR are voiced by a small pool of people. One VA voices over 30 different NPCs in the present game.

Back on topic, I believe that the writing could have been done a bit better if the NPCs are to act and appear like sincere people. I also like how my character ISN’T the one always in the spotlight, it gets old always being the one to save the day.

TL;DR Due to real life limitations, the Devs use their resources in the most efficient manor in order to prioritize what they feel is important to the development of new content.

So I have a pretty basic question about the unlock for living world episodes. Once you log in, the current living world episode is unlocked forever. Is the unlock for all characters on your account, or just for each character you log in with.

For example, I created a mesmer after the first episode has ended, thus does he not get access to that episode but my elementalist( who is my main character and has all episodes unlocked) does?

Jeknar.6184:

ShadowStep.3640:

I’m so tired of losing to JQ and BG in tier one, but TC just doesn’t have the numbers to compete with them anymore. One week we lost our ebg keep almost every night. This isn’t a QQ we need more players post, just a “I’m tired of losing every week post.” Like seriously, if JQ knew how little players we had on during US afternoons and stuff, they could take our keep with like only 20 players. JQ is definitely the elephant in the room.

When the people on lower tiers complain about losing every single week due lack of population, the people from T1 tell us to transfer out.

So here is my advise for you: transfer out

I personally don’t believe that people should transfer out to find decent WvW matches. I feel for the lower tier servers who lose because of the numbers game that is WvW.

Sadly I may indeed just end up transferring out of TC to perhaps the server I started on, Maguuma.

I refuse to use mantras…..ever. I also use a mass clone producing troll build for spvp.

I’m so tired of losing to JQ and BG in tier one, but TC just doesn’t have the numbers to compete with them anymore. One week we lost our ebg keep almost every night. This isn’t a QQ we need more players post, just a “I’m tired of losing every week post.” Like seriously, if JQ knew how little players we had on during US afternoons and stuff, they could take our keep with like only 20 players. JQ is definitely the elephant in the room.