Guild Wars 2

Mike O Brien.4613:

Hi all,

Today we hit an internal milestone: we locked down all content and feature development for Path of Fire. We now move the game to our staging servers and start final preparations for launch.

This expansion is all about content, and today’s milestone marks the completion of eighteen months of content creation. It’s been a labor of love for the team. We hope we’ve brought each story chapter, each open-world zone, and each mount up to the level of what you experienced in the demos last month.

Thanks to everyone who joined the demos and the stress tests. We used those tests to inform our final balance tweaks, and to squash some bizarre bugs that we could only reproduce under heavy load, like the one where Raptors would randomly show up in non-demo maps.

We’re in the home stretch. Eleven days to launch! We can’t wait to play Path of Fire with you!

Mo

Does this free up resources to work on WvW updates?

FogLeg.9354:

Specially at primetime many servers have huge queue in every map, meaning players who want to take part of WvW, can not. Same time there are always players just sitting at the wp doing nothing, and only taking up space from others. To prevent this, let’s kick out those who are actually afk.

Now, first we need to determine who is afk and who is, for example, scouting for enemies, discussing very important matters in team chat or just admiring the view.

1 – if you have done damage to enemy player or NPC or objective, you are not considered to be afk for next 10 minutes. Both skills and siege counts

1A – repairing objective or building siege counts same way as damaging enemy

2 – if you have not done any damage, game will now check if you have moved from one territory to another. If yes, you are not considered to be afk for next 10 minutes

3 – if you have done no damage, repaired or moved to other territory, the game will give you simple math question. You have 5 minutes to answer. Questions are similar to: how much is 15-4 or how much is 3 * 7. Just type the answer and you are not considered to be afk for 10 minutes.

4 – Next, if you have done no damage, repaired or moved around, AND you have not answered the simple math check in time AND there is currently queue to the map, you will be automatically kicked from WvW.

P.S. 10 minutes is only to give an example

Oh the cries of the overstacked. FA didn’t queue a single map Monday night primetime NA and was outmanned on at least two maps.

What server do you play on that has these terrible issues?

Vera.6284:

Looking to start playing more GW2. Is there any server that runs open join groups for pvp with some type of voice coordination US prime time ?

This depends on what server you are on and which full server you can’t transfer to and what time you usually play WvW.

Maybe they can make tower/keep portals close when an enemy comes within 1500 range of it too?

Strider Pj.2193:

TheOneWhoSighs.7513:

ProverbsofHell.2307:

I agree, and it looks a hundred times better than any other WvW map – but why does nobody want to go there?

It is an absolute slog to get around the map to defend camps & keeps.
“But you can travel faster than alpines”, only with all of the shrines controlled.

It’s just much much larger than the old borderlands.

And just like the old borderlands, it has a very big issue that people won’t admit. The complete lack of a centralized objective.

If everyone else’s server is remotely like mine, EBG always has loads of people, and the BLs are a coin flip on whether or not they have people.

This is because EBG brings the fights. Hitting middle fort (SMC) is a lot of fun, and offers fights pretty much on demand.

Comparatively, hitting Garri in the BLs is like hitting the keep in EBG. A complete and total pain to do, due to the distant travel, easy defense positioning, etc etc.

There’s nothing like SMC on the other BLs. And I honestly think the BLs are worse for it. Especially desert BL, which could really use a central objective as a rallying point.

Desert HAD a central objective that borked up the game. But having it make sense to cap something there would help.

Home BLs were never set up to have a central objective. Garry has always been hard to take. That was part of the design. I miss the three way Garry fights with bannering.. but I digress.

If they went to a central theme like EBG, then home BL concept would need to go away and have only three maps.

The home BL concept is flawed now that a newly full server can’t cover four maps.

The only fashion war in WvW is with tonics.

You really need to play the classes your WvW guild likes to run with and pick the one that you like the best, regardless of weapons.

drcraig.9403:

Swamurabi.7890:

Strider Pj.2193:

Swamurabi.7890:

drcraig.9403:

Breaking up BG won’t work. Last time I checked BG had about 147K accounts. The WvW community is a very small portion of all those accounts. We’d coordinate, pick a low pop server and absorb their WvW community. Even if we lost some players we’d get some back.

BG has played by the rules since launch. We’ve dealt with win trading, double teams and server linking. We’ve manged to stay on top and played by the rules at the same time. We should be punished for that?

Begging Anet to wipe out a community just because it’s bigger or better than yours is pretty sad. My advice would be to take responsibility and try to strengthen your own community. Another option, and one I think Anet would like a whole lot more than angering one of their biggest servers would be for you and people like you, is to drop $30 and by and alt account. It would help you avoid BG and it would help Anet increase their revenue flow.

Nice spin there, the same “rules” that you play by are the ones that also prevent any other server from competing equally with BG.

You don’t have to break up BG as a server, just the small fraction that plays WvW.

Still doesn’t solve the hibernators. Or hibernation to open a closed server.

Since Anet reads the forums AND they have time to not only look at what happened with HoT but to fix it for PoF I’m sure we’ll see something from the WvW devs on this subject.

The tears have been falling for years so I wouldn’t count on it. Server linking is not only fair it’s the last ditch effort to give everyone a chance to win. But hey breaking up our community is fair right? Laughable!

What is laughable is that you actually believe that linking is fair.

You and all the other “BG defenders” should create an alt account on another server and see what WvW looks like to most of the other players.

Israel.7056:

Breaking up BG would set a disgusting precedent; if you win too much Anet will come in and dismantle whatever you’ve set up. That’s such a weak and pathetic way to beat BG or any dominant server like Blackgate I could never support it and I don’t think anyone else should either though I have no doubt that many will.

It would show that Anet is interested in making WvW a competitive game mode with equal chances for success for each side instead of a casual game mode filled with disgruntled players who think WvW is a competitive game mode.

Strider Pj.2193:

Swamurabi.7890:

drcraig.9403:

Breaking up BG won’t work. Last time I checked BG had about 147K accounts. The WvW community is a very small portion of all those accounts. We’d coordinate, pick a low pop server and absorb their WvW community. Even if we lost some players we’d get some back.

BG has played by the rules since launch. We’ve dealt with win trading, double teams and server linking. We’ve manged to stay on top and played by the rules at the same time. We should be punished for that?

Begging Anet to wipe out a community just because it’s bigger or better than yours is pretty sad. My advice would be to take responsibility and try to strengthen your own community. Another option, and one I think Anet would like a whole lot more than angering one of their biggest servers would be for you and people like you, is to drop $30 and by and alt account. It would help you avoid BG and it would help Anet increase their revenue flow.

Nice spin there, the same “rules” that you play by are the ones that also prevent any other server from competing equally with BG.

You don’t have to break up BG as a server, just the small fraction that plays WvW.

Still doesn’t solve the hibernators. Or hibernation to open a closed server.

Since Anet reads the forums AND they have time to not only look at what happened with HoT but to fix it for PoF I’m sure we’ll see something from the WvW devs on this subject.

drcraig.9403:

Swamurabi.7890:

drcraig.9403:

Breaking up BG won’t work. Last time I checked BG had about 147K accounts. The WvW community is a very small portion of all those accounts. We’d coordinate, pick a low pop server and absorb their WvW community. Even if we lost some players we’d get some back.

BG has played by the rules since launch. We’ve dealt with win trading, double teams and server linking. We’ve manged to stay on top and played by the rules at the same time. We should be punished for that?

Begging Anet to wipe out a community just because it’s bigger or better than yours is pretty sad. My advice would be to take responsibility and try to strengthen your own community. Another option, and one I think Anet would like a whole lot more than angering one of their biggest servers would be for you and people like you, is to drop $30 and by and alt account. It would help you avoid BG and it would help Anet increase their revenue flow.

Nice spin there, the same “rules” that you play by are the ones that also prevent any other server from competing equally with BG.

You don’t have to break up BG as a server, just the small fraction that plays WvW.

So Anet should change to rules to appease the people who can’t win? Going down that road in any competition will ultimately ruin any game.

Servers can’t win mainly because Anet’s rules prevent equal competition.

drcraig.9403:

Breaking up BG won’t work. Last time I checked BG had about 147K accounts. The WvW community is a very small portion of all those accounts. We’d coordinate, pick a low pop server and absorb their WvW community. Even if we lost some players we’d get some back.

BG has played by the rules since launch. We’ve dealt with win trading, double teams and server linking. We’ve manged to stay on top and played by the rules at the same time. We should be punished for that?

Begging Anet to wipe out a community just because it’s bigger or better than yours is pretty sad. My advice would be to take responsibility and try to strengthen your own community. Another option, and one I think Anet would like a whole lot more than angering one of their biggest servers would be for you and people like you, is to drop $30 and by and alt account. It would help you avoid BG and it would help Anet increase their revenue flow.

Nice spin there, the same “rules” that you play by are the ones that also prevent any other server from competing equally with BG.

You don’t have to break up BG as a server, just the small fraction that plays WvW.

I think OP’s faith in boon stripping is misplaced.

I don’t think that pips is the biggest problem with WvW gameplay.

I’d put pips fifth on the list.

1. Population
2. Snowball effect (getting more points/supply from T3 structures)
3. Skill balance
4. Structure upgrades
5. Pips

Let me consult the WvW Magic 8 Ball:

“Will vendors be updated for PoF?”

Answer: “Don’t count on it.”

Two words: Group Comp

The first problem is that 30 can’t beat 50 very often now. That is a problem that further reinforces the stack to win WvW meta.

The second problem is that if the server with less players actually won over a server with more players wouldn’t you think that this would change the WvW meta that’s been around since the beginning?

If Anet can’t/won’t balance WvW they can at least try to make WvW so that smaller numbers and smaller coverage can have a chance to win or even a chance to have fun.

Rhiannon.1726:

I’ve seen several threads about ideas to give advantages to the loosing server or disadvantages to the winning server (or both).

Some of these ideas sound good on the first view, but I fail to see how this would benefit anyone. When your server can’t compete in the current tier, wouldn’t it be better to just drop down?

When your server dominates a match up but doesn’t win because of different disadvantages (and/or because the loosing server gets lots of buffs), the server stays in the tier and gets another boring match up with too less fights. The constantly outnumbered server wins and rises a tier and meets even stronger enemys. How is it fun for them to always fight bigger numbers?

One up, one down kinda fixes a server being stuck in a bad matchup.

Wouldn’t you rather see a WvW where any server can win any match?

How about cut supply delivered to T1 objectives by 1/4
cut supply delivered to T2 objectives by 1/3
cut supply delivered to T3 objectives by 1/2

Owning a tower/keep/SMC that isn’t part of your side of the map lowers supply that can be delivered from camps, and further lowers supply as the tower/keep/SMC upgrades.

On the other hand, increase supply as camps upgrade.

Lord Hammer Hand.4815:

Problem w/ server like FA it takes them 5 pug to cap a camp. A zerg to cap paper tower. While a single thief in BG caps camp, 2 -3 players caps tower and if not defended even keeps.

So it takes 4 BG players to flip an entire undefended map and a map blob for one that’s defended?

Jumpin Lumpix.6108:

I even asked the admins politely the first 5 times and they outright refused when I said “can I please get manually verified.” This is now the reaction you see from me due to this. But how nice that you all agree with exclusionary behavior that occurs in a vacuum and is even counter to what admins publically state they are willing to do.

Cut out the middle man, get yourself auto verified, but you choose not to.

Or create an alt account and get that auto verified or manually verified, but you choose not to.

Or transfer to another server. Please don’t though.

Or donate huge sums of money to the TS fund.

IF, after you get on TS and they manually remove you from it, maybe it’s time to look in the mirror to see where the fault lies.

Jumpin Lumpix.6108:

Oh I see so when admins are so petty and lazy to not do their job of manual verification it must be my fault. You guys must all love following rules a lot.

So an admin has two choices. Either have players get an API key and get automatically verified so admins, who are players also, can actually play.

OR, Admins can stop playing every time a player wants to be manually verified and then have to manually verify every player every few months when they want to make sure that the database is current.

Why do you insist on making things harder for admins when they’ve finally, through API keys, made things easier?

Which would you choose, working harder or smarter?

Red Haired Savage.5430:

Raymond Lukes.6305:

DevilishLyx.2340:

Cal Cohen.3527:

First reply with full world name and gif of cat(s), we play on your world

Cos cat memes can tell you exactly what is wrong with WvW!

Disgusted by this post, you are just showing how much you care about WvW, ie very little! its more of a joke to you!

We play on a different server every week most of the time we use a random number generator to pick the world this week we thought we’d have some fun and make a post about it. We did not intend to give the impression that we don’t care. Just the opposite was we wanted to start giving more exposure to our play on live sessions. The cat gif idea was just a way to make the post a little more fun instead of “first person to post world name.”

Our play on live sessions are both a time for the team to have a bit of fun in WvW with you guys as well as a time to hear feedback from different people throughout the game. We play in both NA and EU worlds so we can get as large a perspective as possible. We do this in addition to reading the forums and reddit posts so we can hear the voices of people who do not post on the forums.

You should do these things more often (asking in forums where to play) and ask at different times of the day so other servers get the chance. However looking at the imgur pictures you couldn’t afford guild catas…for shame for shame.

You should also have an “Express your issue with WvW via Cat Meme” thread, similar to the haiku thread that happened a few years ago.

FogLeg.9354:

But opening servers and lowering map caps would simply explode the queues. We have already queues in every map, could take 15-20 minutes to even enter WvW. Why would you want to make players wait for 3 hours just to play WvW?

Translation: “I’m on an overstacked server. Everything is fine.”

Yesterday I was on EBG and was outmanned. You should move to a lower tier to see what WvW is like for most other players.

Fipmip.7219:

Yes I won’t deny that having near respawns will make it almost impossible to demolish larger zergs with smaller ones. It all depends on how the game would evolve over time. If say, The fights devolve into prolonged brawling, but the initial encounter is still that of the two flocks flying straight into eachother, there’s still room for zerg stomping and getting a ton of rewards, even if you probably wont take the castle. On camps or sentry points it could be a different story though. It is in my opinion that this is a sacrifice worth making to make the core gameplay a better experience.

I’m on blackgate by the way, fights over smc are like the same as a fight over any other castle. Your zerg will be away doing something else and another zerg will try and take it, If your zerg is able to to notice and redeploy in time, there will be a short fight and whichever zerg loses probably won’t retry for a while. The only time a defense of smc is actually prepared and waiting for another zerg to attack is when it was retreating away from the attacking army and back into smc in the first place, again, like any other castle

Dawdler.8521:

Getting more of that will inevitably lead to having new maps, not features.

EB is a fantastic map that constantly pressure whatever server is holding the center. DBL tried to mimic it but got about 30% of the way, then ran off a cliff and broke its limbs. Yes, all the limbs. And its still lying there on the bottom, crying for help. ABL was never designed for it even though they also tried to revive the center, its great on its own because it focus the top and bottom half seperately.

Either way the tl;dr is that we need new 3-way maps that are shaped like EB in general. Fancy features cant replace basic gameplay.

The system I’m trying to create, like i said, is trying to get longer fights to happen in more places than just these focal points. Changing basic gameplay is exactly what i’m trying to do, there’s nothing fancy about it.

You should really see the fights from another server’s perspective. What you see in BG is different then what everyone else sees.

It must be one of those “you don’t know what we know” situations, but the perception in the field is that something is wrong.

FogLeg.9354:

DemonSeed.3528:

What they mean is if they could have a border map where it is only core build players (no HoT or PoF elite specialisation skills).

I still don’t understand how that would make WvW any more fun. You just prevent players changing maps quickly because they use one build in one map and if they want to hop to “non-elite” map they have to waste time equipping new weapons, swapping out gear and changing traits.

I think the suggestion could actually work in PvP where you have time to prepare. You could have non-elite matchups where only core classes are allowed. But in WvW where most of the battles are still about numbers, it would just make the game more confusing without any real benefits.

You could come up with number of similar suggestions: how about BL map without ranged damage? BL map without any siege? Map where you can not equip any equipment? Map where everyone is permanently poisoned? But… would any of these improve the WvW?

The players that want “vanilla” WvW believe that the game was better back then, which it was. As for the need to switch maps, if they believe the game is better with core specs and there’s like numbers on the other sides that also believe the same, there would not be a need to switch maps.

Blackgate is 49-2-0 so far this matchup, looks like the spies were successful twice.

Keep up the good work.

Just curious, what server do you want to transfer to?

Considering that a linked host has to spend time getting communications organized AND work with groups who might use their own communications AND they might not have any experience with it’s no wonder that linked groups struggle.

Unlinked severs already have communications setup and they already have map assignments figured out.

Lighten up, Francis.

There is another forum for those type of posts, use it.

The saddest part of WvW is that “winning” is determined more by what goes on outside the playing area then what goes on inside.

It’s even worse that Anet has allowed this to happen since the beginning.

You could make it so when a player is reported x times in y seconds that a new window pops up for the server leaders, blocking their view of the game. It would ask them in an up/down vote whether to remove said player from the server.

If a majority of the leaders vote no then a message in bright yellow text appears on the screen for everyone else to see, “Player Z has been spared.”

If a majority of the leaders vote yes, then Dhuum appears beside the player and takes them to the mists, where they get reassigned to Blackgate.

If a player is on Blackgate and gets voted off the server, their account is deleted. This would never happen because everyone knows that Blackgate is such a great community.

Just curious, what would you do to destack unlinked and locked BG (57-0-0) in this matchup so that they have a similar population of DB linked with Kaineng and DH?

What would you do to unlinked and locked JQ to force them to destack down to DB population?

DB (0-16-42) is the number four server and is no where close to being competitive.

Do you really think that BG’s “community” is so sacred that it is more important than the game experience of every other server in NA?

One sure sign of a disciplined zerg is when they pass by a duel and nobody attacks.

I think that the real problem with WvW population is that the players want and expect a competitive match week after week and day after day but that is not high enough on Anet’s Wvw manifesto.

Thought I made a typo but in T1 and T4 it’s not WvWvW, it’s more like Wvwvw

Serenity.6135:

Pensadora.9478:

Serenity.6135:

atheria.2837:

Pensadora.9478:

Serenity.6135:

You cannot have actual population balance in a game mode that is based on having 24/7 matches, it is not hard to understand.
…..
There will always be imbalance because it is the nature of this content, plain and simple.

I would love for a Dev to clarify here. Is the below picture what we should always expect and satisfy ourselves with? Is this the best that ANet plans to do for WvW going forward, as Serenity has stated above, and Raymond may have intimated here:

Raymond Lukes.6305:

At this time we do not have a solution that we feel solves enough of the issues with population balance while also hitting enough of our requirements for a change to be made.

At some time, you have to stop driving on that flat tire and change it, or it creates even more problems. Fixing the flat tire with a spare tire may not be the ‘best of the best’ of tire solutions, but at least it gets you back on the road, moving toward a next step – new or repaired tire. Not fixing it puts you out, on the side of the road, with no way to move forward.

It appears that you are telling us we’ll be driving on this crummy spare tire until….? Cause, by the looks of things, the tire isn’t holding up very well and the road is pretty potholed and bumpy.

The scores ALONE should be telling the devs that WvW is in dire condition and that many servers are being devastated by three, four, and five times their numbers at all times of the day and night.

Scores are not accurate enough to determine population. Some servers will intentionally tank for whatever reason, it does not mean their population is low, but if you only use scores as a basis for determining population you might think it is.

Scores determining population was not the point.

Scores indicating, visually, easily, objectively that there is a serious malfunction in WvW that hasn’t been addressed, is what the comment was about.

It should be easy for anyone to look at the score variance in this week’s T1 matchup – a mere 4 days into the week (first image below) – and see that things are entirely out of control and out of balance. Notice also that one server has total coverage, around the clock, every day.

It is even more telling when you look at this same scenario played out over months as shown in the historical matchups (second image below).

Yet this behemoth server was opened in June for more guilds and more people to transfer on to it. Why? We don’t have an answer for that question.

It certainly appears that this server was not, in any possible stretch of the imagination, in need of more population or coverage. So, I for one, am incredibly interested to know what data we don’t have, that Anet has that convinced them that BG needed to be opened for even more players to move there.

I’d like to understand what could possibly be preventing a correction to the out of balance population problems, while at the same time NOT preventing decisions that make it worse.

We have been told we haven’t suggested the right solution. Well, then I continue to ask….what is the plan? How long will these already long-term, incredibly out of balance, unfair and non-competitive situations continue?

This has been explained to you multiple times in multiple threads and you seem to keep ignoring the answers. You keep asking for clarity but then go on to throw out statements that are not based on facts but rather opinion…basically this server did not need to be open because etc etc.

Once again, servers are opened when they fall below a certain threshold that Anet has set for ALL servers, whether or not you like or agree with it is irrelevant, as it is a different issue. You do not have the statistics that the devs do but you continue to push this narrative that X server should not have been opened but then ask for clarity, it does not work that way. We already know the basics of how it works, but the devs cannot and will not give us all the details, nor should they. Now please stop beating a dead horse.

You do remember that the population algorithm Anet uses was changed after many complaints about locked and full servers being outnumbered in matches week after week after week.

We don’t have to know the internal numbers to see that there is still a problem of population in WvW. We also know that in a few weeks when the xpac comes out that the problem will get worse.

The WvW population imbalance horse is far from dead. I think it’s an undead horse.

Raymond Lukes.6305:

Unfortunately we cannot give you all the details. It’s as simple as that. I’m not trying to be mean but there are details of the game and the studio we cannot share with players. Though… If you are really passionate about this problem we’re always looking for good people to join the team https://www.arena.net/#careers.

Here’s the details that the players do know.

Nightcapping has been a problem since the beginning of WvW. The players hate it. FIX IT. It’s like playing sPvP when you are 1v5 except that the results of a sPvP match don’t affect the next match.

Population balance has also been an issue since the beginning of WvW.
The players hate it when Anet locks a server so it can NEVER have the same number of players as certain not to be named overstacked servers. FIX IT.

The players hate it when Anet has tournaments where the winner is determined by population and coverage instead of skill. FIX IT.

The players hate it when they get into WvW Friday reset and know that every day afterwards is going to be worse then the day before. FIX IT.

The players hate it when bugs are not addressed, where unused PvE skills and traits become overpowered in WvW but are not addressed, where skill balance and WvW seem to be mutually exclusive. FIX IT.

I don’t care about the game details.
I don’t care about the studio.
I, along with a lot of players, are very passionate about WvW but feel that Anet doesn’t share that passion because of a lack of communication.

There’s been two dev suggestions to solve population imbalance, one was battlegroups and the other was having many small servers. Why were those dev ideas scrapped?

I like how Anet added barrier to tax the server load that already can’t handle all the boons and conditions being thrown around.

Kaiser.9873:

Once the new content hits the queues will disappear. Everyone will be out and about in PvE-land. That will last for a month or two, and then maybe populations will go back up to what they normally would be.

Besides maybe if the WvW population on the overstacked server(s) sit in queue for long enough they’ll destack.

Right, BG has been top tier NA for what now, 3 or four years? Seems like they like sitting in a queue, or they figured out which guilds get to play which day so that there are no long queues.

The best way to fix the uncompetitive problem with BG is to either lower map caps, delete BG and allow limited servers, or delete all servers.

Which would you choose?

You all realize with the next xpac there will be a lot of returning WvW players. Players who quit BG and will return back to BG boosting their population even more. Of course Anet could force inactive accounts onto servers that lack population.

BlazeQ.1095:

Lahmia.2193:

Like real war, numbers are one part of a larger equation:
Numbers
Builds/food
Organisation
Scouts and Havoc groups
Siege
Guild buffs

All of these and more add up.

This and more is correct. Coverage and Numbers play a very big part of WvW, but all of this adds up.

Numbers and coverage allow for more of everything else……

WvW isn’t fun when your zerg can’t beat their zerg because of numbers AND you can’t match their scouts, havoc squads, siege, supply, tower/keep upgrades……

It’s like walking up an avalanche.

Nobody knows how close to full any server is.

Nobody knows how fast the world status changes when players transfer en masse.

When you transfer servers, make sure you all do it at the same time, because if the status changes to full mid transfer some will be left behind. A way to prevent this is to monitor world status to see which servers have been very high the longest.

World Status

You might be able to offset some of the transfer costs by contacting leaders on the server you are looking at, but if you’re new to WvW that might not happen. Won’t hurt to ask.

What would the map look like if you redraw the territories so that the border is:

Halfway from keep to keep.
Two/thirds from keep to tower, tower to camp or tower to ruin
Three/fourths from keep to camp or keep to ruin.

Reducing the map cap to 40-50 would go a long way to fix the lag.

Then reduce squad size to 20-25.

The only reason why Necros are great in WvW is because of all the support they get from teammates.

If you wanted to down a single player in a WvW zerg you’d still pick the Necro over any other class.

I just hope that it’s somewhere between the unstoppable stability/resistance blob and the pirate shp.

You can actually say bouncy chest at work and not have a visit to HR?

My only issue so far with gliding is that at Hills, its territory is rather small. So the influence of the keep, especially a keep you can glide any direction out of, is minimized because it’s territory border, both north and south, is so close to the keep.

Staff Guard
Staff Ele
Staff Necro

Hmmmm I think I see the problem now.

Guard staff 1 is obviously too powerful in severe lag situations where the only skill anyone can use is skill 1. It had to be nerfed.

This is the first step by Anet to reduce the 2 guardians/squad requirement in WvW.