^They don’t fight us.
We can PvDoor maps faster than them thus we will always stay in point lead if that’s their strategy.Point is.
It’s WvWvW where you’r supposed to fight vs each other, but there’s no actual fighting outside of occasional 1 time clashes before they move on to the next map.
If they are PvDoor’ing then that is where you are weakest.
As for what WvWvW is supposed to be about, that is entirely subjective. Personally I feel that objective based PvP is primarily about the objectives and is won by strategy rather than just mindlessly killing other people. Other people will feel differently and thus play differently. You are basically complaining that they won’t play the way you want them to play.
So basically they fight where you are weakest instead of where you are strongest. How rude of them.
The thing about WvW is that it isn’t about the individual player.
As mentioned already, how do you reward the players that are focusing on team strategy such as holding vital objectives compared to the players that are just roaming around looking for easy kills? How do you count individual kills in a large scale fight?
The amount of damage (or healing) done in WvW is pretty much irrelevant, especially given the downed state mechanics. The most important person on the battlefield is the one giving the orders and they don’t need to be fighting to do that.
One of the oldest tactics in the book for a 3 way battle is for 1 side to sit back and let the other 2 fight it out, then go in and clean out the weakened victor. This isn’t about alliances, this is about strategy.
Alternatively, if 2 sides converge on one objective 1 side might pull back and go after something else, because that something else might hold greater strategic value. Again no alliance, pure strategy.
Yeah large fight lag, is universal. And talking with NA players on EU servers, they don’t notice the lag at all.
So thats fine for NA players and probably the same for western EU players. But what about Asian/Oceanic/Russian/etc players?
I’d like to hear from someone in Australia or Russia who tried playing on the EU or NA servers. It is always possible that ANet planned for a worst case but that the latency in practice isn’t all that bad.
As a general rule from Australia, latency to US servers is ~200ms to ~400ms. Latency to EU servers is ~350ms to ~550ms.
There isn’t much ANet ca do to combat the physical distances that are involved, better routing can only go so far.
Regarding Oceanic players and our latency disadvantage – we experience the issue in every online game so are used to it. Previous experience in other MMOs shows that US or EU players would never put up with the lag we deal with on a daily basis.
The main point in Habib’s post is that they will not FORCE people in US/EU to put up with a higher latency. If you willingly accept the latency then more power to you.
The simple fact is that the community already has the power to create worldwide PvP servers. Just nominate a set of servers and organise to transfer a bunch of guilds over. Funnily enough some guilds have already realised this and are already doing it.
Arguing over who carried who and what the score might’ve been if PRX weren’t on SoS is pointless. The fact is that PRX are on SoS and it is a very solid victory for the entire server against some good opposition.
People from SoR who claim that they only lost because of SoR deficiencies rather than SoS strength are simply devaluing the hard work put in by both teams.
If the current scoring doesn’t change significantly then it should be the same matchup next week. Should be interesting to see what lessons have been learned.
The reason I think this is because most of the time I meet a PRX or Tsym scout sniping dolyaks and such, I have no problem slaying one easily, if not two. And I’ve seen much better PvPers than them in SoR. This has lead me to conclude that all these guys have is more people trying to work together.
Its a curious comment. At face value I would say that you don’t have a big enough sample size to make comments about each guild’s overall skill level.
Additionally, WvWvW is more team oriented. A group of people who work well as a team will usually beat a group of individually skilled players who don’t work as a team. So team skill (including strategy) > individual skill.
Yes, because in Real life, my boss is terrifed if I threaten to leave my job, and he will get down on his hands and knees and do whatever it takes to make sure I stay where I am. He’ll offer me a raise, a bigger health benefit, dental, and a bigger bonus that Lois at register 2…
Get real. Wanna campare this to real life???
Then guilds are like clubs, where exclusitivity (like a TRUE gentlemans club) where members buy in, and are loyal because if they are not, they lose their status in society if they are…removed for any reason.
This multi-guild system is more like kids going: “If you don’t give me your candy bar, we aren’t friends anymore!” And the GL (erm, kid who has the candy) is FORCED? to hand over his candy bar
Uhm, no thanks.
I was referring more to social/sporting clubs. With a social club you join for a specific purpose and when it no longer meets your requirements you leave.
As for your “forced” example, its quite ironic that in a single guild system the situation is often completely reversed. A member is forced to do everything the leader demands or face being kicked out.
A multi-guild system does indeed give more power to the individual. They can use representation as a way of indicating that a certain guild is meeting their needs at that point in time. So they can represent their PvP guild when PvP’ing, their social guild when they just want to chat etc.
This does not lessen the value of a guild. What it does mean is that you need to look at the needs of your members and address them. If a member is always happy with your guild then they will never feel the need to represent another. If they are representing another guild then ask them why and see if you can address what they feel they are missing in your guild. If you can’t meet their needs then maybe its time for them to move on.
I can definitely see how the above might be uncomfortable for guild leaders, but in many ways it reflects real life.
I dissagree with you here Tzash. I feel that the social problems are compounded by the very design of the multi guild system as it stands. It at thevery least needs tweaking in some way. check my post back along and u will c my ideas for it.
I’ve read your post and I’m still not seeing how it is a mechanics problem. If you have a guild requirement that members represent your guild and then some don’t want to then surely that indicates that they weren’t suitable for your guild in the first place.
Guilds are not pointless even in a multi-guild system, you just need to understand that different people have different reasons for being in a guild. The advantage of a multi-guild system is that a person with multiple interests can be part of multiple guilds that support those interests, such as PvE, PvP, RP, social, etc.
As a guild leader you should be deciding what the purpose of your guild is and ensure your recruits meet that criteria. The case of members not knowing the guild leader and being abusive is a good example of poor recruiting.
The key to a good guild has always been about having a group of people sharing a common interest. Nothing in GW2 changes that fact and the majority of issues are based on social problems and not the mechanics of the multi-guild system.
WvWvW is about large scale clashes ie: armies vs armies. Individuals are merely cogs in the machine so a player’s name is irrelevant. An individual player’s skill level is also somewhat irrelevant, group coordination is far more vital than single players running around looking for 1v1s. The most common type of engagement in WvW is “zerg vs zerg” and it is next to impossible to identify individual enemy players when you are fighting a horde.
Its been said before but is worth repeating – if you are looking for an environment where individual skill matters then sPvP/tPvP is for you. If you don’t like the way they currently work then you are better of suggesting improvements to that style of PvP rather than trying to change WvW.
While there are plenty of lopsided matches, this one is not a good example.
- HoD has gone from a top tier server to a ghost town and no longer belong in the upper tiers. It just takes a bit of time for their score to degrade.
- IoJ put up a massive fight in tier 1 last week and fully deserve to be t1 or 2. As a guess I’d say this week’s performance is a combination of halloween and burnout.
Tier 2 next week will be SoS v SoR v IoJ. SoS and SoR already fought to the death last week in tier 3 so I expect next week will be similar. If IoJ fight like they did last week then it should be a really good match.
All a portal does is move people from point A to point B, you can’t use it for anything else. If people are portaling to a place they shouldn’t be then the exploit lies with how the Mesmer got there in the first place.
The middle will never really find balance under the current scoring rules because its, win by a kitten ton, go up 5 spaces, get destroyed as badly as y ou won the previously go down 5ranks. it wont find balance till the snowballing score is takin care of.
I’m sorry, but you are basing all your assumptions on a system where server transfers exist. There is no evidence to suggest that the server ranking system won’t do what its meant to do if server hopping was eliminated.
Its been said before but is worth repeating – artificially modifying the scores goes directly against the server ranking system currently in place. The only reason the ranking system hasn’t been effective yet is because of all the server hopping going on. Take that away and I bet we’d begin to see more even matches.
Even with the server hopping we are slowly starting to see better matchups (at least on the US side). Tier 1 has been a ripper this week and tier 2 will be just as good once HoD drops out and SoR moves up.
Its a real shame ANet couldn’t bring across the patching mechanism from GW1 where the updates would stream down in the background while you played.
Short answer = yes.
Long answer = http://mos.millenium.org/matchups#NA
If it was a “complete, total, comprehensive failure” then no-one would be playing. It may not be perfect but its hardly what you claim it to be.
Also, score is not the deciding factor for fun. There are plenty of people posting on these forums about how they have fun regardless of the scoreboard. There are also a number of people asking for the scoreboard to be removed. Sure the fairweather players don’t have fun when they are losing but these are not the type of people you should be basing game design around.
Computer games are a form of entertainment, the objective is to be entertained. Just like there is no material reward for reading a book or watching a movie, neither should games absolutely need incentives other than the enjoyment factor.
Basically if you are not having fun then why are you playing?
Only one thread on the first 5 pages has an Anet response. I doubt that they really care about these forums.
This is a ridiculous situation, and they could probably give a quick refund very easily (and should). I seriously doubt that they will though.
Like many people who are new to Arenanet games, I also heard they were a great company, but I haven’t seen/heard any examples of them going above and beyond to do anything, well, except for banning people.
You should probably have a look at the Dev Tracker. They do respond on forums and quite regularly.
For this type of situation they have stated repeatedly that customer service staff are not able to reimburse items or gold. This is probably for both technical (lack of tools) and policy (reimbursement is a slippery slope) reasons. The people in this thread claiming ANet are lying are talking utter nonsense.
Yes it is unfortunate that this happened but the fact is that these things can and do happen in any game.
Its either:
a) a baby cat
or
b) the word used by the language filter to replace offensive words
I’ll definitely agree that SoS and IoJ have good Oceanic pops but that doesn’t mean there aren’t any others. I still remember people from ET claiming they had no night crew a week after they shut out both SoS and IoJ in Oceanic primetime.
Also, I found it unbelievable to developers actually be unable generate items. How then they tested stuff? Farming for legendary and killing each other for badges?
Developers are not customer service staff.
Let me play devils advocate for this post.
When GW2 launched, 3 unofficial Oceanic servers were chosen. They were: Isle of Jan’thir, Gates of Madness, and Sea of Sorrows.
I think these are the “night crews” that Xpipher has been discussing.
And yet the “strongest” Oceanic PvP guilds joined TA and went wherever they went, which wasn’t any of the unofficial servers. Not sure where they’ve gone now.
Sorry guys, but ANet have stated many times in customer service threads that they do not have the ability to reimburse items/gold/whatever. They have plans to implement an account rollback feature (not character specific) soon but that is all.
If you really want a response from ANet then you need to raise a ticket with them.
Yes, I know there aren’t enough of you to go around, but if you weren’t so concentrated on what 2 servers, there wouldn’t be an issue for WvW.
I’m curious as to where you got this idea that only 2 servers have an Oceanic presence. There are actually quite a few servers with off peak players, its just the numbers that vary.
- anyone who plays while you are asleep is an exploiter and should be banned.
- points that are accumulated while you are logged off shouldn’t count.
- anyone who transfers servers to improve their gameplay experience (ie: no queues, better 24×7 presence etc) is a coward and a traitor.
- any alliance that organises a 24×7 presence should disband as it makes things unfair for other teams.
Its a tactic, you either adapt to it or you don’t. As a tactic it has counters, such as sweeping your captured objectives for Mesmers.
The advantage of using such tactics can be huge, no doubt about it. But the same can be said for alliances using voice comms to organise attacks. The smart teams use the best tactics, the weak teams run and complain about how unfair it all is.
The rendering and wall glitching are not portal problems and I bet that once they are resolved then all this complaining will be shown for what it truly is.
4 maps, 3 sides, hundreds of people and matchups that change every week. What are the chances of you actually running into the same person on a regular basis?
Its World vs World vs World. The rivalry is between worlds not players.
Judging by the many posts on this forum I’d say that there is quite a bit of rivalry already, you just need to dig through all the whining.
Has anyone reached the end of the week without having one team completely dominate the map?
in WvW
Posted by: Tzash.5748
The final scores aren’t always a good indication of how close a match should’ve been. What seems to happen often is that one side will start to pull ahead and a portion of the other sides will stop playing. Alternatively one side pulls ahead and the other two start fighting amongst themselves for second place.
Such a solution will not resolve scoreboard imbalances for 2 reasons – fair weather players and free server transfers. Even if you do get a group of servers with exact same hours of play one will invariably rise to the top, resulting in the same situation we already have.
RAs, unless they are purely cosmetic, become a barrier of entry for new players.
There are already a ton of posts complaining about orbs because they make strong teams even stronger. RAs have the exact same effect but on an individual level.
Player vs player scenarios are supposed to be about skill, not gear/time/etc.
I think a small slip in Latency is something I’d take for a fighting chance at winning instead of the usual “There’s A Zerg coming…. but everyone’s gone to bed… time to call it a night too”
It depends on how big a “small slip” really is. As an Aussie I’m used to playing with 250+ms pings, but (in previous MMOs) whenever US players get similar latency the forums quickly fill up with how unplayable and broken the game is. So going by past experience I really doubt that many US players would be happy about an increase in latency.
You already answered your own question – latency. “Worldwide” servers still have to be physically located somewhere, if they are in the US then EU players would complain, if they are in the EU then US players would complain.
Even if the latency difference is minimal I’m sure some people would use it as an excuse for losing.
Fair weather players will always have some excuse. If you get rid of the scoreboard then they will base their willingness to play on the number of control points their side has at the time.
WvWvW design should not be based on the whims of players who only like it when they are winning.
2/3rds of the player base are going to be (relatively) unhappy each week regardless of nightcapping because 2 out of 3 servers will lose their match each week.
To say (or even imply) that every winning team only does so because of nightcapping is pure conjecture. I would really like to see actual WvWvW population graphs instead of queues as this would give us a real indication of which servers have an offpeak presence.
Fair weather players will never be happy unless they are winning. When they aren’t winning there is always some excuse to not compete. Its just the way things are. ANet could implement a ton of things in an attempt to try and keep these players happy and none of them will work.
At the end of the day there can only be one winner per match and if some people can’t handle losing then that is on them.
yeah your right Eihder
for the last 2 weeks my sever has gone out of its way to try work with the other weaker server to take out the stronger 1
it has made WvW much more enjoyable even tho we are still out numbered 3 to 1
And did you require ANet to implement some form of artificial limits to achieve this? No.
In a 24×7 game who is the strongest in only part of that time frame is basically meaningless. The best team is the one who comes out on top at the end of the match, this is true for every single game or sport I can think of.
Sure people can run around beating their chest about how great they are for a particular hour, but it doesn’t change anything, merely an ego booster. If you want to be the best then you need to adopt methods that will make you the best, not complain and ask for the rules to be changed (re: nightcapping).
Wait, so all of a sudden 50v50 battles are “bad” and you want things changed to prevent this type of thing? So what is the magic number of players that suddenly makes a battle “good”? I know plenty of people that would consider a 50v50 fight epic rather than a zerg.
The WvWvW ruleset was designed to have large scale battles, that is why the population caps are set as they are. You are now suggesting artificial mechanisms because you don’t like large scale battles.
Every time the word “zerg” gets used on these forums its just because one side outnumbered the other. Doesn’t matter if it was 5v10, 20v40 or whatever. So implying that a “zerg” is bad or unfair and should be artificially hampered is wrong.
Any smart commander will try and bring more troops to a battle than his opponent, its common sense and thus a perfectly valid tactic. If said commander can’t bring more troops then he should try and outmanoeuvre the enemy. If a side wants to focus all their forces into one big army then let them. For every one objective they take you can take several.
Individual skill, fairness, etc have no place in the WvWvW ruleset. It is designed to be large scale, 24×7 battles. Zerging is a tactic, please don’t try and get the rules changed because you can’t come up with better tactics.
Pls disable the Mesmer skill "Portal" untill you fix the server lode issus
in WvW
Posted by: Tzash.5748
The rendering issue isn’t specific to mesmer portals. They could disable portals and the real problem would still exist. Better for them to focus on the real issue, which they have acknowledged, there was a dev post in these forums about it a week or so ago.
Also, the portal can be used in both pve and pvp. Why should the pve mesmers lose one of their skills because of a pvp issue? Especially given the particpation rate of WvWvW is only around 30% (ANet’s own stats).
I seriously doubt the threads are being removed to stifle discussion. My bet is that they are being removed because its the same people creating multiple threads and they are all just repeating what has been argued about many times over.
We don’t need 20 new threads every day about the same thing, from the same people.
2am EST would be just as US prime time is ending. Oceanic prime time starts roughly a few hours after that. So its no surprise IoJ would be last at that time. SoS should be in a similar position.
I love how in every single matchup posted, the #1 servers outscored the #2 and #3 servers combined.
And is this because:
1) the matchup was uneven to begin with, or
2) once one team got a decent lead the other 2 gave up
I know that the IoJvsFAvsSoS match was close until mid-week and then went lopsided. If what I’ve heard is true though its more because a number of US guilds transferred to IoJ (which has a strong Oceanic base).