Guild Wars 2

As of 30m ago OS is still unusable. Randomly died just trying to run to the arena.

Yes, traited the lb on ranger is supposed to reach up to 1500 range.
In actuality:
http://www.gw2wvw.net/image/probably-africa

Would require more than one map

manysongsgw.2931:

It feels like a lot of people don’t realize there’s a thing called custom arenas supporting 10v10 already. If it’s a supported game-mode or tournaments that’s desired, then wait another 5 years. Most of the tournaments have been community driven. /thread

Most of the gvg guilds already have a custom arena. But as you yourself said, they only support up to 10 players per side. The game mode that we are looking for will support teams above 10 members. The current standard for gvg guilds are between 15 – 20 members per team. Also a gvg tournament is being implemented in NA’s T2 that is fully community driven.

What is being asked is for Anet to offer a way for gvg guilds to fight eachother w/o interference from trolls and open up the possible opponents to being more then just the current opposing server. That would take gvg guilds out of server politics and open up the number of guilds that they could schedule fights with. So no, its not a true supported game mode or tournament that is desired, just a proper map.

Melanion.4892:

Equinox.4195:

Thanks for re-opening the thread, moderators.

Also, I’d like to point out that GvGs don’t need to be 20v20. 20v20 creates a pretty large barrier-to-entry for a lot of guilds, not only in recruiting enough people to have a reasonable composition on any given night, but also recruiting enough GOOD players to put into that roster or trying to train a large group of people to all be able to compete. The skillcap in GvGs has definitely risen dramatically over the past year with the meta shifts and being a decent player doesn’t always cut it, and I believe this is especially prevalent in a 20v20 GvG.

One of the main reasons I feel like guilds still do 20v20’s is because they’re still following in the footsteps of old guilds and as guilds continue to make the demand of “we won’t do less than 20’s,” it’s only continuing to force this mindset that 20v20 is the only size that matters for GvG.

Plus, with the average player skill increasing over the years and the mindsets of players changing from spamming AoEs to focusing single targets, the concentration of damage with 20 players compared to something the size of 15 is a big difference.

I think a 20v20 option is fine, and there are valid reasons to prefer it to 15v15 and especially 10v10. Playstyles are very different between the three roster sizes, and preferring one to another is alright.

That said, I think everyone should be open-minded about smaller roster sizes, possibly even 8v8 or 12v12 to give other examples, if you are going to expect a positive response, or possibly even a response to this at all.

That’s my two cents. Getting support for the gamemode is more important to me than the size of it, so whether it’s 20v20, 12v12, 15v15, or whatever isn’t as important to me as just HAVING the official support, and I encourage everyone to approach this with a similar mindset.

I agree with a lot of what you said, but the 8v8 and 12v12 might get a bit awkward because the game bases a lot of combat around 5s and 10s (buffs go to 5 party members. Mass invis goes to 10), so I dont know how anything other than multiples of 5 would work. Sure, you could have 5, 5 and 2 or 4, 4 and 4, but I’m not sure if that’s something that I can see Anet doing. They’ll probably have multiple parties in something, anyways, so 10s or 15s… despite eles and gank generally running in separate parties from the rest of the stab-users.

But yes, 10v10 and 15v15 is much more logical for people to field. I’m not sure how you guys (EP and the GvG scene collectively) feels about objectives to make it a little more than death match. Hopefully not too focused on that, but I wouldn’t mind 10v10s or 15v15s where the main group was approximately 80% of the comp and then a few others might have to run around and do things, gank a lord or try to cap a flag. Something to add a bit more flavor if you’re losing and because (realistically) they’re not going to implement a system of death matches. I don’t think they would, anyways. However, they’d support longer fights of approximately 10-15 mins where a loss of one person doesn’t mean a full loss, just a loss until they can respawn and regroup while the other team gains a slight advantage if they push properly.

The idea of gvgs or rPvP or however it may be called is merely to be team deathmatch. We prefer an open, unobstructed place that can fit the size of the party while allowing room for casters and gank parties to move along the outside of the fight without being pushed against a wall if the enemy didn’t force them there.

Most of us fight in this style of match because we are not interested in objective based fighting. Gvgs are meant to be multiple groups of fairly short rounds (best of 7 currently). Ideally, when someone goes hard down then they might be transitioned to a spectator view, but currently in the scene the player just stays dead until the round is over (30 seconds to a couple minutes later).

Blix.8021:

killing uplevels with siege is lame, get some people together and go kill them the right way

heh hehe heheheh

To start with, +1.

So I have a few ideas that I would like to introduce or re-introduce in regards to this topic to continue talks:

Currently, gvgs (or gPVP or rPVP or w/e) do not receive enough publicity. New players are not being introduced to gvgs and do not know what they are. Up until I moved to T2 and joined Syn I had never heard of gvgs and I’m sure anyone that does not visit the forums often probably hasn’t heard of them either. If we really want to ensure that this game mode continues, there will need to be some kind of a q system. In that same way, rank can be earned which will separate new guilds from established guilds so the fights will not be one-sided. This is separate from the idea of a tournament or esport as the rating would be more of a win go up/lose go down style.

I would also second the idea of creating a separate ranked and unranked/solo q style. This will allow average/more-casual players to experience this game mode in a more relaxed way and act as an introduction to gvgs.

_
As for how to q for a gvg (or how to q 10-20 people at once), my idea is that a guild officer could open a tab in his guilds page where he could select a team from his guild roster to q. If others wanted to watch the round then they could manually join the map (like in regular pvp) and spectate or other guild members could move that the “gvg” tab and right click a member that is in a match and select spectate (same effect but less work then manually looking through the maps). It would also make sense that the system would only allow for teams divisible by 5.

_
With regards to monetizing gvgs, guild (or personal) gvg maps could be purchasable. As gvg maps would allow for more players (up to 3 times? 20m in current pvp maps to 50m in gvgs) then Anet could charge 3 times what current pvp maps cost. Even if they cost more than that there are plenty of people willing to pay for them. And as pvp maps have timers, these gvg maps would need to have time stocked also, creating another consistent money flow for Anet.

_
Obviously I have taken a pretty heavy influence from the current PvP style but we need to remember that GvGs are just a large scale pvp mode. As far as maps go, I wouldn’t care if the map was just a carbon copy of OS or even if it was a large hole in the ground with walls surrounding it.

Alteros.3019:

joneirikb.7506:

They will never add mechanics that changes the playing field of a 1on1 much. If they did that, it would create some really crazy situations in the game, and probably drive away large parts of the people interested in actually fights in WvW. Just imagine how this would affect single roamers taking camps in enemy borderland, if the home server got 20 people in citadel, and 20 out patrolling and guarding etc. That single roamer is strong as 40 man ?

Do like the idea of outnumbered affecting supplies though, increasing the supply limit for outnumbered means that less people can still use siege (both for roaming, and defending etc).

If you want to play as a single roamer in WvW, I have three letters for you: PvP. But as an aside, that single roamer probably wouldn’t be able to hold down the entire map like the 40 you speak of either. But it would be functionally equivalent, which is what is entirely lacking in WvW right now. Otherwise, that single guy trying his darnedest wouldn’t be able to accomplish much against 40 men.

It would change the dynamic and as I’ve said before on other forums, Anet has been curiously comparing WvW to an RPG you are a part of. The most successful RPG of all time, the very same that added “zerg” to our everyday lexicon, gave us the RTS mechanic and play style that we’ve so readily accepted in RPG environments: few but powerful, moderate numbers and strength, and many but weak.

I thought doing the math for this would be fun. I play a full zerk necro. Using your example of 1 vs 40. I would have 101120 power. 805280 health. 75720 Armor. And roughly 660k death shroud. My piercing life blast, that would still be a full crit on all targets, would hit for over 120k damage on everyone that it passes through.

If this were to be implemented: Necro god mode anyone?

I also think it should be noted that to try and implement either floating player caps or consolidated servers would be a very intensive overhaul and cost Anet a lot of money and resources to do. This means that it isn’t something they can practically do a trial run of.

It is also worth noting that due to the way server populations are currently set-up, all the servers still have high population counts with pve players being considered a server member. This means that large numbers of transfers are hard to accomplish with servers still being considered highly populated. Due to the cost of trying to implement either of these changes, I can not see Anet allowing free transfers as they will need to try and make some of their investment back. And until a fix is found for the way server populations are counted, the cost to transfer down tiers is the same as it is to transfer up tiers.

So I understand what people meant when they said you can’t be an active forum poster if you haven’t received an infraction. Took 2 days.

Anyways, wanted to summarize the more popular ideas floating around currently and list the counters arguments too them. All I see are the same posts going in circles at the moment.
Funny enough, Marmatt pulled all these ideas at the start of the report suggesting that no one can be original in this forum.

Floating population cap:
-Increases queue times across all servers, but severely punishes high population servers in matchups against lower population servers.

-Restricts playstyles and large fights/ makes it harder to play with friends and guild members on the same map.

-And although it wasn’t expanded on in this thread very much, the ability to abuse the player cap.

-Makes coordinated fights between guilds/ servers difficult do to lock-outs reducing ways WvW can be played.

Server Merging
-Against the will of server communities and removes server pride

-Removes the ability to solo-roam

-Doesn’t prevent ‘server stacking’

-Will cause higher queue times by over stacking of NA time zone.

Increasing rewards/ reward tracks

Done poorly, could lead to eotm type problems.

-Ideas to prevent that include increased/improved loot for killing players and rewards for defending/scouting.

The solution that is required isn’t something as simple as just setting player caps. You need to understand why people are playing the game. What they are looking for. And after defining those things, try to increase the overall number of players that take part.

Realistically, the only way the servers will all be balanced will be if more people are playing WvW so solutions that potentially lead to players leaving will only make the problem worse.

Notice: Wall of text incoming.

Jim Hunter.6821:

I’m looking for a game where the player skill is more important than being able to call in a larger blob.

I had said before that you were being selfish. And yes, I don’t disagree that player skill should be a major factor in the game but that doesn’t give you the right to dictate how others should play. If you want more skilled combat then look into GvGs or fights guilds. Obviously the players that run around in those large blobs enjoy doing so.

Jim Hunter.6821:

My suggestion wouldn’t force anyone to move. The majority of the tiers have roughly equal numbers. Right now the only tiers that would be heavily affected would be tier 3 and 6 and I’m pretty sure the majority of the people in those match-ups would be having a lot more fun if things were more competitive.

Your suggesting is to put artificial floating player caps on all the servers as a way to keep player populations the same on all servers. This is why I said it only sounds good.

You can’t say that this idea wouldn’t force anyone to move. You will be increasing que times to some servers that already have ques on borderlands. Some people aren’t as forgiving as you and don’t want to wait that long. The server I am on had a minimum 20 man que this reset night. I didn’t even bother trying to get in and neither did some of the others in my guild.

That said, my server (dragonbrand) actually has a weaker NA then the other T2 servers we are with. So during the week when my guild raids the other T2 servers out number us by a little. This idea would restrict the other servers in our tier to match mine. I don’t want that.

It would make our server more competitive during NA (of which we do just fine) but it would restrict our off-hour coverage. Now, once again, that sounds fine until you consider how many people you have barred from entering WvW: A large number of YB and FA players, because they were forced to maintain our levels during NA, and a large number of DB players during our strong off-hour coverage. Those are players you have turned away from WvW. Either they transfer or they leave WvW all together because the coverage gaps between servers haven’t changed. Your argument is based around the idea that all the servers have roughly equal numbers, but they don’t. If they did, we wouldn’t be having this debate and the title wouldn’t be unbalanced match-ups.

And yes, this would have a major impact on T3. Not just in favor of the T3 servers, but also against the T2 server that moves down to T3. SoS can already make ques on every map. If say, HoD and NSP can only field 60 a map on reset then you are leaving out another 60 players per map. Those numbers are too drastic. And during the week when numbers go down, yes the match-up will be competitive. But you are ignoring the overall server strength to try and possibly highlight skill difference. All the numbers that are ignored though, are players that are frustrated and potentially leave GW2 entirely.

lil devils x.6071:

Yes, I think the event siege looks great! They did a good job with that, and by changing the appearance of the siege, more people built it to defend with, so that makes it even better!

This I don’t agree with… Liked the siege skin but not if it caused more siege to be laid

Again with the personal attacks on Marmatt? Let it go. And better yet, read what he wrote correctly before calling him out for k-training eotm. 2500 hours played. Rank 300.
But seriously, the guy volunteered to step in try to sort through all these problems. Just thank him for it.

Jim Hunter.6821:

coglin.1867:

Tom Gore.4035:

Make the best personal rewards in WvW come from killing enemy players, not capturing objectives.

perhaps you are new to WvW, but killing enemy player is not, nor has every been, the actual object of the game mode.

Jim Hunter.6821:

@Op: You missed one of the better suggestions, using a floating player cap instead of a hard cap. Put the hard cap at something like 20-30 players per side per map and only raise it when the other servers reach the cap.

You mean one of the worst suggestions possible right? This idea does nothing more then *artificially forces the higher tear servers to experience the same problem of lower tier. I was under the impression the goal here was to increase the WvW player base. Not force them out with artificial queues.

Nope, the goal here is to prevent unbalanced match-ups. I guess you missed the thread title.

This would mean actual competitive matches where you had to outplay your opponents instead of just outnumbering them. People that are looking for PvD rather than competitive play can go to EotM while they wait in queue.

Guild groups looking for fights can organize something in Obsidian Sanctum if they can’t all make it onto the same map.

Although saying it is to make the matches competitive it does ignore constraints and population differences between maps. Causing massive ques on some.

And even to say that guild groups can go to the Obsidian Sanctum (OS), OS isn’t large enough to handle fights larger then 20v20 realistically. And on top of that, what do you do if another guild is in there before you. Where do you go then. Or do you stand around and watch the guild before you fight for 10 or 15 minutes between rounds?

What you are suggesting is a selfish call for what YOU think WvW should be without excepting that not everyone plays the same style as you. It is for that reason that Anet has such a hard problem. There are many sub-groups of WvW players with many different styles of play. If Anet only focuses on one (Eotm) the general community isn’t happy about it.

There are quite a few problems with the concept you brought up. The full focus of this type of change would be ppt oriented w/o consideration for the types of styles that people like to play as many people that play WvW don’t play for points.

Yes, server population disparities are a major problem and while lowering population caps sound nice at first, they ignore the reason some people play the game. There are people in T1 that probably love massive fights (not in T1 but have a guildy that enjoyes them w/ alt in T1). But even w/o that, population caps make it hard for guilds to all their members out, the members that they want to play the game with.

How will the system recognize people when reviewing numbers. Will players with the same guild tag somehow get priority over others? Or will guilds be split with half their numbers on one map and half on another.

What if you are trying to organize fights between your group and another. Or what if you want to zerg bust? Taking a skilled group of 25-30 to attack a group of 50+? Running over a group of 40 with that many is too easy.

And in response to saying that it would cause guilds to move, some aren’t able to do to the focus that they want. GvG focused guilds can’t leave their tier due to the kind of competition that they want. That doesn’t mean they should be ignored or that they should suffer trying to find a way to get their guild onto the same instanced map. Or in the same respect, that a commander should try to lead an even numbered fight against say a gvg guild or zerg busting guild, due to map constraints. Or pity the map that doesn’t have a tag…

kefro.9312:

We want 5 servers on the same map!

Close the current BL they are old and no one likes it and put a new 5 BL system with less population cap each one that would be ideal and solve tier 2 and 3 NA problem.
If 5 is to much at least 4…

So yes, NA has 4 tier 2 servers and tier 3 is suffering because of it. But with your 4/5 server system you would get

1) Tier1 server 5) Tier2 server
2) Tier1 server 6) Tier2 server
3) Tier1 server 7) Tier2 server
4) Tier2 server 8.) Tier3 server

This doesn’t fix the problem.

And lowering the population cap on these servers? Each server can already make map ques on every bl except for maybe the T3 server that got sucked up to what would then be a massively outnumbered fight. The lowered population would help the lower tier server but would move more people away from WvW just by how long the wait times to get into a map would be. And forget trying to get a guild into the map.

Marmatt.8590:

Please feel free to give feedback on this report, and ideas for next weeks topic.

Feedback:

Its nice to see you making a serious effort to this and looking back through past issues and posts. I hope you continue to do so.

In regards to server balancing it is a tough issue. Many wvw players dont like high population engages (roamers/scouts). But the disparity between the T2 servers and T3 servers is obviously a problem as neither the T2 server stuck in T3 or vice verse are enjoying the match-ups and I wish you luck in trying to sort through the responses too it.

Topic Idea:

Coming from a GvG player, obviously I would like GvGs to be discussed. I would like some kind of reward system (or really anything profitable as there isn’t any rewards). Mainly just wish Anet would set an instanced area that allowed us to have GvGs free of trolls using the gear and stats we have crafted that doesn’t limit us to just 5 or 10 on a side.