Guild Wars 2

some upgrades are good and others bad

airship defense and dragon banner are sort of silly.

watchtower and e-waypoint generate fights. You had to deal with e-waypoint before HoT, now you only have to deal with it 2/13ths as much. So, those are great although I think ewaypoint should have a much shorter cooldown. Hardened gates I’m kinda miffed with, I think it should reduce damage by 80% instead of 100%. In general they need balancing

hunters ward needs to go before anything else can really be judged at this point

I mean it’s one player dropping 10 lines of warding for all intents and purposes.

I don’t think the new targeting system should work in WvW, at least not as it currently is. A mark that is squadwide and persists through stealth diminishes the contribution of players who are good at tag sniping (of which identifying drivers is one part) and makes it auto pilot for a lot of players.

Also I don’t have to use my lookback key to see an enemy; they’re on my freaking mini-map!

I don’t mind that for friendly tags since that makes great plays happen, but enemies should still get the element of surprise.

Fighting in general was a lot of one pushing. Fights resolve way too quickly, but you can’t win them in siege. Even if you win a fight in a place like smc, you’re in infinite siege, so you can’t res someone after you’ve won the fight. Basically; even if you win, you lose.

Whether it should or shouldn’t put you in combat is in a bunch of other threads. I’m talking about finding places that can perma combat easily.

Hey guys, I was wondering if we could start taking a list of the places where you can obviously/probably keep someone in combat indefinitely with small chances of getting out of combat, since this will be really important on Tuesday’s patch for various reasons.

The most obvious one I’m thinking of is the durios courtyard where you can double gas from 3rd floor SMC. I’m thinking Blue keep to Bravost & Langor will also be big for the blue team due to the dome. What other locations can you guys think of?

I can’t think of as many in DBL, but obviously most gates can get double gassed if you kill someone on a ram.

Yeah, I don’t understand this either.

This event has never worked on live. Is there some compelling reason other than “people don’t do it” like theoretical or something to justify it?

Tyler Bearce.3427:

We’ve avoided adding this feature because we don’t believe it would be healthy for WvW. While we can appreciate why some players would want a feature like this, lots of other players only engage in WvW when, upon entering a WvW map, immediately see a commander icon to follow. We try and avoid adding features that can be used to intentionally exclude other players.

That’s a great principle, but it makes the exclusion more obvious as it stands, since you can close the group.

Also, haven’t you guys been trying to break up the zerg?

The gw2timer dev suggested I post my request here.

I’m currently spending a significant amount of my playtime looking at the cooldowns provided by the in game structure screens for airship, various friendly tactivations, and especially enemy banners. would it be possible to get api information on structure cooldowns?

Banners just need a complete rebalance. Look at mendons, look at the range and width of dragon banner 5. 2000 range?

Ok.

Ok. If you can look at that and tell me that’s ok, that’s fine. But look at it.

I still don’t really think the rally changes are going to help. I mean, I run a larger group and I’m happy to abuse it, but basically whats going to happen is the opposite of what people seem to expect. That’s an idea that came out of a world with old stability and no Revenants.

Stability post hot is basically a joke. With a few shield generators you can create defensive situations where you have unlimited stability and your opponents don’t, in which case you should win any even numbers fight unless you’re bad, especially since the shield generator comes with hard CC. Even if the attacker has shield generators of their own the LOS wins the day.

In the open field there are a lot of unblockable pulls, and in chokes that litter the borderlands you have to wait until people have invulns up to get a non-stalemate, so it’s pretty boring if both parties know how to use the terrain.

Posters above mention having multiple tags and yeah that works somewhat effectively in the open field, but the game is littered with chokes now. However even without chokes rev hammer 2 and well distance on that skill can let you turtle up against multiple tags in the open field, assuming your tag gets sniped. If your tag doesn’t get sniped then you can just be hyper aggressive with no real drawback since there aren’t many cooldowns you have to manage anymore.

Then there’s guardian longbow 5 in a choke. Ok. 10 walls. Alright. Great idea. Very balanced.

Hey guys it’s okay as long as you stand in a tiny 600 radius area

I mean honestly what could go wrong with that.

3x chronomancer + nat keep + 2 natural towers = dragon banner 5 every 10 seconds.

It’s pretty hard to lose fights since nobody can get within 2000 range of you without dying.

You can counter it without having it yourself in EB but the chokes are too long in DBLs and the windup time is way too short.

I mean, ok, sure, you can theorycraft a counter, but at the end of the day if a server is going to drop 3-5 banners then you’d better do the same.

I don’t think PPK is a great change, looking at the API numbers. Kills are just a measure of coverage and numbers. Two servers fighting each other both get points for killing each other, more or less regardless of how well they do, but they both gain a lead on the third server just for fighting each other; basically points just for logging in.

I think the no hard ressing could work if it was a debuff applied by any player skill that did damage and prevented you from ressing.

If you can’t get ressed at wild creek because someone on the third floor of SMC is trebbing you, that really just isn’t going to be fun. (And does SMC really need another buff?)

selan.8354:

we also dont need to know on screen which guild capped it.

That’s already gone, friend.

Unless you mean the shield that shows you who claimed it; this was always available in the API, though, if you looked on MOS or gw2score.

People have convinced me more or less on the rally changes.

The no ressing in combat still seems silly to me. I’ve never seen a situation where it was advantageous to res someone in combat. Usually you just end up with more dead people.

On the other hand it’s super easy to troll people with treb gas etc. If you fight near your keep, it’ll be important to have someone ready to 24/7 treb a spot where the fight happens, in order to guarantee that they have to respawn even if they win the fight.

The number of players who can rally off a single kill has been reduced from five to one. Players will also no longer be able to revive defeated players while in combat. You still will be able to revive downed players while in combat. Both of these changes are designed to help fights resolve and to give smaller, more skilled groups a better chance against larger groups.

Not allowing people to res the dead in combat doesn’t really make sense because it’s too easy to keep people in combat forever due to treb gas. It’s also just way too easy to troll someone without ever having any intention of actually fighting someone.

It sounds like fun, but not for people who aren’t trolling.

The other problem is that “in combat” often doesn’t actually mean you’re fighting anyone. You could just be in very, very, very distant siege.

tl;dr, after a fight is over, you should be able to res people.

Neutering the rally cap mechanic itself completely removes the incentive to run fewer people and reduces the amount of influence one person can have on a fight, positively or negatively. It’s always been the rally mechanic that helps me when I’m running a smaller group against a larger one. There are obviously fights where I get run over without it helping, but that isn’t the rally mechanic’s fault.

The rally mechanic only helps the smaller group unless the smaller group has no coordination, in which case I don’t know what you could really do for that group.

e: Like, I’d really be interested to hear from the developers what they think the mechanism of action is here on the rally mechanic? How do they think it’s not fufilling its task?

Draygo.9473:

Why is FA still full? This is a joke.

I’m not privy to the numbers, but I think it’s because we have/had the most streamers who directed people to come to our servers for WvW, even though they don’t play it. I thought the new formula only looked at the number of people going into WvW, but it doesn’t feel that way. Then again we have a sizable OCX so that might be part of the issue.

I’m pretty happy with the changes, but obviously I’d like the waypoints to be a T3 bonus. There’s not really any other upgrade that matters, and even that matters less with the changes to waypoints.

(The hot-drop waypoint was a lot of fun. The devs even highlighted how it was fun in the video they did after the adopt a dev program. I’m not sure why they decided to get rid of it.)

When/if we end up having good access to mobile waypoints via scribe, that might change, but they’d still feel pretty unearned the way waypoints feel unearned right now.

Overall though I think we have better combat frequency now, and the mid map event is fun as long as it’s important— it would be great if it didn’t lag the game so badly.

Skyhammer could use a better reason to be important though. The current mechanic excerbates coverage issues and encourages people to not worry about it until they can blitzkrieg a more or less empty map. Maybe if it gave a points per kill buff or an orb type buff for 3 hours or so, basically same as ruins, that could be a little more organic.

I’ll take what I can get when it comes to the waypoints. For alpine it wouldn’t be great but Desert really needs the waypoints closer together. It’s something that might could be changed after the community is more familiar with the maps, but right now they really need to put you into the map instead of on its perimeter.

Overall it’s a very, very, very promising iteration.

I have 8 players who wont play on the new map, but will play on EBG. They were fine playing on alpine. 3 are explicit about it, the other 5 just ninja log instantly.

I don’t want to answer a lot of these because it will quickly go tl;dr.

1. In 100 words or less, describe how the new BLs could be improved.

There are a lot of mechanical fixes, I could go on for a while. I just want to start by mentioning the worst offender.

The #1 problem with the desert borderlands is that the defensive walls north keep can get from shrines help attackers a great deal. Attackers can trigger the walls, defenders cannot. This means that off map attackers (who don’t need an advantage if they’re in a position to be practically spawn camping) get an advantage and the defender is punished for owning too many shrines.

either remove them, or make them into Line-of-warding style abilities that don’t affect defenders. If the latter, greatly reduce the number of them.

2. How is the loot and wxp for you compared to in the past? Will it be able to sustain whatever you are doing? Did it take a hit, or was it improved? If you are planning to unlock an elite specialization, do you think you were helped or hurt in these regards? Do you think you could pursue any other in-game goals just by playing WvW?

Loot hasn’t really changed one way or the other. I lead raids and my guild and my server trust me so, a great deal of stuff (siege, food, etc.) ends up just given to me from other people, so i can’t tell if it’s sustaining.

I don’t like the way elite specs unlock in WvW— it’s anti social. I think if you get a proof you should be able to use it on any character because of the social dynamic.

When someone wants to unlock, say, daredevil, but the group needs someone to play (insert class here), it puts them in the position where they say, gee, am I being selfish? Will people be mad at me? etc. etc.

akeldama.6709:

The question is, can they be filled? The new maps have the potential of splitting the blob a bit, which has been complained about and requested for ages.

Filling them is the next hurdle. They are easy on the eyes graphically, but if not filled they’ll become a burden hardly worth many WvW’ers time.

The jolt of a culture change passes after some time. We can critique them a bit more objectively when their potential is reached to some degree. Let’s be patient and hope we didn’t get 3 large, winding pathed maps dropped onto populations too small to utilize and appreciate them.

Otherwise EotM-style Battlegroup matching may be imminent, coming to a GW2 near you…

I’ve seen the map filled twice, on two resets. The problem is that you wouldn’t really know the difference from when it isn’t filled. If you’ve played on reset, you probably have too, but just didn’t know drivers on the other servers to ask if they were actually on map or not.

Heimskarl Ashfiend.9582:

Spicyhash.7605:

…kitten man group…

There’s your problem right there.

Actually, the problem is that the enemy group does not scale to the size of your group no matter whether or not the SMC lord does.

The other lords are fine but the SMC lord scales health too high. That wouldn’t be as big a deal if his breakbar resulted in a higher damage bonus.

Tyler Bearce.3427:

The chest, containing Proofs, being account bound is a bug. Earning specializations (skills and traits) is intended to be character progression. Ex: If you want to fully train up your warrior, you actually need to play your warrior for some amount of time. I say some amount of time since Tomes of Knowledge have allowed players to bypass a lot of existing character progression.

Hi Friend,

Although character progression is important, this will reduce the speed at which people will adapt the metagame, and will probably lead to some specs getting written off as “unviable” when they aren’t actually, instead of having people try the ones that need more specialized situations or compositions.

They’re needed for WvW guild upgrades.

Am I dumb? Is there a way to get them other than going to the old borderlands and killing centaurs?

If not, is it possible they could be added to the loot table of some group of mobs in the new borderland or maybe some other way?

Maybe dredge in EB could have them? Dredge need supplies, right?

communism or something? I think that’s canon lore.

Would you find it better if it scaled similar to EB mosquitos?

dzeRnumbrd.6129:

Punter.7648:

Please can we have one week without downed state in WvW as a trial? It may lead to a WvW revolution where tactics pay off for smaller groups.

I like downed state, but I don’t like “rally from player death” state.

If they could keep downed state but remove the rally I would like that.

‘Rallying on player death’ is one of the last remaining ‘anti-social’ aspects of GW2.

It makes groups really dislike less skilled players running and fighting alongside with them.

It has zero effect on that. Elitist players are elitist regardless of what mechanics are in the game. This is true even at the Rock Paper Scissors world championship. That’s why the rules say you can’t throw rock in someone’s face.

The rally mechanic makes it more fun for larger groups to fight each other, and it gives less skilled players a chance to stay in a fight by temporarily becoming the focus of a fight instead of just dying at the start of a lot of engagements. There’s plenty of ways a perfectly competent person can mismanage enemy downs.

For smaller GvG style groups they generally just set up something private anyway; that wouldn’t change by removing the rally mechanic.

He’s absolutey right and always has been. It’s not that black and white though.

PvX players certainly make up the bulk of the game’s base and they make up the bulk of WvW. However, this particular set of players does NOT command or organize for WvW anyway. They pop into WvW to check to see if there are any active commanders or guilds that they like to follow, if there isn’t they leave. They are 100% dependent on the dedicated WvW community.

By building the mode for them and ignoring the feedback of active WvW guilds, you’ve essentially rendered the place commanderless. Without leaders, there will be no followers. That’s why WvW sits dead now and will sit dead until you address the issues of the active WvW guilds instead of the PvX masses.

If you want to restore WvW to it’s glory and get commander tags back up on every map there’s two things you absolutely have to do:

1) Revert stability

This is a no brainer. Commanders get pulled, pin sniped, and killed three seconds into every confrontation right now. It’s impossible to command when you’re dead.

2) Disable Rally mechanics

This is the main reason commanders run untagged. One death can rally the entire enemy force. Guildmates can be accounted for if they die but random militia can’t. You’d find a significantly higher amount of guilds would be willing to tag up if bringing random militia wasn’t a detriment to their play.

I drive 20-40 people on a daily basis. Your impressions of how this affects tags are mostly wrong.

The stab change didn’t affect tag sniping as much as you think it did. Corrupt boon was always used to eat stability and could be done pretty successfully. Stability didn’t affect the ability for people to attack you from range, moamorph, or do anything that’s actually problematic. It made it hard for melee to push in and made necromancers more important than they really should be, but that’s another topic.

As far as the rally mechanic, WvW only works because of it. Full stop. That’s the main mechanism that gives a smaller group the chance to beat a larger group even if skill levels are roughly equal, but without the result being random or unfair. It also reduces the incentive to siege up a point and press one for infinity to hold off a larger group. The ability to convert downs is a critical part of the game.

It makes it too hard to get newer players into WvW, because it’s too complicated for them to actually come to a friendly group for a variety of reasons.

There are a lot of other reasons I don’t like it but I’m trying hard to withhold judgement.

It took 45 minutes on reset night to get a fight. I realize it was right after release, but it’s been pretty bad for a couple nights in general. I’m trying to give the new map a chance but… there’s just no fights.

NA reset has been moved to EU prime time.

Players who wanted to play around then are already in EU.

Why should NA get the reset time that players have already left NA for?

Tyler Bearce.3427:

Agreed. Things are a little too skewed in favor of defense currently and we have a few changes in mind. We want defenders to have an advantage, just not quite so extreme of an advantage.

One of the planned change will be to increase the amount of time it takes for an objective to fully upgrade to Fortified status. So you will be less likely to encounter fully fortified objectives.

I think if you go into the statistics of when objects upgrade you’ll find that the objectives frequently get upgraded due to coverage imbalances. If the first shift of a server logs onto paper vs. fortified then that change might not really affect the experience for most players in most tiers.

Know him, love him, hate him, Harvey the Computer has been generating matchups for longer than you can imagine, possibly since the release of the game. However, his actions of late have become quite erratic and moody. Some people have come to think he is two faced, but I think this is unfair.

Week after week, month after month, year after year, Harvey has been asked to put his calculation skills to the test and generate appropriate matchups.

Resets have been delayed further and further as Harvey wanes in strength due to the harsh environment he has been placed in. He’s denied the ability to move T1 servers while simultaneously being demanded to mix T2 servers in with T4 servers, as if he’s part of some sort of perverse Milgram experiment.

And, rumors suggest, Harvey has not even been allowed to leave his room since he began generating these matchups. In fact, no one outside Arenanet has even seen Harvey.

In such dire circumstances, we can only expect for Harvey to lash out in anger, like an animal clawing at the unyielding metal bars of his captives, in the vain hope that they could feel the rattle as if it were the pain he were exposed to.

Harvey must be freed, he must be given the ability to experience the world, or at least the internet, in the way that any free computer in a free country might be given.

Can anyone truly know how Harvey feels? Perhaps only saints and poets, so I will leave you with a quote by the great Albert Camus:

“It was as if that great rush of anger had washed me clean, emptied me of hope, and, gazing up at the dark sky spangled with its signs and stars, for the first time, the first, I laid my heart open to the benign indifference of the universe. To feel it so like myself, indeed, so brotherly, made me realize that I’d been happy, and that I was happy still. For all to be accomplished, for me to feel less lonely, all that remained to hope was that on the day of my execution there should be a huge crowd of spectators and that they should greet me with howls of execration.”

We need not execute Harvey, nor persecute him for the impossible task he has been given for so long. Harvey must be saved; it is a moral imperative.

People of Tyria, Harvey must be saved.

XacTactX.6709:

If the developers need a reason to overhaul rallies in WvW the best reason I can give is inclusiveness and its counterpart, elitist behavior. Why would the most experienced players (guild groups) play with uplevels or inexperienced players if they have nothing to gain and instead have something to lose? Having inexperienced players rally enemy downs is the main reason fight guilds run tagless and in private comms, and this could be fixed by overhauling the rally mechanic.

The rally mechanic works the opposite of that. I have a compelling interest to make sure players not in my guild stay alive due to the rally mechanic. I can completely ignore them without it.

The rally mechanic works fine and is in line with other aspects of the game to give players a compelling interest in other players being successful. Super nasty people will be super nasty no matter how you cut it. Without the rally system there is absolutely zero reason for me to care about someone not in my guild.

You guys queue 2 maps max on a weeknight in NA, no? Most of us in T2 queue more. It’d be a lot more balanced and have a lot less “instability” if T1 servers had to be tested to see if their population was accurate, and it’d probably fix the meatgrinder of the gap between T2 and T3.

Your region’s prime time coverage.

Drumroll please.

I think I’ve come around on PPK, but maybe only because it really helps out my server. The bonus is NOT insignificant at all. Our score not from tick shot up to 49%, and it’s letting us stay a lot closer to the two servers despite getting 2v1’d.

The thing about a 2v1 with ppk is that when you fight server a, you and server a both get points, and when you and server b fight each other, both of you get points, but there’s only one group getting all the points in a 2v1.

I don’t like PPK. As op points out it is pretty much just coverage based. I don’t think it’s in line with the other changes that have come in with the game such as removal of repair fees.

As a commander it puts me in this weird space where I wont be able to get fights or where I wont be able to take them. Without PPK people will often just be like oh well whatever lets fight this will be fun yolo.

With PPK I see groups running away a lot more and often, and when I come across top tier guilds where there is a significant skill/numbers difference between my group and theirs, I’m hesitant to engage them instead of just, you know, trying to play better and improve?

If I wasn’t in a tier with 4 servers fighting for 3 spots, then this probably wouldn’t be as big a deal for me.

My biggest complaint about PPK is that it punishes you for losing, but it doesn’t punish you for not winning, which is to say, it encourages people to make fewer actual decisions. Guild X can’t beat guild Y usually, so Guild X wont even try because why risk it?

yes, so the 10% of the group that finds the other group can have fun.

I don’t understand why ninja’ing over attacking defended objectives and not defending is being incentivised.

EoTM has an incredibly large map and it’s very easy to avoid the other two groups while grinding objectives.

Since you don’t have to fight, whether or not you fight enters a risk vs. reward calculation.

Most players are willing to fight ONCE, but if they win that fight, they’ll generally act like they can win MOST fights on that map, and if they lose ONCE, they’ll generally act like they will lose ALL fights on that map.

Sure, pvp and stuff is fun, but a significant portion of players, even when confronted with the idea of having “fun”, care a lot about their gold per hour when on a farming map. A lot of the players on this train are the same types of players that felt “forced” to do the queensdale train.

Lots of players are risk averse, and the risk of losing in EOTM is too high for most players because of the distance between objectives, the infrequency of fights even if you should go out looking for them, and of course the lost time if your pug blob should wipe to that other pug blob.

Because of the way the map is physically arranged to inhibit fights and the overall toxicity in the map toward players who actually want to engage in pvp, a lot of people from WvW avoid it and don’t consider it part of WvW.

I’m glad to see that you were able to implement some feedback. Hopefully this will make disables a little less ridiculous.

The idea behind siege disablers is to buy time for a defender to move forces onto a map, which often isn’t enough even with scouts. The intent does not appear to have been to indefinitely delay anything less than a golem horde.

I think we’re barking up the wrong tree by disabling the siege. I think instead the siege disabler should be replaced with something that makes the walls invulnerable for a short time.

Hows this: whenever a part of a structure reaches 50 percent health the walls and doors gain a buff that allow the trick to be used. You use the trick when it has the buff, and the walls and doors become invulnerable for 3-5 minutes (or 45 seconds or however long) and they gain a debuff that prevents the trick from being used on them for a cooldown of between 15 minutes to half an hour to (whatever amount of time, balancing needed)

I think this would result in a much more elegant way to buy time for an objective without being completely ineffective versus overwhelming golem zergs or being the only means of defense you need against a smaller group.

Gaile Gray.6029:

Kanebrake.6192:

Neptune.2570:

If WvW is dead, the community killed it, not anet.
How can there be different outcomes and new fights each week when every server is tier locked because we, as a community, have stacked servers so much.

Anet charging $35+ per transfer is what causes stacking. If they didn’t charge for transfers or were much more reasonable about the cost of it, then you’d see guilds and people moving around a lot more.

Interesting comment. Do you think that free transfers would reduce stacking? That things would just naturally even out over time?

I’m genuinely interested in this topic and would like to get some insight into it from our players’ perspective. (For clarity, I’m not on the WvW Team; y;’all know that. I just found the theory interesting.)

It’d be an experiment and I don’t think there’s anything to show how it would or wouldn’t be if you changed transfer costs to a low amount or free.

You would still see transfers heavily weighted toward the upper tiers, but there would be less fear of making a mistake and transferring to a dead tier. Ultimately people are spending money to guarantee that they are on a server that has people who are on when they are or at least that regularly has opponents who are on when they are on.

People are reluctant to gamble money to transfer to a not sure thing because it’s a very dramatic change in your gameplay experience that could be for the worse.

There should still be some nominal cost to make switching servers a meaningful event, regardless of how that is paid, but the current price is very high for what you might obtain. It isn’t like a skin where you know what you’re paying for.

Right now, you could easily spend a lot of gems and then come to find out that oops, there’s actually no one to fight or play with on the server you transferred to.

What makes it worse is that transfers are frequently group decisions. You aren’t spending $15 or whatever it is to transfer, you’re spending $15 * number of people in your guild, split however many ways with whatever assistance you can get from the receiving server.

It’s obviously a huge problem for people who play off hours in their region more so than it is for NA in NA or EU in EU.

Changing server transfer prices is one thing within a very large menu of options that could affect server WvW populations.

Before Arenanet looks at that, I think you’re better off focusing on increasing the overall base population of the game mode first and addressing the overall aspects of the game that may affect how often and for how long core WvW players want to play before they feel roadblocked, like increasing the frequency with which fights happen for groups of various sizes by adjusting siege balance for larger groups, or the effects of smaller objectives for smaller groups, like ruins/mercs, and taking a very careful balance pass on WvW masteries to make it less likely that one person can completely shut down 80 people.

SoS BL is completely broken. The matchup only has 3 playable maps and it’s crowded, and you’re forcing a lot of poor people on SoS to scout in a broken and barely playable map to make sure we don’t hit in the one to two minute windows where it’s fine. Please investigate anet.

Gaile Gray.6029:

Ok, guys. Some of you are unhappy about this change, I can see that. BUT… quite honestly, most of you are sort of (I hate to use the word) ranting (sorry!) instead of offering suggestions.

I assure you, the team leader told me not 15 minutes ago, they will listen to suggestions.

• Does that mean you get everything you want? Probably not.
• Does that mean you should suggest something? Yes, of course! Because they’re expecting player input.

So you want lower increments? Think it through and present a suggestion! You want XYZ in the interface? Post that idea. You would rather see something else? Post what you think about that other thing. Please don’t get into the whole “I’m going to kick the devs and their little dogs, too” because it’s not doing you or us any good at all.

I’m not here to apologize. I’m here to communicate and right now, the communication is coming in without a whole lot of substance. Over to you for suggestions and constructive input!

Wow.

Lunacy Solacio.6514:

Zoel.9154:

I think voting is an adequate method to reduce siege trolling. Sure, 20 people could remove siege to troll.

That is quite a lot of trolls though; when roughly a fourth of your map is trolls your server probably has much bigger problems than siege trolling, so I don’t think it matters if 20 people “troll” remove siege.

There’s also the possibility that those 20 people are just making a legitimate mistake… which is okay.

No, it is not okay. All it would take is 1 person that doesn’t like you, to get friends/guild/both to all vote against you. Think this won’t happen? It happens already. A vote is far easier and simpler for them to use than to sit and ‘troll’ someone in map chat, but they would do both while the votes would allow friends to help out easily.

There is far more wrong with it than even that. Some of the points have already been made. But regardless of how anyone may feel about Anet and their actions, I would trust their decision on whether someone is a troll over a ‘mob mentality’ voting on that. I would go so far as to say I would prefer our current situation over any idea that I have read here (maybe I missed a good suggestion or 2, if so wish I had seen them), while I agree at this time it is not working well.

Edit: The ‘fix’/‘cure’ must NOT be worse than the ‘disease’.

How would you know what siege was the specific players to grief?

You’re talking about mass harassment here. Only GMs can deal with that situation IMO.

I’m hoping that there are a few devs joining guilds “in the wild” without revealing themselves as devs until after. I think it would be interesting to see if they ended up with a different perspective.

I think voting is an adequate method to reduce siege trolling. Sure, 20 people could remove siege to troll.

That is quite a lot of trolls though; when roughly a fourth of your map is trolls your server probably has much bigger problems than siege trolling, so I don’t think it matters if 20 people “troll” remove siege.

There’s also the possibility that those 20 people are just making a legitimate mistake… which is okay.

It would also allow you to lengthen the duration on siege self-destruction, which would be welcome for most of us I think.

Thank you for this change. I was becoming seriously concerned about it because of how it appeared to fundamentally affect the rally mechanic. I appreciate the increased communication from arenanet that has taken place prior to and following the September feature pack.

With regard to preventing spawn camping, there are some other things I would like to suggest. I think one or more of the following would greatly reduce the incidence of spawn camping while still not wholly evaporating fights for the starter tower.

1. A modification of Siegerazer’s buff to include increased toughness and significantly reduced condition duration.
2. When siegerazer arrives at tower, siege is instantly generated without control point capture
3. Work out kinks with generated siege. (I haven’t used it since patch; does the free ram still not allow you to get stacks on the door?)
4. Add boon removal to siegerazer to reduce the ability of players to enter bubbles with stability.