Guild Wars 2

T’was a pleasant surprise to randomly log into the game today for the first time in nearly a year to find out the last patch finally addressed the WvW nameplates. Thank you Anet! Now you can have some of my money again.

I support and empathize with the OP’s sentiments and concerns 100%. As numerous other threads and posts have likewise addressed, this desperately needs attention.

Though if Anet wants to salvage these banners as a tool to assist smaller groups moreso than larger zerg forces then they could still do so. Using a method of player detection, similar to that which communicates OJs on the map, the effectiveness of one of these banners would change dynamically depending on the number of allied/enemy players within a certain large radius respectively relative to any banner wielder.

It could be as simple as toggling between 2 tiers of banner effectiveness: full strength and half strength. After a certain threshold ratio of ally-to-enemy players is reached/detected the respective banner skills have their affected targets halved and/or their cooldowns doubled, etc. This would reduce the effectiveness of any banner wielder in a massive outnumbering zerg to not much more than that of just another player with some unique and nifty skills (albeit still useful if used properly, just not gamebreaking). Any banner in the opposing smaller force though would not experience this reduced effectiveness during that particular engagement.

This same dynamic reduction would also take place if this previously smaller banner group (~20 players) were to then run into an enemy 10-man later on; what was previously a great aid against the larger zerg force is now reduced in effectiveness for them, just as the previous zerg’s banner(s) had been. The 20-man is now not able to rely merely on the powerful banner to quickly decide the fight.

I dunno. Just spit-balling here.

ZeDoc.1375:

This is not what we want to see Anet! As customer, i feel neglected!
World vs World is part of this game and you should do something about it!
Last few years you say we listen to players. Which players? Pve?
Start listening to wvw players, experienced ones or you will lose more than WVW.
Black Desert will take your PVE, Camelot will take your WvW.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pf1buQklDrQ

I know it was meant to be sarcasm, but just for good counter measure…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mtZvZVg_Tc

If you’re set spending gems on an NA world transfer then forget about T2 or T3; I’d suggest T1. The WvW population has typically been bleeding upwards over the past year, and as the game mode currently exists since HoT that bleed it heavier than ever. Go straight for the top because T2 and T3 are on their way down the same road, but are already further ahead in that journey.

I’m happy you mentioned the PPT issue because it’s something that’s needed attention long ago and there have been easy options existing for softening the blow. And as you’ve pointed out, it would be needed even moreso in the system I’ve suggested. Fortunately one of those options fits well into this context.

I agree that the PPT system would need an adjustment due to the number of capture points possible. But it could easily be remedied by having the value worth of objectives tweaked a bit and then introduce a slight diminishing return depending on a team’s lead and position in a match (1st vs 2nd vs 3rd). The score ticker could also be changed from 4-15min ticks per hour to 3-20min ticks/hr or even 2-30min ticks/hr. All of this would help to deter the swing leads that wildly occur in many current tiers within the first days of WvW reset.

I don’t foresee the occurrence of servers that have the only monopoly on night cappers being matched exclusively together happening in the layout I proposed. But for the sake of argument let’s go with that extreme possibility in an example of score swinging based on diminished returns rather than universally set values. But first, here would be the example’s key layout values based on a team’s present position in the match (1st/2nd/3rd). Sentries and Stonemist Castle values excluded for sake of simplicity:

• Camps = 3/4/5 points each
• Towers = 8/9/10 pts ea
• Keeps = 13/14/15 pts ea

The worth of these objectives is directly related to a team’s position in the current match and changes accordingly if one team overtakes another during said match. The above PPT score possibilities would roughly translate as follows using the number of maps I’ve proposed, via the 6 BL + 1 EB model (note how comparable they are to the PPT in WvW’s current state, even when adding 3 more maps to the lineup):
PPT with 100% of objectives owned (1st place / 2nd / 3rd / Current State)

• 687 / 786 / 885 / 695

PPT with ~33% of objectives owned (1st place / 2nd / 3rd / Current State)

• 229 / 262 / 295 / 230

This sort of scoring method coupled with a slightly lengthened score ticker (from the current 4-15min ticks per hour to 3-20min ticks/hr or even 2-30min ticks/hr) would keep the scores considerably closer and would lessen the chances and extent of a team taking off into the sunset with the lead.

Thanks for the feedback.

Are you guys saying that EotM is ONLY dominated by green? I think not. And even if it were, the proposed system laid out here does not operate on the same unevenly non-mirrored EotM map premise where the 3 sides each have just 1 unique map 1/3, and only that for an entire week.

The part people seem to be missing is that while there is presently a theoretical “big picture” in the matchmaking glicko tier system, the servers are realistically still only participating and somewhat stuck in the “small picture”, that being within their own tiered matchup. And it’s that small picture that people are basing their “stacking the winning servers all on one team” misconception on. There are no winning servers if the tier walls are brought down. Just a single bumper-to-bumper, top-to-bottom line of ranking. 4th place, 7th place, 10th place, etc. would no longer be considered “winning” servers and likewise 6th place, 9th place, 12th place, etc. would no longer be considered merely “losing” servers.

But if that “open concept” is too deep to comprehend then the following pairing would negate that expressed “worry” as it has “winners/mids/losers” appropriately represented in all colors in a reverse descension ranking concept (NA servers):
North America

• Green: 1st, 6th, 8th, 10th, 15th, 17th, 19th, 24th
• Blue: 2nd, 4th, 9th, 11th, 13th, 18th, 20th, 22nd
• Red: 3rd, 5th, 7th, 12th, 14th, 16th, 21st, 23rd

Europe

• Green: 1st, 6th, 8th, 10th, 15th, 17th, 19th, 24th, 26th
• Blue: 2nd, 4th, 9th, 11th, 13th, 18th, 20th, 22nd, 27th
• Red: 3rd, 5th, 7th, 12th, 14th, 16th, 21st, 23rd, 25th

It looks messier than the original proposal, and is not necessarily needed IMO, but it shows that the “stacking” fear could be remedied in this latter matching method.

Also a related side note, presently tier 1’s top 3 NA servers are frequently changing colors, so JQ, BG, and YB would, at the start, likely be the most influential servers but would rarely remain the same color, in theory. I cannot speak for EU’s top servers though as I’m uncertain of their particular fluctuations.

I appreciate the criticism of this system and I hope people can see the potential merit in a paradigm shift that is needed to salvage what was once a great game mode.

This is the road WvW is going down and it sounds like people would rather sit back and let it turn into whatever it turns into. So far that hasn’t been a good thing. I know that Anet isn’t likely to read most of their community’s suggestions, and if they do they won’t be taken all that seriously, but at least we can say we tried. And I personally figure that smaller changes with bigger implications would be more attractive to a game developer rather than another overhaul that has no currently successful basis within its game on which to model itself; it will be more groping in the dark.

Thanks for the input!

Yes, it has come to this, and an alliance/battle group type system will likely be placing all of GW2’s WvW eggs into 1 proverbial basket in the future, so let’s hope it is done right, because quite honestly, the risk is astronomical. I know people are likely sick of hearing player suggestions on how to salvage the state of GW2’s WvW, but I think you can deal with one more quicky.

So I’m going to suggest something in the hopes that it (or even just a part) sounds more reasonable, feasible, realistic, and agreeable than what is rumored to be entailed in an upcoming alliance system. It’s short, relatively simple, and I think has a much better chance of saving face for WvW, all while utilizing much of what’s already in use or available.

WvW Alliance System That Retains Server Identities
In this suggested WvW system all servers retain their respective population identities and contribute as a server to the success of their alliance for that week. Servers are divvied up similar to EotM’s current alliance system based on weekly server colors. They can still use their own native voice comms while collectively making their best efforts when fighting alongside and against new faces.

How would server colors be determined week by week? Each server is rated based on the respective contribution they put into the WvW war effort the week before. This contribution can be gauged based on involvement with captures, kills, guild missions, etc.

Servers can still vie for a higher ranking in this system and weekly WvW server rewards/chests can be based on their movement throughout the ranks (i.e. 3 chests for moving up, 2 chest for staying the same, 1 chest for moving down — with moderately improved chest contents or some other reward).

Team Color Determination
North America

• Green: 1st, 4th, 7th, 10th, 13th, 16th, 19th, 22nd
• Blue: 2nd, 5th, 8th, 11th, 14th, 17th, 20th, 23rd
• Red: 3rd, 6th, 9th, 12th, 15th, 18th, 21st, 24th

Europe

• Green: 1st, 4th, 7th, 10th, 13th, 16th, 19th, 22nd, 25th
• Blue: 2nd, 5th, 8th, 11th, 14th, 17th, 20th, 23rd, 26th
• Red: 3rd, 6th, 9th, 12th, 15th, 18th, 21st, 24th, 27th

Maps In Rotation

• 3 Alpine Borderlands maps (green, blue, red)
• 3 Desert Borderland maps (green, blue, red)
• 1 (or 3) Eternal Battlegrounds map(s) (if 3 then each color has a different home 1/3 of map in each of the 3 EB instances)

Identity Visuals
Enemy WvW nameplates reflect which guild, alliance, and server a player belongs to. This is a good time to clean up WvW’s obnoxious nameplate pollution with some long needed abbreviations, especially in the server name and rank department. There are 15 base ranks (Invader thru Legend) in each tier of ranks (starter thru Diamond) and for sake of simplicity could be merely color coded Roman numerals (I thru XV), similar to SPvP League Division icons. They could also just be unique colored icons designed by Anet. I don’t have any speculation or suggestion at this time for alliance names (the shorter the better) but nameplates could easily be as simple as the following couple examples:

• 1A without enemy player moused over/selected “Green Team * (JQ) [GILD]” where * denotes appropriate rank icon
• 1B with enemy player moused over/selected “Green Team Bronze Champion (Jade Quarry) [GILD]”
• 2A without enemy player moused over/selected “Red Team * (SoS) [GILD]” where * denotes appropriate rank icon
• 2B with enemy player moused over/selected “Red Team Platinum Invader (Sea of Sorrows) [GILD]”

EDIT: Clarification of PPT in this system per subsequent thread conversation
The existing PPT system has long been in need of some attention in helping to prevent wild score swings and early leads; in this proposal it would even moreso need that adjustment. But it could easily be remedied by having the value worth of objectives tweaked a bit and then introduce a slight diminishing return depending on a team’s lead and position in a match (1st vs 2nd vs 3rd). The score ticker could also be changed from 4-15min ticks per hour to 3-20min ticks/hr or even 2-30min ticks/hr. All of this would help to deter the swing leads that wildly occur in many current tiers within the first days of WvW reset.

Here would be an example’s key layout values based on a team’s present position in the match (1st/2nd/3rd). Sentries and Stonemist Castle values excluded for sake of simplicity:

• Camps = 3/4/5 points each
• Towers = 8/9/10 pts ea
• Keeps = 13/14/15 pts ea

The worth of these objectives is directly related to a team’s position in the current match and changes accordingly if one team overtakes another during said match. The above PPT score possibilities would roughly translate as follows using the number of maps I’ve proposed, via the 6 BL + 1 EB model (note how comparable they are to the PPT in WvW’s current state, even when adding 3 more maps to the lineup):
PPT with 100% of objectives owned (1st place / 2nd / 3rd / Current State)

• 687 / 786 / 885 / 695

PPT with ~33% of objectives owned (1st place / 2nd / 3rd / Current State)

• 229 / 262 / 295 / 230

This sort of scoring method coupled with a slightly lengthened score ticker (from the current 4-15min ticks per hour to 3-20min ticks/hr or even 2-30min ticks/hr) would keep the scores considerably closer and would lessen the chances and extent of a team taking off into the sunset with the lead.

In Closing
That’s pretty much it. I know it’s not likely to get much attention but I figure it’s best to at least throw it out there in the off chance that something piques the interest and support of the WvW community. I am just as concerned about WvW as most others and likewise want to see it survive and thrive. There are plenty of folks besides myself who play GW2 largely for its potentially epic large scale PvP fights, and the more gimmicky and arcade-like it gets the sooner we’ll be moving on to something else somewhere else. I support Anet and GW2 through Gem purchases, but will not continue to do so for a game mode that is turning into nothing more than a social experiment of perpetual disappointment and a disconnection with its market.

Here’s hoping for hope.

EB has become the meth clinic of WvW — it’s the only place to get 3+ years of addiction satiated with frequent, unobstructed fights.

Out of curiosity, if both teams are missing a player by the end of the match, are neither of them awarded a pip win?

Gaile Gray.6029:

Forfeit wins and pip loss

We will be correcting a bug where players can lose pips after a win if someone in their party had disconnected for longer than 2 minutes, causing a forfeit. This fix should be in our next release.

I hope what this actually means is that not only will we no longer lose pips when winning an underdog 4v5 match, but will actually gain pips…?

In the mean time pilot them with thieves using short bow #5. Shoot, enter, exit. Shoot, enter, exit. I assume that’s also working as intended until Anet announces otherwise — I mean, they surely would have fixed it sometime over the past 3+ years if it wasn’t, right? /cough CONTESTEDKEEPWPTIMERS /cough

I think it’s funny that Anet essentially said “we fixed a waypoint/repel event ‘bug’ that has been paramount in WvW keep battles for the last 3+ years.” Makes me wonder if they truly weren’t aware of this behavior this entire time until recently or if this behavior was just now decidedly labeled a bug that needed “fixing” rather than simply announcing a change being made in how it worked.

Chaba.5410:

Tonight I got the most glorious bag farm from the waypoint at FABL east keep being bugged which allowed TC to respawn again and again and again even though it was contested.

And you’re welcome for the bags. We debated letting FA have the keep because we clearly weren’t gonna hold it for long once TLC joined the fray, even with the WP bug; but figured what the heck, let’s repair our gear a few times throughout the ruckus. :P

Yarrr, a commander tag easily gets lost in the sea of red, no matter its color, and even moreso with the red targeting reticle.

So many MMOs have clustered globby UI nameplates showing too much info at once across all players, especially dozens, if not hundreds, of enemies. Would be nice to see GW2 eventually take a move towards a cleaner looking WvW experience in such a way that won’t break the game or require lots of time developing. Sometimes it’s the little things…

aramanu.5612:

Or.. you could just turn off nametags in the options (and turn on enemy colours if you have troble seeing who is who.) Instead of requesting stuff when there are more pressing matters to fix.

This would do no favors when wanting to discern between guilds, or even between servers from a distance where colors aid very little. It’d be nice to keep all the unique armors visible for clashing without mono-green/-blue/-red models everywhere, all while enjoying a more minimalistic WvW UI.

And it’s not so much a matter of requesting a stuff above all current bugs, but rather a resuggestion of a relatively small, simple change that would yield a noticeably cleaner UI across all of WvW, as it is an aspect that all players will view constantly. The reality is that there is never a time where there aren’t things to fix, so discussing it now hurts nothing.

Lord Kuru.3685:

They say EotM was created for our queues. But more likely it exists only because of the China launch (that’s when it was release). They were afraid of the inevitable MASSIVE WvW queues at launch.

It was announced at a time when there were actually queues on all 4 maps during reset nights as well as much of the weekend prime times, at least in the upper 3 WvW tiers. It also clearly tested and showcased some new WvW map mechanics in the process, but it did have a role in being utilized for WvW queue overflow.

By the time EoTM was implemented though there no longer remained a frequent need for it as there was previously. WvW tournies burned out folks between seasons and there became no need for EotM almost immediately after its induction into the game. Believe it or not, there were 4 map queues developing here and there during non-reset prime times even prior to the first tourny season being announced. Don’t know what you had till it’s gone.

A temporary deactivation of EotM for the time being would be interesting to experience, though T1 does sometimes get 4 map queues during resets and some weekend peaks… /shrug

Sometimes brief attention to small details like this can pay off larger in pleasantries than things that require a lot of man hours creating and testing at the risk of strong resistance or rejection by the community.

It would be in good taste and bring in a fresh air to WvW that doesn’t require great culture change adjustments.

Just think, we could look back on these first 3 years and say, “Wow, can you believe we used to play like that?”

Would’ve been nice if they had given us the Elite Specializations and PvE at HoT launch and held off on implementing the new WvW maps until maybe a month into HoT as players are beginning to return to WvW. Too late nooow.

Yar, I bring this up each year and so I’m at it again. It’s a small change that would increase the quality of WvW in the aesthetics department without impacting the game’s overall functionality.

I can dream!

Yeah but these have been with nothing special going on in particular… just a quiet map in either the new maps, EB, or EotM, and the fights I mentioned are roaming skirmishes (likely the only action on map) and the zerg walking off the cliff was in EotM with maybe 20 people. And the spikes are fairly consistent — I expect them about every 5 minutes or so. I’m sure they’re not affecting everyone, but w/e. That stuff comes and goes. :P

/shrug

Same. Land few days I’ve been noticing spikes from 80s to 800+ and then back down for a few minutes, and only in WvW. There are worse things, but during fights the sporadically brief rubber banding gets annoying. I’ve reset my router and modem half a dozen times since thinking it was just me but I’ve been hearing more folks mentioning it. Watching half a zerg lemming off a cliff and then zap back to the top is humorous though, except when you briefly don’t know where your character truly is for a moment only to lag-back and find yourself stepping off the ledge. Good times.

I like the relation between yaks and upgrades suggestion.

Rework and remove some of the twisted switchbackery that plagues the map. Rethink aspects or all of the center map event. Reconsider the gimmicky features that shrines provide, especially the 3rd ones. And revamp the map to better communicate paths and traversable landscapes. Nothing worse than walking a lengthy route that looks legit on the map only to find it leads to an unresolvable obstacle.

I’ve seen it filled in T1 and know T2 had at least one filled (can’t play two accounts at same time >.< ), but none were filled consistently. Just for several hours like you said on reset night, and after that the remnant flocks back over to EB. What I saw while filled were groups still attempting to follow a single tag for the most part. There were a few small roaming groups tagging here and there too but that was about it. A few large clashes between zergs which lead me to think that the other servers were still somewhat single pin zerging on their side of the fence as well.

That mindset is not easy to break, and it’s been fostered for so long that it’s a staple for many WvW’ers in general. Without more guilds committed to running their own separate raids more frequently I doubt this map can survive the test of time against the tried-and-true hive.

/shrug

Svarty.8019:

Angelyne.2936:

True, this should have been a full takeable objectif, like a mini shadowmist, instead of this dinohunt PvE event …

So this event would be much better received if the following changes were made?

1. Remove mobs and power cores
2. Add ring and guards

Or multiple control points (5?) decently spread. And the laser does less damage.

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…

milkshakaxpaid.2307:

This is just a post I am trying to get moderators to see. Me and my guild are wondering why SBI currently has more Points then BlackGate, and more PPT then them. However they are gaining double the score we are, and to top it off they are gaining more score than should even be possible from 1 server even with minimal to no effort from other servers in their tier. PLease correct me if I am wrong. We are just wondering if this is a direct attempt by Anet to keep SBI out of T2. Please Bump, or correct me if I missed something. My info is based off here. http://mos.millenium.org/na/matchups/

Actually T1 and T3 are almost identical max scores. All tiers at the time I checked mos a few minutes ago had about 160,000 points divided among their respective 3 servers. T1 had 159,226 and T3 had 159,566.

T1 is currently lopsided due to a disproportionate spread of WvW players doing PVE content. I think YB is taking an extended break so many of the points that they would normally have in their score are being divvied between JQ and BG.

BG probably has a few timezones were their PPT dips fairly low due to lack of coverage, as most servers do.

And to reach T2 SBI would have to blow the other 2 servers out of the water for at least a few months to bring its glicko high enough to give it a chance to breach the T2 waters. Only way to do it faster is own T3 while a server in T2 bombs.

Hope that helps!

No.

What they need largely is to be FILLED. What I wouldn’t give for the multiple map queues pre-WvW Seasons. Remember when EotM was actually used as intended for queue overflow? Me neither.

We’ve endured 3+ years of nameplate pollution over the heads of enemy players and it would be refreshing to see their format reduced in any way possible.

It could be as simple as changing the server names to their commonly known 2 or 3 letter versions (JQ for Jade Quarry, SoS for Sea of Sorrows, etc.). Maybe even an abbreviated WvW rank or a corresponding colored icon/badge.

Seeing over an enemy “TC X [GILD]” (with X representing a colored rank icon/badge) rather than “Tarnished Coast Platinum Assaulter [GILD]” blobbed amongst 50+ other variants would be a real treat.

Mousing over or targeting individual enemy players could still reveal the entire nameplate.

I’m sure most WvW’ers have been in massive blob vs blob brawls before and have likely noticed at some point that it’s very difficult to see anything left/right/beyond the front few rows of enemy players due to the red pollution constantly looming over their heads. Laying the assessment of enemy numbers aside, it can be of great detriment when determining positioning to be unable to see a large number of the character models, their actions, and their movements (especially in 3-way fights).

SMC 3-ways are a prime example but here’s just a sample to somewhat showcase the unchanged state of what I’m referring to (especially starting at the 0:22 mark):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFzG9I3-K0s

The new center-map event reminds me of the old quaggan event in the middle of the vanilla borderland maps which would randomly send down a bolt of lightning to daze random enemy players anywhere on the map. Except this new quaggan is on meth. Okay, the quaggan is a laser.

The mechanic is still very much a larger-group-wins event. And obviously the implications of it overflow beyond just the event but continue against a smaller home/defending team because the laser is merely a primer to a new team color covering the map (that of the larger invading force). Or even reverse the roles and have a larger home force that primes a roll against a smaller invading force that wants to hunker down at a tower/keep to defend and deter a recap.

I can see the upper tiers maybe being able to respond sometimes to this threat on their home BL (if the WvW populations don’t remain overly stagnant), but defenders on lower tiers don’t stand a chance. All aboard the k-train every few hours.

Also, is it feasible for a small defending team to run around the ENTIRE MAP to repair all of the damage that was just dealt over a minute’s time? Waiting for upgrades to finish/repair will rarely be a timely option. If the NPCs began auto-repairing the damaged structures as they do in EotM then at least that softens the blow but only if they used their own supply (not from the depot in case players do intend to siege up the tower/keep for the imminent enemy force).

Wish Anet would design into the map a Bloodlust-type deal in the center for the roaming focused players again. Currently rather than attackers/defenders PvP’ing over multiple nodes for a benefit of sorts to your team across all maps (or just for the fight), we are instead given a PvE event that rewards the largest group that shows up to the party with their own map-wide I-win button of sorts.

/shrug

A) freshly pinched loaf.
B) human posterior.
C) full set of male junk.
D) all of the above

Any chance of at least snipping the “tip” of the Earth Shrine icon, or possibly change it completely to appear something more… earthy? Mountains, sharp crags, or maybe even a rocky kitten? Don’t hit me. Meow.