Guild Wars 2

Yeah, I hadn’t thought of including guild rank as part of the calculation. That sounds like a pretty good idea to me. Of course, my main guild is lvl 69, so that’s pretty easy for me to say… heh.

Korgov.7645:

migellito.7301:

And after all, the game is called Guild Wars.

Guild Wars name refers to a series wars in the lore. Not to the guilds we have in the game now.

Yeah, I get that But it does, thereby, seem appropriate to me.

pilip.6753:

Silly question (or proposal in another sense):
Why not remove the server concept and establish an alliance system in which there will GUILDS allegiance (In the same principle as gw1).
This would allow guilds to self distribute and remove server concept would allow players not participating in McM not get into the stats of population.

And an exemple of this for players :
There are too many queue on my alliance, okey let’s tag a guild belonging to another alliance (so I leave the current queue of course) and I can do WvW with a community of people I know.

After that there is the problem of spys (but it just makes the easiest thing for them – although there will perhaps something in the API to determine which guild and alliance player represents)

It’s super easy for spies to do their thing if they want to now anyway. That element is probably a non-issue, I think.

Brown Fang Thump.9482:

As I mentioned in the https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Identities-of-Linked-Worlds post, I think changing the number of worlds and trying to rally player support around server names is a fruitless pursuit at this point. I understand that increasing the number of worlds would simplify the path forward with the current system. I find no flaw in that. I simply feel that the best option at this point is to finish what you’ve started: abandon the failed server naming system and move on.

Tying WvW activity to guilds and orders rather than server names makes the sizes and numbers of your groups much more manageable. By making WvW essentially a set of megaservers, you’d remove server name relevance, as you have in every other part of the game. This would allow you to move focus to guilds, orders and individuals. The small populations of guilds and parties would allow them to be linked together in such a way as to to reduce the population variance between WvW teams.

This should have been obvious; but, perhaps I’ve missed something.

On the surface, I really kind of like this notion. Blow up the ‘worlds’ completely and assign red/blue/green by guild instead. There are a couple possible problems I see after thinking about it a bit, though.
1- My two main wvw guilds are [Owls] and [HELL]. What if Owls are on red team this week, but HELL is on blue? Maybe a non-issue, since I can currently log into my alt account and play for a different server anyway.
2- In a few matchups several guilds would be pitted against one of the big mega-guilds who are maxed out at 500(?) players. Again, maybe a non-issue, since ‘guild-stacking’ would not be the same thing as the current situation of monolithic server-stacking.
3 – Since anyone in the game can decide to play some wvw whenever they want to, pve guilds would also be assigned to r/g/b. Every guild in the game, even someone’s solo bank guild, would have to be part of the system. I can’t help but think this would mess with balance a lot.

Like I said though, on the surface I think the idea has a lot of merit. Maybe the problems above, and any I didn’t think of, would not be too hard to overcome or get around.

Darlgon.9273:

Again, sounds like needless calculations.

If something was too much work to code, as some people have wondered, or involved too many or too difficult algorithms, they would not be suggesting it. This stuff is all data the game keeps track of anyway for things like guild missions, etc.

Mylerian.9176:

I do appreciate them trying to help WvW, by giving us options. But I do not think any of these options will fix the balancing issues that WvW faces today. Maybe I am wrong , and somehow magically it will fix the balancing issues? But tbh I just do not see it.

That’s because this is not about the balancing issues. That’s a different thread.

I like solution 2. In talking about this with my guild, I really liked what one of my guild leaders had to say. In short, ‘server’ or ‘world’ identity is already pretty much gone. What we really have now is guild identity. And after all, the game is called Guild Wars.

Gaile Gray.6029:

• Until the sequencing issue is corrected, you will need to complete all of the Renown Hearts within the same 24-hour period to receive credit towards Map Complete.

I just wanted to add to this to help anyone trying to currently get 100%. This may seem obvious, but to get the completion chest, you will need to make sure that you have all 5 hearts, all 4 wp, all 23 poi and all 7 vistas all at the same time. Having all 5 hearts done at the same time will not ‘lock in the heart portion’ of completion. For example, if you do all 5 hearts, but then come back the next day to finish up a couple of poi, the hearts will all be reset and you will have to do them all again.

Therefore to get 100%, the best method is probably to go around getting all the wp, poi and vistas, and then do all 5 hearts in one day before reset.

:)

Maria Murtor.7253:

I did map completion 100 % with all of my characters. So I have do do all Renown Hearts again (25 characters), to get 100 % (display) permanent?

I seriously doubt that’s what Gaile meant. I’m sure she meant “unless you already have 100%”. If I was her, that would have seemed a superfluous addition. Otherwise, why would she even bother to include a method for getting to 100% in its current state?

Tyler Bearce.3427:

…
What’s next?

• We’ll poll the community to see if at least 75% of them would like to see the Desert Borderlands permanent removed. This won’t be next weeks poll, but likely the week after that.
• If players vote to remove DBL, then the results of this poll will be void (as we’ll only have one borderlands map.) Otherwise, we’ll move forwards with the results of this poll.

Seriously? You’re willing to let a handful of internet trolls just smash the hard work your dev teams spent months on? This has got to be the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard. This is worse than when all those entitled little whiners just couldn’t live with how Mass Effect 3 ended. Buying a copy of a game should not make you feel like you have any right to decide what’s in it.

Please, devs.. consider the percentage of the wvw player base that is made up of these angry anti-desert, erase the desert people. They are just a very vocal, comment-section-angry minority. Just like Sheldon on the Big Bang, they can’t handle change or new things. They want everything to be easy and familiar. Don’t dumb the game down any more than you already have.

There seems to be an assumption by a lot of people that those on lower population servers would all prefer to be in a high population environment. On the contrary, the vast majority of those who want to be on high population servers transfer up. Many of those on low population servers are still on those servers because they want to be.

In our case, Kaineng has found a lot of nice people on TC, people that we enjoy playing with. However, linking has, overall, wrecked our preferred wvw playstyle completely. We pride ourselves on being outnumbered. We pride ourselves on pitting our skill against our opponents. We like knowing that the contribution of each of us matters, and that we’re not just Player43-BlobB/Classbuild1.

Svarty.8019:

…
The Alpine maps are too small, simple and boring.
…

Completely agreed. Sick and tired of ‘Infantile Mode’ in WvW. When they altered the desert maps, they may as well have put happy clouds that fart rainbows in it. Thanks whiner wimps.

With that said, it’s a rotation, not a replacement. I will be looking forward to when they rotate OUT these tired old alpine maps again.

Alpine.. played it and played it and played it. Bored now. Back to something I got bored with is supposed to be good news? wtf.

It’s really disheartening to me to see “Fix or revert DBL” as an item on the list. I like the desert borderlands SO much more than the old alpine ones. If Alpine and Desert were in a rotation, like was originally proposed, that would be fine, but if the Desert was just scrapped and the Alpine was brought back, I really don’t see myself being excited to log in.

There are no new tactics to discover in the Alpine maps; no surprises, nothing left to figure out. They’ve been done.

Clearly, in this thread, mine is a minority opinion. I would not even have known this thread existed if I hadn’t seen a link on my guild’s website. I’m sure a lot of people here will just say “fine, we don’t need you, don’t log in”. If an actual majority of all WvW players prefer the Alpine map, then I guess that’s how you should go. But I would hope that you (the devs) consider the fact that people who even know about this thread, let alone post on it, are only a fraction of your players.

(To be clear, before anyone else in this thread gets their knickers in a twist, I am not saying your voice doesn’t count. It totally does, and should. I’m just saying there are a lot of voices that aren’t here, and that those players matter too.)

Oh, the crying.. from people who couldn’t finish a solo game without a cheat code.

I go to the little green star location just north of Concordia, and click “Yes – enter instance” to start this step of the personal story. It goes to the loading screen for the story step. It stays on the loading screen for several minutes, with the little yellow progress circle at the bottom right continuing to turn. Then the game window closes and sends me to my desktop, where there is a Guild Wars 2 error window with the message
“A disk-I/O error has occurred!
Guild Wars 2 will now terminate.”
I’ve tried this multiple times, including making sure the dynamic events in the area were not currently active, and this happens every time. I am unable to do this story step, and can’t progress in the story.

Any ideas for things I could try? All recent patches have applied successfully.

growlybeast.7512:

I’ve seen many norn female NPCs with a thicker body type than the thickest option for a player character in the creation screen. Why is this? Can you please add it? I really like this body type, and find the current selection kind of generic and “spot the difference”-y.

I totally agree. I’ve been pointing out those exact NPCs as pretty much my favourite look ever in a video game – so powerful! There are some mods for Skyrim that can get close, but it requires a complete re-design in armour, and I’m guessing that’s the problem here too.