Guild Wars 2

In EotM this happens to due the focus on personal rewards.

In WvW this happens due to the focus on points, you get more points for a server if you cap fast instead of “wasting time” with a fight.

I guess the reason is that we have nowadays to few people for to many map most of the time. Much worser than a year ago. My server has probably only around 50% of the manpower it had a year ago! and as we are still nearly the same place in ranking I guess it’s the same for all servers.

If you want a cost function (it only slows down band-waggoning, it doesn’t hinder it), make it to cost time not money, e.g.: World-EXP is World bound. Each time you transfer you reset WEXP to 0.

Further possibilities are:

• commanders are gone on transfer
• BoH are gone on transfer
• you need to make X-WEXp ranks in EotM on the new world before you are allowed to enter WvW
• all wvw related guild hall builds are gone on transfer
• …

While the view angle on fullscreen modus on a 2560×1440 screen is already quite large (attachment 1),
the view angle possible in window mode (attachment 2) is game-breaking with respect to ground-target attacks that do not need a LoS, esp. arrow cards. (Why does Barrage need LoS while ACs do not? Isn’t this essentially the same attack?)

Please restrict the possible view-angle’s the engine allows you to see.
As this may be a complicated change, please disable window mode in WvW immediately till it can be done.

This is a normal feature of the GW2 engine and I think I read somewhere an ANet post where this is proudly presented and not et al a hack. So I think it is adequate to discuss this feature in the forum and not via email to support.

PS: These screen-shoots are made in lio-arch, I will never use window mode in WvW.

PPS: Should this be kept secret till ANet fixes it (i.e. is this post an exploit advertisement)? I don’t think so as it does give players a long term advantage (not a personal exploit), it mainly gives them an advantage because most are still not aware of it it. As soon as you knew it you can choose your defensive positions according to it. You can see the AC that see’s you and you are not surprised by it and expect hacker everywhere on the other side.

In my view the worst is a few use it to their unfair advantage, bad but less worse is if WvW doesn’t work properly anymore as everyone uses it. The only good solution is ANet disable it asap.

Proposal
Give the players options to express their intend in mega-server assignement (MSA).
The following list is not complete, just some matters that are in my mind:

option: Guild-mission: yes/no
If set to yes, the MSA only puts members of this guild to a map that has enough free slots to fit all the members of that guild that have this option on and it reserves all these slots for that guild members. If there is no such map a new one is started and enough slots are reserved for that guild.

option: preferred capacity: low, medium, high (normal)
I really hate, that whenever I attend a world boss from https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/the-megaserver-system-world-bosses-and-events/ I end up in a crowd of 100+ people. Before mega-server I was able to time that, early in the morning a boss was doable with 5 people, in prime-time you could attend the 100+ crowd.
With this option you can express your will to play a map with fewer people, the number of slots should be maybe 25 for low, 50 for medium, the current size for high.

option: chat language: english, german, french, spanish, polish, russian, italian, … (more than the interface languages!!)
option: strenght of language preference: strong, medium, weak
If you put that to strong you end up on a map with only other people that selected exactly this language, none, if there is none. If you put it to weak it’s like today, other options are stronger.

….

Remember when …

we thouht WvW is a competitive game mode and we played WvW for points
we thought WvW score measure how well your server is playing

Only a WvW player shoot at the door, if someone is knocking.
Only a WvW player attacks the own door to protect it.

WvW is broken. That’s it.

It started with the removal of the queue by EotM as the only balancing factor that ever existed, got out of control by season 2 rewards and is now gone.

If 4 ranks difference is a blow out there is nothing left to play.

Straegen.2938:

Given the way the matches are setup, Glicko sort of works but unfortunately the entire system is built around stale matches even if most of the time they are more fare (but not really).

Not really, it’s not Glicko’s fault that NA tiers are so separated by Glicko, it reflects your stacking behavior quite adequately.

The match-making based on Glicko can generate very varying matches, look at this weeks EU T1-4: 3-1-8, 9-2-4, 10-11-5, 8-7-12

thefinnster.7105:

this whole change seems idiotic and only benefits Anet all its gonna do is force players to trade in resources and resources means using the TP and that means listing fees etc and we all know whose agenda that works for and ill tell you it aint mine
relay expect by the end of the day this will all turn out to be an April fools day prank
lets be honest for a lot of players 500g is nothing in this economy

I agree that it makes off-TP selling and non-ANET Gold-Buying more difficult or even impossible.

I do not agree that this only benefits ANet, it benefits any player that doesn’t do it.

If no one can buy gold from other sources than gem-shop, then we would get a lot more gems for our in game gold. Any non-ANET gold-buyer harms all non gold-buyers.

The damage done by off-TP traders done to all other players results from the fact, that these players keep the gold that all others give to inflation-reduction by that increasing the prices all others have to pay. In the end off-TP traders are like tax defrauders, they maximize personal earnings on the cost of all others. And I think they should be handled like that: high financial penalties or in repeated cases even temporary ban.

!! Maybe this can be the accidental start into the genius brand new WvW !!

Why always the same match on your 4 maps?
Why not (intended !) 4 different matches on your different maps!
You can choose your difficulty by choosing the map, and hey
when you are underpopulated: leave the most difficult map(s) out and play on the easier ones!

coglin.1867:

Bubi.5237:

Scoring system. (PPT)

Works great. In what way does it not work? It is pretty basic. Take and defend and hold more stuff, you get more points.

The problem with the scoring system is that it rewards PvD as much as fights for an objective. Competition degenerated therefore to a capping race now, as fights for an objective take to long to be equally rewarding.

Dayra.7405:

Then there is also a third thing. The exit button in the WvW-Dialog. This seems to be a bug to me. While the map-buttons are dimmed and are not usable during combat the exit button remains usable. I think it should be dimmed and unusable during combat like the map-switch buttons.

After 5 month finally fixed. Is it just my impression or does the WvW-bug-backlog really get shorter

From https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/info/updates/Game-Update-Notes-January-26-2016/first#post5946360
The “Leave the Mists” button no longer functions when dead or in combat.

If you sell them you make a mistake.

Salvage them

• it’s faster
• the materials worth much more then the items (or the other way around: the items only have a value in the trading post due to the materials that you can obtain)

But yeah the possibility to configure auto-salvage would be great, e.g. I would like to tell the system that all white, blue green drops are salvaged automatically with my copper-driven salvager, my rare armor drops with a master-salvager.

Detharos.3157:

The system seems to be assuming …

The system assumes only one thing:

Every server should be able to prove the correctness of his rating against any server within a Rating-Area of +/-400 from time to time.

The more servers are ranked in between 2 servers and the more their rating differs the less likely (and therefore less often) they meet each other.

That’s it! not more and not less.

@brakheart: Amusing to hear that from a BB, that it used to make 90% of it’s score in the night.
Only that your night is shorter now, with Vizu’s having their alarm-clock ringing a 4am

Time-slice matches will be more balanced, because they can be balance for each slice individually!

If the SEA/OCX will play their own ranking and match making they will be as balanced as possible due to equal performance in this time-slice!

And it does not affect the balance of other time-slices.

NA-T4 and T5 are stuck with imbalanced matches now since 2 month.

With these new system you have the same chance to get a weaker opponent, than you have to get a stronger opponent.

Being trapped in an imbalanced match enforces blowouts, not have one from time to time.

Another point is, you do not care much about a server being rated much higher is crushung you. Assume SI has to fight 2 difficult server, where as CD get to easier one. My expectation is: both will be much more interested how they perform in relation to each other than how they score in their match. If SI can get rating with 80k score, whereas CD looses rating winning with 220k, SI may be happier loosing than CD winning

Cheloss.1453:

• Merge Servers
- Remove existing servers and create 12 new servers.
- Let the players decide the server go
- The population of these servers that depend on population wvw and not pve
- Encourage transfers to servers low population

sorry for my poor English

Thanks for the pregnant summary of my to long proposal above
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/Solution-to-fix-the-population-imbalance/4437920 + https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/Solution-to-fix-the-population-imbalance/4437923

Only WvW-Newbies believe that wars are decided on the battlefield.

The real WvW-profi knows that the propaganda-warface in the forum decides matches.

quickflash.6314:

/delete thread

Sounds like you are trying to make WvW casual and not competitive. War isn’t fair.

Maybe you did not noticed, but this is a game not war!
And my proposals usually try to make it somehow competitive, something which WvW isn’t currently. (Beside the competition in off-time recruitment: “Yeah we recruited more we are the best”)

All a matter of marketing and expectations Advertise your TS:

Bag-rain at quentin, be prepared, listen to the weather forecast at <address>
Battle-news, live reporter everywhere, follow us at <address>
Goooooooddddd Morrrrrninnnnng <Server>, <server> broadcast at <address>

If the people expect entertainment (and you do not fail to deliver entertainment in TS) they join you.

Watch “Good Morning Vietnam” and learn how to get or loose listeners

Blaeys.3102:

The hard truth is the population imbalance is, mostly, a player created problem. Constant bandwagoning and server stack during the course of two years (and this has been an issue since the game’s launch) have led to us to the situation we are in.

The rules of the game so far enforce it:
- You win if you are more
- You get more season-rewards if you win
- You dominate EotM if you are more, instead of sitting in queue

And in game as well:
- You maximize anyones rewards, if anyone runs around in a big blob and PvDs

People optimize their behavior according to the rules.

The rules need to be changed, if the result is bad, not the people blamed to behave optimal.

If you are new and want to be useful, the first thing is: join the Zerg, the server voice-chat and stay alive! (If you die you rally enemies that tagged you, and you can do 0 damage). You are already very useful if you just carry supplies and use them to build the siege the commander places!

Till you gathered experience how to stay alive, I would recommend you a staff well-necro (highest survivability with death shroud and epidemic well used and high range) or staff/hammer guardian (high survivability, shorter range).

In both cases soldier exo should be fine (armor and weapon in the citadel of you WvW-homelands for 1- gold and 100-200 Badges of Honor each, trinkets and back for 42k karma each at the temple of Grenth in Orr). Do NOT put expensive runes or sigils into equipment bought for badges/karma, you will not get them out. Crest of Soldier and/or Spahir-Jewels will do.

The more experience you get the more you can trade defense for more offense.

WEXP should go into 0) 1 pt only Siege Master and Repair Master 1) max Siege Bunker 2) max Defense against Guards 3) max Guard Killer and then into the sieg weapons you like most. After the first or second siege weapon skills consider Siege Might to max their damage.

I would NOT recommend you roaming in the beginning (you will have some bad roaming experiences when you try to reach your zerg) . First get a picture what is going on. Only exeption: you are in a roaming guild and do so with a handful experienced friends (but then you would not ask here I guess). Then you must ask them what build you should use and how you should use it. They will have strong suggestions how a build should be and cooperate with them.

Braindrops.6428:

Dayra.7405:

Air.3154:

Guess why.

Vizu put fear in their hearts?

Nope. Just skill lag and their attitude to hide and seek game.

Fighting Vizu is like eating oysters.

You have to open the shell. After you did the inside is delicious!

DiogoSilva.7089:

This is generally a good change, because it priotizes personal rewarding over trading post tactics. The advantages are worthier than the disadvantages.

But it isn’t the case! To craft an ascended heavy armor set you need 25 damask and only 16 deldrimor steel.

I was never on Vabbi nor on FoW, but it looks like their WvW could need some mercenary support.

How about allowing world guests to enter WvW for all worlds below 1000 rating points (currently Vabbi, FoW in EU and ET,FC in NA)?
a) to support them building an own WvW community
b) to allow anyone to have GvGs there (one guild guests on Vabbi, the other on FoW)

Maybe combined with a queue-priority for natives.

Only a WvW player knows already, that playing is seriously restricted for two days after every patch.
Only a WvW player cannot decide if he should await or fear the next patch.

TorquedSoul.8097:

Finally, we will have real fights!

yes, saw the new release notes:

World vs. World

• Added the new Siege Reactivator trick, which reactivates siege equipment that has been disabled via the Siege Disabler trick.
• Added the Super Siege Disabler trick, which prevents reactivation via the Siege Reactivator trick.

Revenant

• Coalescence of Ruin: Increased damage, range, number of targets, and area of effect while in WvW.

Thief

• Stealth no longer ends when you attack.
• Steal now transfers ownership of a random weapon from your opponent to you.

I can only repeat myself

Dayra.7405:

Server system is

• senseless since mega-server,
• broken since wtj-transfers before season 2
• corrupted since a growing amount of people have accounts on several server

It’s overdue to get rid of servers. Just that ANet seems to have no idea.

And maybe extend (but I was not there to look)

• abandoned by players since HoT

Proposal Alliance vs Alliance vs Alliance

background (no need for servers in PvE/EotM as well)
I liked the way GW1 handled cities. Instead of Server and Overflow (random-collection, in EU with babylonian language mixture and not easy to join a specific one). You could choose the different language-specific versions that currently existed. I thnk this was better for PvE-maps and also for EotM and Obsidian than the current GW2 system!

Proposal
For WvW I would still prefer the player controlled alliance as the main organization that participate in a Match.

An alliance is a collection of guilds. Where one Guild is the Alliance leader that registers the alliance for a match, determines the name, accepts guilds for the alliance (only before registration for the next weeks match) and may kick guilds (all times).
So two versions of an Alliance exist. The currently played match-alliance and the next-match-alliance in formation. Guilds may be added to the next-match-alliance till the match starts, afterwards no more guilds may be added. (ANet may charge gems for Alliance registration, reregistration of an alliance should be much cheaper to encourage stability, in this case a match win should earn the alliance leader of the winning team some (more than he would pay for a re-registration) gems).

Any alliance has a maximal number of players. This of course depends on match duration and number of maps the match is played on. As an estimate ANet could count how many different players played during a match and take the maximum of all current matches.

Not all players of a guild may want to participate in next weeks WvW and it would be bad if the non-participating players would count against the maximum head-count of the alliance. Therefore it would need a new guild-right “wvw-participation”. This has to exist in 2 versions as well: current-match and next-weeks match. Only people with this right set count towards the alliance limit and only those can enter this alliance wvw-match. It may be set only for the next-week match, it may be revoked for both the current and the next match (e.g. your guild leader can exclude you if you turn out to be a grief-player, of course the right is also turned off if you got kicked from the guild). A player can have the WvW-right mostly once (even if he is member in several guilds) and this right is independent from representing that guild. (You as a working server-community may build a meta-guild with all wvw-players of a server and join an alliance with that meta-guild, still people can represent their normal guild.)

Beside the player formed alliances there are always 3-5 random-alliances. (1 match of 3 random alliances (or more if player can express a demand to participate in a random-alliance), and 0-2 random alliance to fill up the matches of registered alliances)
Players not member of any alliance (have no (longer, i.e. got revoked/kicked) wvw right from a guild) in the current match may join any of these random-alliances (they can choose (!! a non-alliance guild may choose the same) on first join in a match, and are bound to this alliance for the duration of the match.

Any registered alliance (you pay that with your registration) should have 2 forum-threads, 1 public readable/alliance-leader writeable one for recruitment, 1 alliance-member-only read/write for community discussions). Best would be: Each alliance (and only this alliance) has access to voice-communication (a Teamspeak or similar in game), probably best combined with chat-selection and commander-squad. (payed by the registration as well).

Pro:
- WTJ is limited by max alliance size and subject to community control
- Grief-play is solved
- Wise alliance formation may give you good coverage
- An alliance that broke apart can easier reform without transfer costs
- ANets revenue from transfer costs is replaced by Alliance-registration costs.
- It’s far superior (in terms of community building and interest to win) to random assignment as done for EotM
- It’s solves the dead-WvW-servers problem

Contra:
- Alliances may be unstable resulting in inaccurate ratings and imbalanced matches.
- The number of alliances may explode, if everyone may build it’s own very small and not competitive alliance. (However if this stays stable, and is not unique, balanced matches of small alliances may occur as well.)
- No one builds an alliance, but this means: everyone likes to play random-alliances.

niceboy.1068:

Maybe “full server” isn’t the right word.
Anyhow i play on Ruins of Surmia(medium server) vs Arborstone(high) vs Underworld (very high)

The simple answer is: These populations have NOTHING to do with how many people go into WvW. In fact they not even have anything to do with how many people play (PvE …) currently on this world, as these “population classes” also included anyone that ever registered a world as their home before they went inactive (and are now inactive since month).

PS: “High populated” probably means average population, and with 3-4mio GW2 sold distributed over 51 server average population is a total of around 70’000 registered players on this world over the last 10 month. 500 more or less do not make a big difference for this. But 500 make a hughe difference, if they are all currently active and play WvW.

Not from me, I see EotM already as over rewarded, make your own proposal for EotM rewards, mine are meant to be doable in classical WvW only (or do you really want to have all these defense achievement hunters in EotM, a EotM tower could look like a Kodash keep then)

Henry.5713:

It is a good idea. I don’t agree with the high price or the the tiny number of slots, though. A normal inventory slot costs you 40 gems if you use 20 slot bags (800gems/bag). Which means the shared slots are 17.5 times more expensive than the normal ones.

It is worth it’s price (and it’s position in the inventory), but only for a few items:

• copper/silver-salvage-o-mat 800 gems for the item to have it on 1 char, 700 gems more to have it on all chars
• permanent bank access (3000 gold to have it 130 gold more to have it on all chars).
• home-instance/friend-teleport
• …

Lol, every month the same genius proposal. Try to remember what you learned about geography and time-zone, to find out why the proposal is so genius.

If you don’t manage, here the answer from a previous one:
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/World-Versus-World-suggestion-1/4086126

I am happy with “sorry guys, we could not do enough for WvW as the china release took all our resources.” (Just as an example)

What I cannot accept is: “we are all happy with WvW, it is great as it is, there is not need to do anything else than fixing a ballista bug here and adding a new trap there.”

The first is better because it corresponds with the player experience. The second is just a denial of reality.

The first tells me: ok my problem get recognized, as soon as they are able to allocate resources they will likely do something. Hey I can help them buying gems such that they can pay more developers.

The second tells: my problem is not recognized, they aren’t able to see the problems, why should I buy a gems to support them in their view of the world which isn’t mine."

Chameleon Dude.1564:

So, I can just create a new character and unlock every skill almost instantly? Yeah, sure. That sounds fair.

That’s already the case. You just have to walk to your bank currently.

Only Problem: my mouse will probably break, while I make my new revenant lvl 80 with 500+ skill points by doing nothing than tutorial and walking to the next bank.

How about a weaker form of friendly fire (which has to many negative side-effects)

Every Friend in your AoE Area count against your AoE-Limit

So if you put AoE onto an area with 5 friends you do no damage. I guess this will take out all teeth of the Blob-Stacking Meta.

This will make single-target skills more valuable as single target skills will be the only way to hit enemies in your blob.

It will make small groups valuable that can “hide” in the enemy blob.

Both could need an upgrade for large-scale fights.

Generally I would propose the following priority in AoE target selection:
Invisible Friends > Invisible Enemies > Visible Friends > Visible Enemies
I.e. you only hit a visible enemy with AoE, if there there are less than 3/5 friends or invisible enemies in your target area, you only hit invisible enemies if there are less than 3/5 invisible friends in your target area. The higher priority for invisibles is needed as you cannot target them with directed skills.

Depends all what you consider winning.
I think the following lower servers are winning as they perform much better than expected:
Arborstone (25 vs 13 & 15): +69
Gunnars Hold (20 vs 8 & 10): +61
Abaddons (11 vs 9 & 7): +21
Drakkar (16 vs 12 & 14): +10
Sea of Sorrows (10 vs 4 & 6): +55
Stormbuff Isle (13 vs 5 & 7): +45
Northern Shiverpeaks (21 vs 16 & 19): +36
Fergusson Crossing (23 vs 18 & 20): +64
Eredon Terrace (24 vs 22 & 17): +24

Sird.4536:

If the devs are listening to people like you then no wonder WvW is dead. Bad idea after bad idea.

The longer walkways on borderlands idea is not from me, I was against it, when it was proposed over 3 years ago. Population rebalance was also not made as I proposed it. I did not proposed a new Map nor EotM.

Any other relevant change in the last 3 years?

I think there were 3 changes I proposed/supported and that happend:

• the change of matchmaking, otherwise in the meantime all tier would be fixed not only NA-T1
• reduced visibility (different color) of dead, after the removal of culling.
• arrow-card line-of-sight, but this happend around 2 years after I sugested it, no idea if they made it due to me

So WvW died without any relevant idea from me implemented, maybe it would be alive, if they would have listend to me.

All classes, beside the Ele, have the possibility to equip a close-combat and a range-combat weapon(-set). But as Ele you are stuck to choose between between either everything long-, everything medium- or everything short-range.

I want a possibility to equip a mix of long and short range skills and switch between them.

The root cause of bandwaggoning is man-power rules everything in WvW.

There is only one way to stop bandwaggoning: Make quality more important than quantity, e.g.:

• at every tick, divide the ppt of a server by the man-minutes people of that server spend in WvW
• at every fight: count the number of people in the area, kill-score is no longer just enemies killed, but enemies killed/friends there.
• anti-blobbing: e.g. everyone in the area of a squad, but not in the squad largely reduces his stats and that of everyone else by a small amount or every friend counts against AoE limit (if you AoE an area with 5 friends, the enemy cannot be hit by it), …
• …

Then bandwaggoning will have the following effect: The more come the worser will be the result and the calls for closed alliances will increase.

WrckAHoe.9827:

Coverage? This is WVW, why? The objective in WvW is PPT, to keep a good PPT rate you must have map control and able bodies to keep the objectives under your control. WvW sessions last for 1 week so the winner is the server that controls the most objectives the longest. People play in the “off hours” too so they need to be able to play.

Unfortunately not even this is true as we have 3-sided matches:
Assume the following coverage:
T 00-08 08-18 18-24
S1 2 5 10
S2 2 5 10
S3 6 3 5

Resulting in the following score distribution:
S1: 8h 5% | 16h 45%
S2: 8h 5% | 16h 45%
S3: 8h 90% | 16h 10%

1h = 4 ticks 8h = 32 ticks , 16h = 64 ticks

S1: 32*0.05*695+ 64*0.45*695= 1112 + 20016 = 21128
S2: 32*0.05*695+ 64*0.45*695= 1112 + 20016 = 21128
S3: 32*0.9*695 + 64*0.1*695 = 20016 + 4448 = 24464

S1 and S2 have more people in the match than S3, they fight more, and harder for their points and they even have clearly more coverage (16h) than S3 (8h), but S3 has a period where it has alone most coverage, while S1 and S2 share their coverage. That’s why S3 wins.
Artificial example? No, reality! SoS and Baruch Bay score’s worked very often exactly like that, when they won a match.

There is a second problem with current coverage: Matches are decided when fewest people are playing, not when most people are playing. Which means the majority is irrelevant, a minority rules. Bad game design for the majority of player.

mcwurth.2081:

buy a new character slot instead or you will regret this at a later point

Or buy a new account on the next occasion, that’s 5 slots instead of one for the same price in gems.

How about packaging every item into a choice box like ascended

10 clicks more per loot item, but hey you can decide on your own what you get

PS: No I do not work for Logitech, I do not want to increase mouse-replacement sales due to broken mouse button.

695:0:0 should be reach latest 8h after reset, then the losers better stay home and let the winner enjoy their scoring undisturbed.

+1 for 2 reasons: It helps (a small improvement now is better than a solution that never happen) on a lot of problem-area and it can be done within 1min.

A little bit more than 3 month ago Devon Carver wrote on the Future of WvW:
“Right now our game rewards you for holding an objective, not necessarily for taking it, and overwhelmingly favors the last server to log out for the day. We have some ideas in the pipeline to try to increase scoring when people are playing the game and to make it much more difficult to keep your territory without actively guarding it.”
https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/devon-carver-on-the-future-of-world-vs-world/

This was a pressing topic from the beginning, and nothing happen, neither since the beginning nor since this anouncement.

Skill-laags is not a WvW-only problem. It also happens quite often on Dragon (or other bosses) kills at prime time as well. The worst skill-laags I ever experienced was the karka-attack on lion’s arch.

I guess there are only two ways to handle that:
- better servers = expensive
- reduced no of players on map = more queues or overflow maps

The problem will reoccur on every server-re-link, as the new links will have a quite different strengt than the old links.

And yes, complete separation of tier must not be possible and should be fixed.

Maybe a fix can be to have 2-3 rounds of Swiss System matchmaking after re-link, As this allows faster repositioning of servers.

Dredge isn’t that easy to get on mega-servers, you need two failed events and both succeed with just 1 person doing them …
But I managed from time to time, while farming linen baggies on that map.

Fire shaman I asked in map & guild chat, but not one joined. And it needs 2 that know what they are doing to kill him.

Ogre I am rarely on this map, I am not even sure how to get him.

But being restricted to 3 uncommon bosses is quite an decline compared to pre-MS in any case.