Guild Wars 2

Since several weeks I’ve permanent Outnumbered-Buf in EotM.

I know balance in WvW is hard to reach as it is based on fixed teams, but it should be much easier in EotM, as teams are close to random, make them total random but balanced would be much better.

It’s like random PvP would be always buggy and sets up all matches 5:2 or 5:1.

It’s all a matter of manpower and coverage: how many hours of the day does your team has the highest man power, and times with few people are more decisive than times with more people.

So the ranking http://mos.millenium.org/eu/matchups more or less reflects how many people are playing and how many people are playing at unusual times.

If you want to be mostly alone go to lower ranked servers, if you want to be part of a large group go to higher ranked server.

Another criteria is: how is the balance around your world? If the worlds around you are far better or far worser you will face a lot of imbalanced matches. If they are closer you will face a lot of thrilling matches.

No idea for NA for EU I would recommend rank 4-9. All 6 server are quite balanced, but you clearly loose vs 1-3.

Shadowbane.7109:

Dayra.7405:

Shadowbane.7109:

But seriously why can’t people realise that there aren’t going to be big changes in the middle of a season.

You mean no such changes like the ones tomorrow?

Any big change that will affect WvW?

- radical changes of traits
- skill rebalance
- account wide WEXP
- critical damage change
- 2 sigils for 2h weapons, changed sigils/runes
- account bound legendaries and Ascended
- no more home-server cities to do a call-for-arms
Charackter changes affect WvW gameplay for sure.

Because of balance, better (especially broader) competition (more servers can compete in NA-prime, than in NA-night), and a preference that the same person can pick-up were it leaves 16hours ago.

swiss tournament in chess is not the danish variant, i.e. you always play an oponent mostly once.

And with 5 rounds for 50 participants in chess its not so repetive as ANet version of 9 round for 6 or 9 participants. (2 rounds for 9 would be enough.)

ANet doesnt have to move people to reach balance, we already know 2 things that let people move on their own:

• rewards
• queue

So balance is as easy as that:

At any time measure how many people are in WvW or WvW-queue (not eotm) on each world and in total.

People on worlds that have at a time more than 110% of mean population get a fat red Overpopulated buf.

People on a server that has currently 150% of mean population that want to enter a WvW map go to an "overpopulation-queue* instead, i.e. how many people want to play in T8/9 influences how many people are allowed to play in T1.

People on worlds that have at a time less than 90% of mean population get a Underpopulated buf.

Overpopulated buf.: Only halve Karma, Exp, WEXP, Gold, baggies are earned in WvW and EotM, and on the right side a list of all servers with underpopulated but is shown.

Underpopulated buf: Double Karma, Exp, WEXP, Gold, baggies are earned in WvW and EotM.

After less than a month we have perfect (every server has 90%-110% of mean population) balance and coverage.

Maybe it’s a good idea to reduce the number of servers first.

Transfer costs can be equal and very low (e.g. 100-500 gems per transfer in general) only to generate income for ANet and to decay movements in general, the reward and queue system ensures the balance.

And if the system stays in place, we will keep balance, even when a server community implodes in dispute, it will be refilled fast by reward hunter.

Amelia Knox.9362:

Do you think that more numbers is a more skillfull tactic?

I think the more number vs skills argument is far over-stressed. And a to cheap excuse for a loss.

By the way “large zergs” aren’t that easy to handle.
- Keep them together as large fight-group and not as a large farm-queue isn’t without challenge.
- Be careful on every teleport the numbers halves (even with a large TS percentage)
- Having bad equiped low-levels inside, renimate the enemy faster than you can down them.
- …

Putting large numbers effectively into fights is very skillful. For the lead as well as for the players. Defending 4 maps with one “large zerg” is a very challenging thing.

For effective sieges if well defended position you need a 2:1 better 3:1 superiority and you must be fast, or the numbers turn against you very fast.

You may see only that whereever you try you get overrun by a large zerg, but if you see only the number, you overlook the challenge and effort it costs to be there in time.

Nice one from ANet (https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/info/updates/Game-Update-Notes-October-23-2015/5638259):

“Mount Maelstrom:
Due to the weight of players, boxes surrounding the Golem Mark II have collapsed. Workers have carted their remnants away.”

you are right that wvw was best when people believed in PPT.

you are wrong that PPT or not-PPT is a matter of rewards.

WvW turned bad (started dieing) when people lost the believe that the current PPT measures something meaningful. in fact we all know now that PPT measures nothing else than off-time (esp. night) population. A competition based on “who has more people at night” and “who does faster PvD” is nothing anyone is interested in.

To reanimate PPT-WvW you therefore do not need rewards for the current PPT, you need a PPT people are concinved of measuring “who (strategically/tacically) fights better”

I want them in. They make up a living environment.
Without them the world is dead.

However I want any neutral out of auto-target, they can only become attack-focus if explicitly LEFT-clicked. And I want them to be hit by AoE only if less than 5 other possible targets are in the AoE area.

Virtute.8251:

Kraag Deadsoul.2789:

This is bad game design because:

(a) coverage is not under the player’s control

(b) a factor not under a player’s control gives a reward to the opponent (PPT)

(c ) there are no counters available to (a) and (b)

False.

(a ) “Coverage” is exclusively a player-driven mechanic, which can no more be removed than can the human need for clocks, time zones, and sleep.

(b ) Not everyone wins in competition.

(c ) It is addressed by human interaction through social networking.

The solution is simpler and more plausible.

(a) The moon drives the tides, but no one would say it controls it as control means you can change it. And a single player cannot change coverage.

(b) The problem is not that some are loosing, the problem is that much to often the result is clear before start, i.e. there is simply no competition.

Chiolas.1326:

Anet did not care in the past year and they won’t care now.

With the end of the league they lost players due to this. That may wake them up.
And with the current “I don’t care” mood in WvW they will loose a lot players to ESO. (If ESO will be able to keep them is again another story)

1) Is Tarnished Coast now better than Blackgate?
2) Is Dragonbrand now better than Kaineng?
3) Is Sea of Sorrows now better than Yak’s Bend?
4) Is Ehmry Bay better than Crystal Dessert?
5) Is Darkheaven better than Borlis Pass?
6) Is Sorrows Furnance now better than Isle of Janthir?

We will never find out. And it doesn’t matter, the match-making based on the rating is an abuse of Glicko-2, that – over the month that it is now used – leaded to impassble bracket boarders.

There is no longer 2 ladders (EU/NA) there is now 17 ladders. The rating is only influenced by performance with respect to each tier. Whereas membership in a tier gives you an base rating, high enough to avoid a drop down, independently how bad you are now.

See https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/suggestions/Ready-for-2-Week-Matches/1820660/edit
for one of the many proposals to fix that.

Great idea, PvD only for victory

NA-prime vs EU-night: Clear PvD victory for NA
NA-night vs EU-day: (or Oceanic-prime vs EU-day), no idea who has more player, EU-Gold are 200+ on weekends/50-150 under the week per server
NA-day vs EU-prime: Clear PvD-victory for EU

As we have 3-way matches the lonely one will win, i.e. if a match has 2 NA vs 1 EU the EU server wins, with 2 EU vs 1 NA the NA server wins. (as the lonely one get easily 695:0:0 during it’s prime, while the other two have to fight for their points during their prime, i.e. only score 350:345:0

We will have total balance after such a league, as everyone will have stopped playing WvW after 9 such weeks

Morsus.5106:

WingLegacy.7159:

Ascended was a mistake for Anet and now OP wants it to be par with Legendary?

Exotics were on par with Legendary.

And legendaries did not had changeable stats at that time (this was a feature they gained when asc. Was introduced). They weren’t more than a skin to be transmuted with an exotic that had the stats of your choice.

The extension of “not in the current match” to “not in current and not in the next match” is needed, because the next match is currently predictable. (opposed to most matches in the random-modified opponents in normal match-making)
I.e. in 99% of cases you can be 100% sure who will be you next opponents.

Therefore this time-out is needed to avoid placement of spies/saboteurs (2nd accounts) on the next opponent servers.

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/Solution-to-fix-the-population-imbalance

Reborn.2934:

wvw ( pvpve game ) and pve without aoe will force the game to rewritten from the start .

i think this will never happened

Should be rather easy to set the AoE-limit to 1.

So technical reasons are not worth a debate.

But will WvW be better without AoE?

I don’t think, so, I only think some classes/waepons have to much AoE, given that others have much less. Resulting into AoE skills dealing in total around 4 times as much damage as single target skills. making a class like ranger quite useless in WvW.

With my quite new (made 2 weeks ago, I.e. Before the patch) Twink level 28 i explored Lion Arch yesterday.
I got 9xp per PoI! (I got 139 for a PoI in Metrica) Was it always that bad?
Got it nerfed? Or did I hit a bug?

Here is a good reason why this restriction is very important:
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/Remove-the-Lockout-Timer/3907185

And as you said, transferring a character-less account is free, and a spy or saboteur only needs lvl 1.

Matches of round 3 look decided. As https://leaderboards.guildwars2.com/en/eu/wvwgold is buggy, MOS doesn’t show it and Wiki http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/WvW_Fall_Tournament_2014 is slow
here the EU-Gold table after round 3 (winner 5 pts, middle 3 points, looser 2 pts according to wiki, thanks for discovering it and pointing to it, Ken.):

1. SFR 5+5+5= 15
2. Kodash 2+5+5=12
3. Deso 3+5+3=11
4. Elona 5+2+3=10, Baruch 5+3+2=10, Jade 3+2+5=10
5. -
6. -
7. Gandara 3+3+2= 8
8. Riverside 2+2+3=7, FSP 3+2+2=7
9. -

I assume that match-making hasn’t changed since spring (https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/S3-NA-final-week-match-up-possibilities/4460488)

This would give the following matches;
T1: SFR (green)- Kodash (blue) – Deso (red) My Tip: 5-2-3
(Marketing was correct, it is really unique, i.e. different colors than in round 1 SFR-Deso-Kodash)
T2: Elona (green) – Baruch (blue) – Jade (red) My Tip: 5-3-2
T3: Gandara (green) – Riverside (blue) – FSP (red) My Tip: 5-3-2

Final result according to my tip:

1. SFR (800 tickets) 20
2. Elona (650 tickets) 15
3. Kodash (600 tickets), Deso (650 tickets) both 14
4. -
5. Baruch (600 tickets), Gandara (600 tickets) both 13
6. -
7. Jade (550 tickets) 12
8. Riverside (500 tickets) 10
9. FSP (450 tickets) 9

What’s your tip?

Look at EU T1-T2, we needed 10 weeks domination against the same opponents in T2 to get up into T1 and we aren’t the ones that get owned in T1.

Matchmaking is broken since months!
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/pvp/wuvwuv/Matchups/1839470

Vote for https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/pvp/wuvwuv/Suggestion-WvW-2-0
or any of the other replacements proposed in the forum.

Amelia Knox.9362:

When i lose a fair fight ….

You seem to be very young. Neither is Life fair nor games and especially Fights are as unfair as possible. Time to learn that.

And fights tend to be even more unfair, if you set own rules for it, that are neither the rules of the game nor the rules the enemy accepted.

1) A much stronger binding between guilds and towers/keeps in WvW:
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/If-you-could-change-the-scoring-mechanic/3552163
combined with a different scoring, that punishes Karma-trains and nerfs the domination of coverage.

2) Guild Alliance vs Guild Alliance vs Guild Alliance instead of World vs World vs World, so you are free to choose whom you want in your team.

3) No item spiral in WvW. Upgrade stats of Exo to corresponding Asc while in WvW.

4) Add a plausible movement checker to the server that teleports (with dead if in fight) all implausible movement back to spawn (no more flying, no more below ground, no more teleport, no more glitch through doors/walls, …)

5) Make future leagues with different and varying match-durations/play time. E.g.:
a weekend-league combined with a weekday-league, a time-sliced league with a NA-prime-match, an Oceanic-prime-match, an EU-prime-match

6) No possibility to rally in WvW. On total dead immediate port to spawn. (Attrition war becomes possible, no longer the winner wins unharmed. No more need to guard dead Mesmer waiting for a perma-stealthed thief).

7) Change the WP-block in keeps/SN: the teleport is blocked permanent (without “port-window”) whenever a visible and not dead enemy is inside outer walls area (inside inner walls of course as well). As soon there is not one visible enemy left port opens immediately. https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/Why-is-SM-waypoint-contested-all-the-time/1810315

Alternative for 1): Nerf the domination of coverage: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/Nerf-the-domination-of-Coverage

Alternative for 2): Compute transfer costs based on WvW Glicko-rating instead of the completely meaningless overall population. https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/Free-transfers-to-small-pop-servers/2126651

In general: More variation, e.g. in match-duration and alternative scoring such that match-outcome becomes less predictable and boring.

The problem is that ANet seems to be completely blind with population issues, otherwise they would have made the new borderland a complete map for all three sides like EB and the EotM map.

The WvW could be just 1 EB and 1 Borderland map and everything would be much better.

With the currently available collection of maps there are only these possibilities:

1. WvW with EB and 3 new BL; EotM with EotM-map (and old BL?), i.e. current
2. WvW with EB and 3 old BL; EotM with EotM-map (and newBL?), i.e. pre-HoT
3. WvW with EB only; Eotm with EotM-Map and old and new Borderlands
4. WvW with EB and EotM map; EotM with old and new borderland-maps
5. WvW with 3 old BLs; EotM with EotM-Map, new BL and EB
6. WvW with 3 new BLs; EotM with EotM-Map, old BL and EB

Lady Sapphirah.6234:

Ok I’ll spell it out…. …
They know eotm started the problems that killed wvw

No, Eotm did not started the problems that lead to the dead of WvW. These problems are inherent to WvW, EotM only provided an alternative, which is now more successful than WvW, even if EotM has it’s own flaws.

Inherent problems of WvW:

• 24/7 coverage war. No one plays 24/7, and even worser player-distribution is very uneven over the 24 hours of the day (or the time-zones of the world if you are a fan of this stupid “your night is someones day” statement), resulting in queue for 2 hours and a handful of people hopping over empty maps for 22 hours.
• PvD scores better than fights (for an objective)

Inherent problem of both EotM and WvW

• imbalance of manpower over the teams
• there is no stacking penalty, which leads to “the map-blob rules”

Inherent problem of EotM

• You are thrown into a random team
• Scoring is without any meaning

I still think that https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/4-Step-Rescue-Plan-for-WvW is a good way to solve most of these problems for both game modes.

+1 to OP.

Solomon Darkfury.3729:

So wait.. you want Ascended weapons, which already have the same LEVEL of stats as legendary to be able to swap stats around just like a legendary?

Essentially you want a Weapon with Legendary stats and capabilities for like one tenth the cost…

ummm no…. that’s a horrible idea…

No I don’t think so, it would reduce legendaries to what they should be: a unique visual effect and the guarantee that it will be always a top weapon.

I don’t think it’s a fair investment protection (and we talk about a mayor investment of 300-400 gold for an armor set) that you need new ascended stuff whenever ANet has the idea to tweak balance.

Population count is based on who declared a world their home world.

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/Server-Populations/first#post703192

If ANet sold 3-4mio Gw2 and anyone logged in at least once to select a world.
this gives 60000-80000 average population over the 51 server.
I guess the servers which are below this average are classified as medium, the ones above as high or very high.

But this means that every inactive player rotting in the cellar of your server still counts for your population.

How does ANet fit new sold copies onto the existing server? Very simple increase the population maximum <=> decrease the classification of the server.

So I guess the main difference between a very high populated server and a medium populated server is the amount of dead in the cellar, and the active populations aren’t very different. And if there are 1000 more or less WvW players on a world has an influence 0.01 on overal server population, but as this is all that fit into WvW a not small difference on WvW performance.

The only thing you can conclude from SFR being medium pop is: Most flee from SFR before dead, no one want to be buried there

Junkpile.7439:

I win when i am red, blue or green. Color doesn’t really matter. Just kill enemies every time.

That exactly is the problem, SFR attracted not only WvW wtj, but in the meantime even more EotM wtj (personally know several of them). Whenever I am in as not the same color as SFR I’ve outmanned buf 100% of the time.

But as usual ANet isn’t able to make a game mode that isn’t at least 3:1 imbalanced.
A pity otherwise EotM and WvW would be fun, so the game is dead. Hopeless as not-SFR side, boring as SFR-side.

Do we really need seasons twice a year to get more people interested in WVW?
Does it really interest people? Is it positive for WvW or negative as all seasons so far enfored stronger server imbalances. As WvW is based on a scoring function that measures nothing elase than how many off-time player a server has these leagues aren’t a competition in any sense anyway.

The most positive point of the seasons are the achievements that come with them.
But do we need seasons to have better achievements?

I think just better achievements would do WvW better than leagues. But some competition is nice as wellso lets have competitive achievements.

Here are idea for such achievements. Each week (i.e. for each match), the system selects randomly 5-10 achievements from the list below, these achievements are equal for all server:

• Sum of delivered supplies by successful Dolly escort events.
• Sum intercepted supplies by successful Dolly kill events (Dolly’s are standing goalless in the camp do not count)
• Sum of successfully defended supplies at Camp defense events
• Sum of the successfully conquered supplies at Camp conquest events (Before the reduction by upgrade reset, i.e. full 250ziger stock = 250 pts)
• Sum of successfully defended supplies at Tower Defense events (Count the remaining supplies at the end of the event)
• Sum of the successfully conquered supplies at Tower conquest events
• Sum of successfully defended supplies at keep defense events
• Sum of the successfully conquered supplies at keep conquest events
• Sum of successfully defended supplies at Stome Mist defense events
• Sum of the successfully conquered supplies at Stone Mist conquest events
• Participation in successful mercenary defeat events
• Participation in successful mercenary acquisition events
• Participation in successful events of conquest of guards
• Siege Refresh Sum of the minutes since last siege refresh (if the timer is down to 45min at the moment you refresh, you get credited 15 min).
• Sum of the remaining refresh minutes when destroying enemy siege
• Sum of spended gold for objective upgrades

This is determined per match for all players the end of the match

• There are 2 achievement points for each of the (10) categories where you among the top 50% of the players.
• 2 more achievement points, if you belong to the top 33% of players.
• 1 additional achievement points if you made it into the top 100.

Also all ranks you reached in the 10 categories are summed up (lowest sum is best) into an overal contribution achievement

• for being in the top 50% gets 10 pts,
• top 33% further 10 points, and
• top 100 further 5 points

The top 100 players of the overal contribution are also pubklished in the leader board in the new category WVW contribution https://leaderboards.guildwars2.com/.

A very active WvW player can thus get per week of up to 75 achievements points, but in mean it is around 20 achievement point per player
This corresponds to approximately what you can achieve on average per week through the bi-weekly living story.

BranZ.1039:

The queues are a big issue right now (at least here on SFR).

That’s how it should be: Spread out or be stuck in queue.

There are plenty of server with a lot of free space, e.g. most 2 maps with queue.

Doesn’t really makes sense to base capacity on the demand of the overstacked server.

But here is the solution, on the next occassion buy another account for 10€ that’s less than 50% of the cost of a transfer: Queue on SFR and play elsewhere, I think a lot of people now do it that way. At least I hear that more and more often.

Victory.2879:

More NPC’s to kill…EOTM is that way ^^^^^

I proposed something around the OP post awhile ago (https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Scoring-Discussion/4483469), and the reason was not to give you more NPCs to fight, but to devalue PvD and enforce you to garrison your possessions or to disable a 695 score of 10 PvDler.

How could a more PvP oriented design look like?

• less automatism e.g no automatic dollies, dollies must be hired (cost supplies, more with escorts) and asigned to a route by a player, which they repeat till killed or stopped, no automatic repair on capture doors and walls broken during the attack remain broken, walls and doors must be repaired to 50% till they block again, no automatic uprades, they must be started by player, the WP of a tower or keep is a damageable object that can be build/repaired by people with resources they carry
• no NPCs (or only when explicitly hired)
• no events and no event rewards, capture is simply: you destroyed the enemy WP and build your own, no delay in recapture, it only interrupts interesting battles.
• short ways to battle (unblockable WPs in every tower/keep, usable by the side that currently controls it wherever it is), but you can only voluntarily port from anywhere to the spawn and after a delay of X secs from the spawn to every WP under it’s side control.
• no revive of totally dead, a dead must go back to a WP under it’s side control after a X sec delay
• only your “third” produces resources you can grab or spend on upgrades, but you can plunder enemy resources, and you can carry them yourself or hired dollies to transport them

Match-Scoring and rewards purely on WEXP

• an enemy get killed with contribution from your side, your server get the WEXP he give (once! not per player that get it) as score
• a wall/door/WP get destroyed with contribution from your side, your server get the WEXP it gives (once! not per player that get it) as score
• a wall/door/WP get build/repaired by your side, your server get the WEXP it gives (once! not per player that get it) as score
• an upgrade finishes
• a hired dolly delivers it’s resources
• an enemy dolly get killed
• …

Player rewards are improved and more frequent WEXP-chests, nothing else.

If there isn’t anything left to do you do not get score anymore.

Hopefully the result is something like a permanent battle about an objective, i.e. the hour-lasting 3-way fights over SM.

It’s not really surprising that this opposition is from servers like Jade Quary or Blackgate
i.e. server that fear competition (that they may loose) by such a change.

Kiryu.3028:

I am surprised the amount of hate Deso is getting, have all the people who posted here been akitten from EB prime time the past two days?

The forum pattern is so easy: SFR is the most skillful-server in EU, if they win it’s a skillful match. If they loose with all their skill it must be blobbing, PvD, ACs in the field, running, ….

How about an option to modify the level to which you are downscaled

• Normal (that’s usually 1-2 lvl above mobs)
• Equal ( same lvl as mobs)
• Harder (2 or 3 lvl below mobs)
• Hardest (5 lvl below mobs)

With hardest you will be 10 vs behemoth not 17. And this is what you do during leveling as well, if you find it to easy you go to higher mobs, if you find it to difficult you fall back to lower mobs.

Swamurabi.7890:

Introducing the Megaserver System
by Colin Johanson and Samuel Loretan on April 2, 2014

….

This doesn’t sound like there’s any real news with respect to WvW.

Probably they originally planned to make it EotM like and then Devon got convinced in the CDI that this isn’t a good thing, such that they are currently still (again) in the design phase.

Btw.: I did not read about it, but for EotM the mega-server concept would definitely be a strong improvement over the current overflow concept.

There are a lot of PvE JPs, if you want to train jumping around without enemies use these ones.

And if you want to solve the EB-JP without enemies, there is a simple way to do so:
help your world to capture and hold all 3 fortresses.

Sir Arthur.8905:

5.World Completion should be a PvE task.

Why should legendary making include PvE? (Ignoring for a moment that WvW is PvE in ANets so far view.)
Make it a WvW only task! WVW is the most effective Gold-sink in the game. Therefore it would make more sense to depend the most effektive Gold-collection task of the game more on WvW than on PvE.

I would prefer a change of the teleport-block: the teleport is blocked permanent (without “port-window”) whenever a visible (not dead) enemy is inside outer walls area (inside inner walls of course as well). As soon there is not one visible enemy left port opens immediately.

Dhampyr.2104:

The devs don’t have an answer for this yet. They were debating it this afternoon with no conclusion reached.

The one who programmed it left the company in the meantime, so they are as curious as we are what will happen

Edit: Lol this was only a joke, stop making a rumor out of a joke

MagnusLL.8473:

Yeah I’m sure it’s loads of fun for Elona outnumbering the other 2 servers by 5:1 or more on a 24/7 basis. Here’s a secret though: it’s not so fun for the other 2 servers.

I am in the forum and not on the battle field to reduce outnumbering, but you better stay in the battlefield and not in the forum, or my decision doesn’t help much

Haha, funny, your forum history looks like in Feb you where on Gandara, now you moved to SFR and want to close it for being full
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/support/support/Launcher-login-error/1476942

name.4860:
EU GANDARA
same problem

How about just moving away if it is to full for you?

PS: e-Forum does not write the year for me (see pic) beside posts … No idea, which Feb it was..

But the point is always the same: a former bandwaggoner complains about the new generation of bandwaggoner. And if I remember right a bit more than 2 year ago SFR was quite upset about all the bandwaggoners that join it, during their long-time match with Deso and Vizu, so upset that some guilds left, some stopped playing, and SFR and Deso got crushed for 2 month by Vizu

Gilgamesh.7364:

I personally think it’s fine how it is

Not really surprising to hear that from a BG (-joiner?).

But I think it is bad game-design if periods of low-activity dominate periods of high-activity with respect to the outcome of a match. Is a bit like in the break of the soccer-match, the captains roll 7 dices (1 per night in the match), and add that much goals to their score

When you really dominate prime-time you may reach a mean-score of 300:200:200 over some hours. But that is already rare.

But if you dominate off-time (and you do not need skill, only some more people) you easily make a score of 500:100:100 over twice as many hours.

So it is totally irrelevant how good you are in high-activity times, just be there as long as possible.

And that’s why I think coverage-war is bad and needs to be nerfed to make WvW interesting again.

And there are many good ideas in the forum on how to do that. It just needs Anet to notice and accept their flaw. Unfortunately this always takes a while, convincing them that the first match-making system was broken and lead to frozen match-ups took around 6 month as well.

Edit: Ups, yes, thanks for pointing to this mistake

Buy a_SSD and put GW2 on it, it’s a disk problem.

Chiolas.1326:

Last week 20 VoTF kept 40 VS inside bay

Hm, doesn’t sound like a perfect strategy to me. I guess it’s probably better to keep them OUT of bay and not INside bay

Put “Arah story including video watch” in the lfg tool and you will find your party.
Btw.: do the same with the catacombs, all tell a part of the story.
And do it before the 9.9. To be able to make the rules of the party as dungeon owner.

Only a WvW player isn’t surprised that from all possible WPs in Lion Arch especially the PvP relevant one is attack and shutdown by PvE.

MiLkZz.4789:

SFR didn’t had trouble getting back into T1. It just takes some time.

Lol you had a lot trouble getting back to T1.
You won T2 three times and with each “victory” you made minus and moved further away from T1. You only made it up because Piken were demoralized from the guild-transfer and stopped playing. And even with that you made it only by 0.06pts and a millenium-mistake of 5pts.

With each LS episode and map-area there are new items to be stored in the bank till usage (much) later. Another problem is soulbound items in the bank, it’s always hard to track which of my chars owns them.

How about

• Increase the max number of bank areas from 12 to 15
• ading soulbound area(s), where each char sees a different instance of the area and where only soulbound items (e.g. the exo equipment) can be stored.