Guild Wars 2

Belenwyn.8674:

Artemis Thuras.8795:

PierPiero.9142:

I suppose that Anet has the numbers of avarage player for server over the time. why not Try to plan a definitive link server and reduce the number of serves ? Instead of linking for a short period of time merge them in the bigger ..

I still think the opposite would be better. more servers, not less)

More servers ( or battle groups as they were called earlier).
With factions ( linked servers as they are currently).

so
currently:
linked server -> [server 1] & [server 2] &… [server N]

proposal:
faction -> [battle group 1] & [battle group 2] & .. [battle group N]

Moving to battle groups ( just a name to distinguish from current servers) with a greater quantity, but lower population cap means a faction ( or linked servers) has more constituent parts.

Mechanically not much changes from now. However it’s easier to balance with more, smaller blocks.

It also creates a way to force destacking of huge servers ( BG being the most obvious contender for destacking).

Ultimately as a player you won’t see a difference in membership of a battle group vs membership of a server. The difference is anet can potentially balance matches better. So anet can create a healthier competition.

Exactly, we need a system with WvW teams of defined size but with flexible numbers. Huge servers would simply send more teams than small servers. Bandwagoning would disappear since the absence of overstacked teams would not bring any advantage. The only delicate question, I see, is whether Arenanet should allow premade teams or simply fill the teams by itself – guildmembers will be put in the same team.

Standardised teams would also allow to give up tiers and glicko. It would lead to more variety in match-ups. You could introduce a ranking of the teams. In addition you could build a ranking of the servers. Compare it with the UEFA 5Y ranking, where all the participating nations are listed and ranked. The position in the ranking is driven by the performance of the national teams.

The current system with one team for each server will lead to permanent imbalances since Arenanet hesitates to permanently cols certain servers. Balance and free access to servers are mutually exclusive in the current system.

I was thinking along the lines of:
each faction doesn’t need to have the same number of battle groups.
Potentially ( though I cringe give anets pvp matchmaking) using glicko (per battle group) and using that to match make.
Population & hours spent in wvw, maybe KDR/warscore earned could be good measurements to use also.

A battle group ladder could be created ( pretty much glicko rankings, or whatever measure anet uses). Just for bragging rights.

The factions could be recalculated weekly ( especially if automated).
This renders bandwagoning borderline stupid to do.
It also makes buying mercenaries/guilds somewhat silly, since you’d just inflate your population/hours spent/ warscore earned and get potentially fewer allied battle groups for it.

Flexibility on number of factions makes it flexible as the population changes ( it inevitably will).
The concept of “tiers” is no longer applicable, so in theory everyone can get a fun/competitive match each week.

I remember the QQ about necros not being good enough to taken by pugs.

Now the QQ is necros being too strong for their difficulty to play compared to say engi.

Sounds like two things are needed to me: mild nerf to necro, simplification ( effectively a buff, due to consistency) of engi.

PierPiero.9142:

I suppose that Anet has the numbers of avarage player for server over the time. why not Try to plan a definitive link server and reduce the number of serves ? Instead of linking for a short period of time merge them in the bigger ..

I still think the opposite would be better. more servers, not less)

More servers ( or battle groups as they were called earlier).
With factions ( linked servers as they are currently).

so
currently:
linked server → [server 1] & [server 2] &… [server N]

proposal:
faction → [battle group 1] & [battle group 2] & .. [battle group N]

Moving to battle groups ( just a name to distinguish from current servers) with a greater quantity, but lower population cap means a faction ( or linked servers) has more constituent parts.

Mechanically not much changes from now. However it’s easier to balance with more, smaller blocks.

It also creates a way to force destacking of huge servers ( BG being the most obvious contender for destacking).

Ultimately as a player you won’t see a difference in membership of a battle group vs membership of a server. The difference is anet can potentially balance matches better. So anet can create a healthier competition.

mauried.5608:

Why cant you get 100+ charged lodestones from playing the game?
Is there a hardware coded maximum limit per player?

I actually have 92 charged lodestones, and a little over 100 charged cores -all of them drops, as of this moment.

Getting 100 purely as drops is completely possible.. if you don’t mind collecting them for over a year ;P

KyreneZA.8617:

Gaile Gray.6029:

A message from the Skills Team:

Way to throw poor Gaile in front of the bus there “Skills Team”! At least they don’t call themselves the “Balance Team” anymore…

It’s her job to jump in front of the proverbial bus.

However your post made me lol

Supreme.3164:

So let me get this straight….if eles go full zerk gear and have no sustain it’s ok…but druids should be able to use zerg gear and still have easy sustain?

Rangers have plenty of dmg in pve so again I dunno what people are saying, drop the staff and pick longbow, warhorn for dps buff and you’re gold.

Rangers can easily stack protection/regen/vigor even better than ele on any gear, have ranged and mele dps at the same time…so why the hell are you even complaining?
I wonder if all these druids actually mained a ranger before druid…….

I think the complaint is the class elite spec mechanic is focused entirely on healing/support. ( I actually forgot druid is technically a subclass of ranger for a while..)

druid and a “dps build” simply contradict each other.

It’s funny.
Assuming the numbers mean it is better to go for kitten comp..
I see the raid mirror comps possibly being:
2 ps, 2 druid, 2 chrono 1-2 rev, 2-3 dps.

Eles/necros don’t bring assassins presence. Depending on how much ( if at all) rev dps is buffed to compensate for nerfs to f2.

So make the tabs editable somehow – there is a description type thing in guild banks.
I think that would probably serve purpose.

ID also like a “hide tabs” option like in the inventory, but for the bank.

A guildy suggested rewards based on skirmish be:
30g for winning, 20g for second, 10g for losing ( liquid gold).
with reduced rewards if you aren’t in the skirmish for the full two hours, in 30 minute chunks. ( with say 5% leyway, for dc’s).

I don’t see it happening, but I figured it chuck it out there.

CptAurellian.9537:

I can hardly imagine a damage buff for mesmers that lifts them to proper levels, but we’ll see.

IT may have been referring to rev dps too. She didn’t specify explicitly.
We also don’t know what the base share duration will be on SoI yet..

Just wait til we see what the numbers turn out like. along with whatever else gets changed.

Lahmia.2193:

inb4 Epidemic gets the same nerf as Signet of Inspiration (Fixed condi durations).

This would make me laugh.

The post from gaile mentioned damage buffs to compensate.

Take your finger off the red button for now..

On the topic of balancing guilds vs servers..
The concept that organised players have an advantage over disorganised ones?

If numbers/playtime is similar, the more skilled/organised (coordinated) group should win..

I don’t really see the problem with that. ( in fact the only people who will, are those who want to win, with next to zero effort..)

Jayne.9251:

Artemis Thuras.8795:

A battle group being “full” is no different to a server being full.

Excellent point. Then why create battlegroups at all if there’s no difference?

Doing so will only kitten off a lot of people.

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Server-Linking-Discussion/page/9#post6360338

My groups pretty much always take a necro for matthias. Not because its dps, but for the support/utility.
Moving /feeding condis back is handy for easing preassure ( assuming necro doesn’t get bombed with 50 stacks of poison).
Also things like transfusion for pulling people out of red rings can be quite useful.

The lifeforce is strong with you.

OriOri.8724:

Seera.5916:

OriOri.8724:

Same thing with mystic coins (another item whose price has been an aggravating point of debate in recent months). Anet didn’t increase the supply at all outside of a tiny trickle (that came months after HoT did btw, and few to nobody participates anymore anyway), yet added absolutely massive new sinks for mystic coins with the GH upgrades, and the new legendaries requiring 500 mystic coins instead of just 250.

I get it, they see a problem and want to correct it, but they can’t be so heavy handed if they want to see good results. Change one or two things at a time, maximum, and then let it settle. It allows the economy to balance itself more, and prevents you from taking something from one extreme to the other without ever finding a happy medium.

And back on topic, I highly doubt the leather prices will come down. Anet keeps saying that people are hoarding them, but I seriously don’t think they are looking at why people are hoarding them. Its because of the sheer quantity that you need to craft anything.

When you need 8 Elonian Leather Squares just to craft a single Medium Ascended Coat (totaling 1,600 thick leather sections), of course people are going to hoard all the T5 leather they get. The incoming supply to each player is so kitten low that if you were to sell your own supply, you would never be able to farm that much back on your own. The same is not true for wood or ore, or even silk since it drops so often, you could farm that back in a few days, weeks at the most, but not leather. This is the big problem with leather. There might be a lot out there, but its already spoken for, and people don’t want to move their supply and sell it because the only way to get it back in any reasonable time frame is to buy it on the TP, and its simply not worth it.

If only ANet didn’t insist on being so heavy handed with the economy we wouldn’t be in this situation where they feel they are better off doing nothing at all instead of managing their own economy.

The problem with the Mystic Coins is that there are more being generated than are being consumed (and by that I mean put into the forge or whatever and being used) per statements made by ANet. They risk the market sending them to vendor trash if they do anything with the unused supply sitting so high. Even that trickle they did caused a slight panikittenil people realized it was once per day.

I know, and they should have added sinks for mystic coins. But I just think that too many sinks were added simultaneously, and people panicked. Mystic coins may sort themselves out eventually, but I really do not think that leather will sort itself out.

Not if they keep adding legendaries that require ~ 500 mystic coins they won’t..

Jayne.9251:

morrolan.9608:

Jayne.9251:

Still think the idea stinks though.

It’s not inclusive enough. And will wind up presenting the same issues six months after it launches. It’s like putting lipstick on a pig.

But it clearly won’t have the same issues. The issues of population and the lack of flexibility would definitely be lessened.

You’d think.

Until:

• each of those groups were manipulated to capacity,
• then internal group drama where someone gets kicked out, or another group wants to join,
• then forum complaints about no room or they’ve been pushed out, because
• we’ve seen, historically, that people want the easy face roll,
• then one or two dominant stacked teams roll over everyone else, (remember the matchmaking system assesses guilds as a means to determine matches, and keeps the most evenly matched together — week after week after week),
• then those one or two groups start complaining that there’s no fights, as they roll over unorganized pug groups …

And then guess what? Stale matches, predictable week after week matches, personal pride battles that satisfy a small minority of those in control of the dominant groups and leave everyone else out, and we are back to where we are now. Only worse. People just give up because the community they once had no longer exists to keep them tied to the game.

People are not thinking this through.

This model highly favours GvG groups. A demographic assessment needs to be done to determine if these groups are stable enough to sustain the model. Because once you eliminate the casuals, they won’t come back.

Edited for formatting.

Are you still referring to battle groups?

if so.. I think you missed the part about them working similar to servers, rather than guilds.

A battle group being “full” is no different to a server being full.

Kicking people out is moot. Players would not have that authority – just like they don’t with servers.

Essentially the concept evolved to “battle group = smaller server”.
And matches would be made of 3 factions. Each faction being 1-x battle groups.

The principle being a larger quantity of smaller chunks makes it easier to create more equally sized “whole objects” – or factions in this case.

Also because we would essentially have empty battle groups to join, it facilitates destacking from hugely stacked servers. – much lower, and rigid account cap – Perhaps with some kind of inactivity purge from battle groups ( performed systematically and impartially by anet) would be needed. – Also noting, you wouldn’t need to be in a battle group – unless actually going into wvw. At which point you’d have to pick a battle group before entering the maps.

The number of factions ( in multiples of 3) could scale to suit the current population – aiming to be near/just over map queues).
additionally battle groups could be reassigned as frequently as anet wants.

Something to note:
The phrases “battle group” and “faction” replacing “server” & “linked servers”(or not linked servers, it doesn’t really matter) respectively is simply to make it easier to communicate the proposed changes. You could call them “banana splits”, and “dessert tables” if you wanted.

Hopefully it ships with ( if not before) the second expansion.

The barricades are interesting. However you’d get as many as possible behind gates and around breakable walls. Also what kind of decay timer would these have since they cant really be used by players like a siege weapon can?

Explosive trap near ledges say north towers to alpine could be highly amusing.

I dont see this making the cut, but it would be amusing to have these.

Several things changed.
Asc armor needing much more leather.
many more wanting asc armor for raiding purposes.
Anet did a some not insignificant changes to drop rates & salvage rates around the time hot was released.
Also engineer, thief, and especially druid became very prevalent classes that people needed geared. Thus greater demand for leather based armour, and much greater demand to get leatherworker to 500.

Over time most of those sink holes will actually fill up, and supply will steadily build up for t6 leather. It does suck if you need t6 leather in the short & medium term however.

Things like mystic coins are a different kettle of fish. _ we can actually quantify that the supply went down.
There was also a huge demand spike with HoT – the specialization collection weapons – they require mystic weapons, and therefore mystic coins.
Also the hot legendaries added a significant sink hole for them.

Anet won’t budge on mystic coins for a simple reason: It’s a cash cow & statistics manipulation strategy.
How so?
They convince people with $$$ to burn to buy more accounts, and log into them daily.
More account sales = more $$$ for anet.
More daily logins means better statistics to BS investors/shareholders with.
Anet is letting players simply log into more accounts to feed the need for mystic coins.
There was even a reddit post for an application to allow people to log in with multiple accounts more easily a few days ago.
Yes, its extremely shady, and underhanded.

DeanBB.4268:

I will add that it is possible to take the Mystic Forge with you everywhere you go. Yes, it still takes time to toss runes and sigils in, but that gets them out of inventory at the cost of adding one more permanent item.

I have personal merchant and forge conduit.. I can’t imagine trying to play without them anymore to be honest.

core masteries – do a few easy dungeons? It’s not hard to find pugs for them these days.
Map complete gives a lot of exp too.

Bloodstone fen and ember bay will pour exp at you, just don’t focus on the masteries – focus on doing events/hearts and you’ll have a lot before you know it.

ultimately.. keyring would help immensely tbh.
Something like being able to “deposit runes” would be nice too.

astral force charging faster from damage, so we aren’t pigeonholed into staff so heavily?

Chad.6104:

I’m feeling dumb. How is getting salvageable items which you salvage for materisls or sell different from getting blues and greens which you salvage for materials or sell?

How about… instead of droping blues and greens, the mobs and bags actually droped mostly salvagable materials. They could ether be salvaged for materials or sold for gold
to the vendors or trade-post if you are full.

stackable loot..
edit: & fewer runes.

OriOri.8724:

Artemis Thuras.8795:

Xyonon.3987:

I also remember the days when ppl thought that each hit shows the number it actually just did. Love those warriors telling me they hit for 200k 100b back in those 4 war 1 mes cof runs.

off topic, but a surprising number of players still think cumulative damage skills do progressively higher dps.

Sort of related but I always thought that it was weird that the damage shown was a cumulative value. I’ve always associated floating damage numbers with the amount of damage that one hit did, and here its backwards, but only for a select few cumulative damage skills. I kinda wish we had the option to turn that off and just see the raw damage from each hit on our screen

yup. No cumulative damage numbers at all would be fine. Standardisation is always going to be simpler for people to understand..

Josh Davis.6015:

Hi all,

I’d like to take a moment to address some of the concerns posted since last Friday regarding the possibility of solo/duo queue.

The poll we’ll be running this week will simply ask if we should trial a solo/duo queue system during season 5. Assuming the poll passes and Season 5 is solo/duo only, we’ll monitor feedback throughout the season and then run another poll at the end of S5 to ask folks if they’d like to see the change become permanent.

“But Josh, what about people that like to queue as premades, do guild missions, etc?” An overwhelming majority of players already play as solo/duo in leagues, but that doesn’t mean we’re not thinking about the groups and the guilds. That said, unranked arena will continue to accommodate roster sizes of up to 5. Guild missions will still be able to be completed in unranked arena. Assuming the post-season 5 permanence poll passes, we’ll evaluate the need for another environment where teams can compete (based on your feedback).

Hopefully that answers some of your questions!

in other words " we realise remove the solo and team queue options may have been a mistake" – good to see that you’ve picked up on that finally.

edit: as others have said.. just leave it as solo or team. don’t mess about with “solo AND duo”.

RNG clusters really badly.

Sooner or later you’ll get like 5 in a single week.

Thelgar.7214:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Thelgar.7214:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Thelgar.7214:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Now, what people are describing as the negatives to having a system like Battlegroups or alliances, I see is already in play. What people describe as Battlegroups is largely responsible for why ArenaNet can never solve these balancing issues given this current system. They have no way to quantify or even analyze these groups and their limitation based off formula and numbers.

Those things that are negatives which are already in play are limited. Battlegroups remove the limitations, making it worse. You’re arguing that these groups of people are already negatively affecting the game, so they should be given the ability to do so even more.

No, It’s like you didn’t read. Battlegroups help Arena Net balance what we have. They help improve on the negatives things people like yourself believe only select few are responsible for when in actuality everyone is. The issue is not with the community. The community is acting like mankind acts. Mankind organizes and communicates. This is nothing different than the server communities that even yourself is apart of.

I read. You’re making the point. The server leadership will abuse battlegroups the same way they’ve abused the existing structure to try to exclude people who don’t agree with them. The difference is with battlegroups they would have a greater ability to do so. They’ve proven they’ll abuse that, so they shouldn’t be given more ability to do so.

And, you’re blaming the entire community for the types of things you’ve been involved with. And you know that isn’t true. Server leadership and war councils regularly act in secret and mislead the communities about what they’re doing and the reasons for it. It is the fault of a few that we are where we are now. And you’re the poster boy for those few.

No you are ignorant to the maximum level. But, I will let you be that way. You can believe what you want but my examples make it perfectly clear. You choose to be blind as you always are.

Your examples make it perfectly clear you’re asking Anet to allow you and people like you greater ability to do the same type of damage you’ve been doing to the game mode and communities that you have been. I’m certainly not ignorant of those things, and I’ve been able to see them quite well. I’ve even been able to see to read you bragging about them at the time you did them.

Didn’t the idea evolve to battle groups behaving less like guilds, more like servers, where the limits would be much lower – and alliances formed by matchmaking?
Which could be as often as weekly?

Making the issues like buying guilds, and bandwagoning largely pointless.

That does raise the issue of anets matchmaking skills – but thats another team and another topic.

Doesn’t it somewhat render your concerns no longer applicable?

I wouldn’t mind seeing it shift in the new hot/ls maps.
The vanilla mobs could carry on dropping gear as is.

Would alleviate azure fang’s concern. – gear them up while mapping/doing dungeons?

Also since hot & beyond is targeted at people who are already level 80, and typically in at least rare, if not exotic/asc gear) the drops are mostly getting salvaged anyway.

inb4 “stop exploiting abml”. – it’s a nice qol improvement across the maps, not just there.

It’s quite a lot of work to put in retroactively I suspect – but for future content, sure, why not? It sounds good to me.

This again?

unlocking eternity unlocks all the preceding skins.
Including twilight,sunrise,dusk,dawn etc.

edit: Throwing a weapon in the forge unlocks the skin.
So forging eternity will by rules of the mf, unlock twilight & sunrise for you.

Xyonon.3987:

I also remember the days when ppl thought that each hit shows the number it actually just did. Love those warriors telling me they hit for 200k 100b back in those 4 war 1 mes cof runs.

off topic, but a surprising number of players still think cumulative damage skills do progressively higher dps.

As a druid I need ( and this is ONLY for raids mind you, not wvw, not general pve, not dungeons, not fractals..)

At least 3 sets of gear:
a magi/ pure heal armour set. + trinkets. 12 items
a zerker armour set. + trinkets. 12 items
a condi armour set. + trinkets. 12 items

Several staves, a sword/axe set, a warhorn, an axe/torch set. at least 7 more items. More if you have some different sigil combinations.

Not counting any consumables. That’s already 43 items. That I would use on a weekly basis. These are not items I can just destroy when not in use.

There is also the possibility of a minstrels gear set for tanking as druid. adding at least 12-14 more items.

It’s not hoarding when its gear one uses.

Telling people they need to stop hoarding is honestly starting to sound abusive to me tbh.
It’s almost “how dare you have that much gear!?”

Diku.2546:

Xenesis.6389:

About the only thing they can do to help lessen the effect of population sways is drawing active players out of a bigger pool of players, rather than the limited amount provided by a single server. Which is kind of what they are trying to do with the links, providing sides with a bigger pool of active players. But as we know with this game, coverage is still what wins you the week.

There’s something else that can be done…imho

I agree with what you explained…we can’t prevent people from stacking servers & coverage typically wins the war.

So…Let them stack.

However, the current Tier based design structure should be removed to use these stacked servers in a positive way.

The game mode should be re-designed with a Long Term focus that makes Any Higher Ranked Server be the target of Any Lower Ranked Server…imho

Removing the Tier structure also allows all players to attack any Server.

so every map has like.. 12/15 spawns?

You can only attack players/objectives of servers higher than you?
So the top server would be able to attack.. nothing & no one..

That would kill wvw within a day of it being patched in.
As in even the necromancers wouldn’t be able to reanimate it. Not even dhuum could reanimate that.

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Artemis Thuras.8795:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Grim West.3194:

Artemis Thuras.8795:

More, smaller “worlds”, which would of course be easier with matchmaking.
Problems are heavily stacked servers.. what incentives would there be to destack from servers like BG?

As long as ANET doesn’t open up BG for transfers for a very extended period of time (a year or more) then it will destack naturally through attrition. ANET will have to stick with it though. Even opening it up for a short period allows the bandwagoners to jump to the easy mode blobship.

Attrition to any community is a negative at this point in the game. BG’s attrition would be on the level of them just stopping WvW all together. Yet, them stopping WvW isn’t changing the server population. They aren’t leaving, they just don’t play. In fact they will play when there is a reason to play. This is why people use the term hibernate. It was first used for BG but they aren’t the only ones that follow this pattern.

When a server hibernates their server status is effected and they can indeed still gain more overall population. When the server wakes up, they have more than they had previously. BG is the last of it’s kind. They are the last standing Tier 1 server before any of this mess started to happen. JQ would have been in the same boat if it were not for the exodus beforehand. Never the less BG’s community has no reason to do anything beyond what they’ve been doing and their doing it while everyone else is losing and gaining members. They are the product of a prior system design.

Hibernation was the concern I had.

I suppose battle groups ( not in the way previously discussed) could work. Straight out replacement to current servers. – Essentially servers, by another name, and smaller population caps.
Plug those straight into the “server-linking” process in place of servers..

Something like seasonal sign up may be worth mixing into the idea.
RIP transfer gem revenue though. Which will impact design decisions somewhere along the way.

I voted for server-links thinking they were going to add battlegroups on top of server-links in a well defined system. I assumed the information I received on battlegroups were not finished and server links were simply going to end with them merging server and preparation for battlegroups. I thought with this in mind the game state was looking to be going in the right direction. That is until Tyler said Server links were to replace any other system they had in mind.

The gem thing from all this madness is swaying me to believe ArenaNet is doing this for the money. This is coming from someone really likes the company. I hope I’m wrong.

The mode still has dev attention, so lets not rule out further iterations yet.

But yeah, currently it does look like a cash cow.

Living story 2 & 3 ( whatever you don’t have unlocked), a copper fed salvage kit should be pretty much top of the shopping list.

After that, I’d recommend things like bank tabs/bag slots. Shared inventory slots are nice, but really expensive.
Infinite gathering tools aren’t bad – mostly convenience, watchwork pick aside.
royal terrace style perma pass isn’t bad either. Easy access to a “base of operations” that has less running to vendors/crafting stations.
Oh, storage expanders! they are nice once you have a lot of materials stockpiled.

Ultimately: I’d say don’t be too rushed to spend them. Find where your pain points are and get convenience items to alleviate.

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Grim West.3194:

Artemis Thuras.8795:

More, smaller “worlds”, which would of course be easier with matchmaking.
Problems are heavily stacked servers.. what incentives would there be to destack from servers like BG?

As long as ANET doesn’t open up BG for transfers for a very extended period of time (a year or more) then it will destack naturally through attrition. ANET will have to stick with it though. Even opening it up for a short period allows the bandwagoners to jump to the easy mode blobship.

Attrition to any community is a negative at this point in the game. BG’s attrition would be on the level of them just stopping WvW all together. Yet, them stopping WvW isn’t changing the server population. They aren’t leaving, they just don’t play. In fact they will play when there is a reason to play. This is why people use the term hibernate. It was first used for BG but they aren’t the only ones that follow this pattern.

When a server hibernates their server status is effected and they can indeed still gain more overall population. When the server wakes up, they have more than they had previously. BG is the last of it’s kind. They are the last standing Tier 1 server before any of this mess started to happen. JQ would have been in the same boat if it were not for the exodus beforehand. Never the less BG’s community has no reason to do anything beyond what they’ve been doing and their doing it while everyone else is losing and gaining members. They are the product of a prior system design.

Hibernation was the concern I had.

I suppose battle groups ( not in the way previously discussed) could work. Straight out replacement to current servers. – Essentially servers, by another name, and smaller population caps.
Plug those straight into the “server-linking” process in place of servers..

Something like seasonal sign up may be worth mixing into the idea.
RIP transfer gem revenue though. Which will impact design decisions somewhere along the way.

I’ve had it fail when running too far ahead and killing them before brahm points them out to you.

OriOri.8724:

Artemis Thuras.8795:

Illconceived Was Na.9781:

Artemis Thuras.8795:

Behellagh.1468:

Artemis Thuras.8795:

Behellagh.1468:

Tornupto.2304:

I always carry 3 Armorsets, 3 sets of trinkets, ~20 Weapons, bufffood (~8-10) and some other items around. Doing dungeons or even normal open world events can result in a full bag. Sometimes you even carry some materials because your vault is full and so on…
In times where i cleaned my bag completely of any mats, exos and whatever doesn’t have to be there i have like 40 free inventory slots. Thats not that much.

This isn’t Dark Souls or The Witcher. This is a problem of your own making because you don’t want to stop at a bank to swap gear.

What if bank tabs are full?
How is having more bank tabs any different?

Cause the devs decided that 160 slots plus 14 shared on a character should be enough for anybody and a player needs to learn to manage it.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/arbitrary?s=t

Yes, it’s arbitrary — any choice is ultimately meaningless relative to anyone’s idea of how much storage is ‘enough’.

But it’s always going to be some number, so the question is whether the amount should be arbitrarily increased, despite the fact that there are diminishing returns to the publishers and the players.

As I’ve argued, those who don’t have enough room with the existing options are far, far better off working on learning new techniques to manage their inventory. Adding 20 or 40 slots will only postpone them dealing with the identical issues, and only do so for a short time.

While I’m not disagreeing with you. I also don’t see anyone complaining about more slots being an option.

However there is another trail of thought:
Anet is handing out too much junk, like the books in bloodstone fen.
All the different keys. Crafting items with no slot ( tenebrous crystals spring to mind).

This is certainly true, and a key ring along with adding all crafting materials to the materials storage would help out immensely. But fundamentally it doesn’t change the fact that some people are just hoarders and giving them more slots will not solve their problems

Why does it need to solve anything?

Illconceived Was Na.9781:

Artemis Thuras.8795:

Behellagh.1468:

Artemis Thuras.8795:

Behellagh.1468:

Tornupto.2304:

I always carry 3 Armorsets, 3 sets of trinkets, ~20 Weapons, bufffood (~8-10) and some other items around. Doing dungeons or even normal open world events can result in a full bag. Sometimes you even carry some materials because your vault is full and so on…
In times where i cleaned my bag completely of any mats, exos and whatever doesn’t have to be there i have like 40 free inventory slots. Thats not that much.

This isn’t Dark Souls or The Witcher. This is a problem of your own making because you don’t want to stop at a bank to swap gear.

What if bank tabs are full?
How is having more bank tabs any different?

Cause the devs decided that 160 slots plus 14 shared on a character should be enough for anybody and a player needs to learn to manage it.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/arbitrary?s=t

Yes, it’s arbitrary — any choice is ultimately meaningless relative to anyone’s idea of how much storage is ‘enough’.

But it’s always going to be some number, so the question is whether the amount should be arbitrarily increased, despite the fact that there are diminishing returns to the publishers and the players.

As I’ve argued, those who don’t have enough room with the existing options are far, far better off working on learning new techniques to manage their inventory. Adding 20 or 40 slots will only postpone them dealing with the identical issues, and only do so for a short time.

While I’m not disagreeing with you. I also don’t see anyone complaining about more slots being an option.

However there is another trail of thought:
Anet is handing out too much junk, like the books in bloodstone fen.
All the different keys. Crafting items with no slot ( tenebrous crystals spring to mind).

zxstanyxz.8769:

Artemis Thuras.8795:

Behellagh.1468:

Artemis Thuras.8795:

Behellagh.1468:

Tornupto.2304:

I always carry 3 Armorsets, 3 sets of trinkets, ~20 Weapons, bufffood (~8-10) and some other items around. Doing dungeons or even normal open world events can result in a full bag. Sometimes you even carry some materials because your vault is full and so on…
In times where i cleaned my bag completely of any mats, exos and whatever doesn’t have to be there i have like 40 free inventory slots. Thats not that much.

This isn’t Dark Souls or The Witcher. This is a problem of your own making because you don’t want to stop at a bank to swap gear.

What if bank tabs are full?
How is having more bank tabs any different?

Cause the devs decided that 160 slots plus 14 shared on a character should be enough for anybody and a player needs to learn to manage it.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/arbitrary?s=t

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/limited?s=t
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/resources?s=t

http://www.mkomo.com/cost-per-gigabyte-update

edit:

Tornupto.2304:

Conncept.7638:

Why on earth would you carry around several sets of gear for two different game modes, which you cannot play simultaneously and cannot play without switching maps in the first place? Swap the gear out from your bank, and buy more bank slots, like everyone else does. It takes one more map swap and saves you several bags worth of inventory space.

So if i’m waiting for ebg to get ready i should do nothing? And if it’s ready go to my bank first and switch stuff arround? No thanks.
I have all banktabs filled with different things including ascended gear boxes, some things like mauldrey, mats that don’t find any place in my vault and some other stuff.
btw there are no more banktabs i could buy and why do you argue against more inventory slots with “buy more bank slots”? Thats just stupid
2nd i won’t like to run to my bank in the mid of a raid or fractal run just because i need another weapon now. The group would be upset (i would be upset too if someone has to leave several times a run just to swap gear).
You don’t have the right to tell me what i have to do with my inventory. You might not need more space because you run the same gear for every enemy even if its suboptimal like hell. I switch gear every time i think it’s needed and that can also happen while doing LS or something like that. There you can’t just port to another map to get your stuff.

This.

The funny thing is I’m playing devils advocate here since I’m having no trouble with 160 slots, or less. I just have not seen a single good reason not to raise it posted.
And I can think of 1 or 2 very good reasons not to add more bag slots ( neither of which has been mentioned at all).

Conncept.7638:

Tornupto.2304:

I always carry 3 Armorsets, 3 sets of trinkets, ~20 Weapons, bufffood (~8-10) and some other items around. Doing dungeons or even normal open world events can result in a full bag. Sometimes you even carry some materials because your vault is full and so on…
In times where i cleaned my bag completely of any mats, exos and whatever doesn’t have to be there i have like 40 free inventory slots. Thats not that much.

Good crap why!? A power set covers 90% of the games content, a condition set another 9.9% and then that last 0.1% is the content you actually need tanking and healing for. You don’t need more bag slots you need to stop being a hoarder.

But I would parrot what was said above and add to it, we need a keyring, and a build-swap menu. Though honestly the second might be redundant if ANet is insistent on dodge-or-die outside of raids and trinity within. What’s the point of a build system when only one build works consistently for nearly all content?

What if they want a marauder set for wvw?
Or a trailblazer set for wvw?
Or a zerk & viper set for pve?
What if they want a set of toughness trinkets for raid tanking?

3-4 sets of gear, with weapon sets to match is not unreasonable.

Behellagh.1468:

Artemis Thuras.8795:

Behellagh.1468:

Tornupto.2304:

I always carry 3 Armorsets, 3 sets of trinkets, ~20 Weapons, bufffood (~8-10) and some other items around. Doing dungeons or even normal open world events can result in a full bag. Sometimes you even carry some materials because your vault is full and so on…
In times where i cleaned my bag completely of any mats, exos and whatever doesn’t have to be there i have like 40 free inventory slots. Thats not that much.

This isn’t Dark Souls or The Witcher. This is a problem of your own making because you don’t want to stop at a bank to swap gear.

What if bank tabs are full?
How is having more bank tabs any different?

Cause the devs decided that 160 slots plus 14 shared on a character should be enough for anybody and a player needs to learn to manage it.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/arbitrary?s=t

Ryudnard.2587:

Artemis Thuras.8795:

A week before gw2: heart of flames gets announced, including heart of thorns for free.

HoF is the new expansion? When?

Don’t take that seriously..

no one besides anet has “deets”. At best they are rumours, hearsay.
You’ll know when the rest of us do if anything is being balanced.

Behellagh.1468:

Tornupto.2304:

I always carry 3 Armorsets, 3 sets of trinkets, ~20 Weapons, bufffood (~8-10) and some other items around. Doing dungeons or even normal open world events can result in a full bag. Sometimes you even carry some materials because your vault is full and so on…
In times where i cleaned my bag completely of any mats, exos and whatever doesn’t have to be there i have like 40 free inventory slots. Thats not that much.

This isn’t Dark Souls or The Witcher. This is a problem of your own making because you don’t want to stop at a bank to swap gear.

What if bank tabs are full?
How is having more bank tabs any different?

A week before gw2: heart of flames gets announced, including heart of thorns for free.

Yuiii.1278:

PUG druid is terrible…YOU DON’T WANT A DRUID IN PUGS. 99.99% of the druids I pug with are bearbow and stay far pew pew pew with signets.

terrible druid is terrible.
Technically unrelated to being a pug or not.
A competent druid (helps) makes it faceroll.

In all honestly.. Were I the one making the decisions..
(also keep in mind we know there will be a season 5, possibly more)
I’d just leave the achievements there for completion during seasons.

That brings it in line with the fotm backpack achievements.

I’m not entirely sure what anet plans.. I’ve heard rumours of a new backpack every year for pvp ( seems like a lot of effort, and unfair for people who don’t like pvp as much as other game modes, wvw has 0 legendary backpacks..).
There’s also the talk of “a different way to get it” – I don’t even understand why it needs to be a different way, but that’s been floating around for a while so.. who knows?
Hopefully it’ll be ways to acquire the 4 gifts from each tier of achievements or something if it is a completely alternate method ( say a bunch of reward tracks).