Called it. Didn’t expect the margin to be this decisive though.
I did not know of this change, Anet needs a better way of talking to the gamers who have no time to read the forums, some of these changes should be mailed to gamers in a weekly in game mail, or some type of prompt on screen about future changes..
I actually laughed. No time to read long patch notes, but plenty of time to grind a legendary.
Except when that grind involves a few hours of repairing walls for participation credit.
These people are actually hilarious
Should be a toggle at most.
I liked seeing the badges, It gave me an idea of the skill level of players around me.Except as has been stated it says nothing about a players skill.
That assertion is an opinion only.
Playing OCX on a T3 server that isn’t SoS, there’s few enough players around me that I know their skill levels because I recognise them all. It always made me laugh which ones made legendary. They weren’t the dangerous ones.
“Most” did not vote for 1 month rotations. Most voted for more than 1 month, they just didn’t agree on how much more.
They made the right decision. 1 month was the wrong decision. End of story.
How it was presented is irrelevant, a bad decision is a bad decision.
The numbers split is pretty easy to interpret. 38.1% voted for less than two months, 54% voted for more.
It’s not the 15.9% that beat out 38.1%, it’s that and the 54% combined.
This wasn’t a poll asking for your favourite flavour. Options are comparable here. If 61.9% of voters have voted for longer than a month, a month is too short.
Suppose they did pick 1 month – has it occurred to you that the 62% (which is an actual majority… just in case there’s any confusion about that…) who voted for a longer period might not be particularly happy with that?
Why should they make an obviously bad decision just because you misinterpreted the poll?
This was stated to be a simple majority poll, the majority voted for 1 month
Simple majority means >50%, which the 1-month option didn’t reach. That kind of renders the rest of your post meaningless
If the voters around the country understand as little about percentages as they do here, they deserve whatever president they get.
38% is not a majority.
2 months was, in fact, on the poll.
Most players voted either 1 or 3 months.
And that’s why the final decision was in the middle.
If that was implemented, I’d be leaving dead supervisors everywhere
Nah, lets weight it by number of link changes in a year (i.e. 12/link duration)
(35.8%=12, 26.9%=4, 14.9%=6, 10.6%=2, 6.9%=ignore, 4.9%=3)
That averages to a preference for 7.1 link changes per year or a change every 1.7
months, or approximately every 7 weeks.Not sure they’d look it that way, but you may be close… I’m thinking they’ll take the weighted average which is ~2.46 and based on the poll options choose 2 months (the closest match).
It does look like a tidy compromise between the two most popular options. But the other possibility is they weigh developer preference into the results and go 3.
I think the main problem with LA is that the markets and crafting area where people spend most of their time don’t look much like a city.
The waterfront and bridges are excellent, as is the Commodore’s Quarter. There are surprisingly few MMO cities that have a credible answer to the question “where do all the citizens live?”
LA is now among them, joining only DR, Ebonhawke and Hoelbrak in GW2. The charr actually have more living spaces in their outposts than in the Black Citadel, and I get the impression asura live in their labs.
Which exist in Minecraft, but not GW2. So, salvaging still needed.
The idea of filling in NPCs when there aren’t enough players always seemed a bit too sketchy for much of the game, but for open-world PvE I think it makes perfect sense. The fact is, there are a lot of meta-events right now and not always enough players to succeed without some help.
What needs to be avoided, though, is any situation where having more players join in makes success less likely.
A fairly simple approach would be to allow players to spawn personal story characters to make up the minimum number of participants for an event, restricted to the event bounds and progressively despawning as real players appear. They’d follow the player who spawned them and could be set to stand their ground by interact prompt.
It would still be nearly impossible to succeed a Dragon’s Stand map using these, but it might reduce the minimum number of real players to something like 15 instead of 40-50.
(edited by Ben K.6238)
The monthly option is leading, but there’s actually more votes for same or longer duration links. Think we’re more likely to see a compromise on this one (either 2 or 3 months).
Personally my main reasons for favouring a shorter linking duration are discouraging bandwagoning and reducing the likelihood of tier locking. Both are already causing problems in NA servers.
(edited by Ben K.6238)
The people who did care about such things left, because putting effort into the WvW metagame has been fruitless for nearly 4 years.
So it’s not that surprising that a lot of the remaining players prefer either karma training or smashing other players with as little impediment as possible. Neither of those two has really gone away, but they too have faded due to bandwagoning and build power creep.
People use EotM because they’re not limited to players in their current (possibly dead) matchup.
That said, I have no idea where the needle is (don’t go there much). Is that the NE, NW or south tower?
You can’t clear damage from a zerker before it takes effect.
Or just make the night a little bit darker
… a suggestion I made about 2 years ago…
Agreed. If we need an icon to know whether it’s night, it’s not night enough.
ANet isn’t doing a “posture fix”, the player base is not guaranteed to increase by doing so (it may actually decrease), and the clipping problems would not be affected.
SoS OCX is still far stronger than anything else in the tier. That’s the reason it always has an outmatched NA.
We haven’t had a single rotation yet, which is a bit of a problem because we can’t tell how the long-term effects of world linking will play out until we do.
In theory players might not be so inclined to bandwagon to linked servers when they’ll have to shift every three months, but when the transfer fee is that low they might just do it anyway.
Moving NA T8 server links to the T4+5 group (or establishing a separate T5) might be the way to go.
Can I get an AoE decline to go with that? It’s already annoying enough when I’m running with a separate squad or party.
Honestly perplexity isn’t as bad as it once was, purely because it’s been overtaken by the HoT power creep. I can’t think of a single build I’ve encountered recently where perplexity runes alone made it work.
Dire isn’t an issue at all anymore – toughness and vit are just about dump stats. If you don’t have condi clear and regen it doesn’t make any difference how much HP and armour you have anymore.
Regent River Valley, perhaps with Fort Ranik as the garrison.
Shing Jea sounds great, but it would be a second Alpine – I’d rather have the existing Alpine given a bit of a facelift to match the Shing Jea theme.
The results turned out more mixed than we think will be good for the future health of the game. For that reason we are going to run a “Remove Desert Borderlands?” poll first and then run a variation of this poll again. The updated poll will be reworded for clarification due to large amounts of feedback that many of the ‘No’ votes were cast with a misunderstanding of what they meant.
Better to save the time and just run both at once – no sense holding up development work for another two weeks while you wait for the results to come in.
Just make it clear what people are voting for, and it’ll be fine -
Do you want to see the Desert Borderland removed from rotation?
- Yes, I want to see it removed permanently
- Yes, I would like it to return to beta
- No, I want to see further development on live servers
- No, I would like it to return as it is
If the Desert Borderland remains in rotation, how would you like it to be included?
- All borderlands, time rotation (3 months Desert, 3 months Alpine)
- 2 borderlands Desert, 1 borderland Alpine
- 1 borderland Desert, 2 borderlands Alpine
(Write-in) Is it more important to you that borderland choices be balanced or diverse?
I don’t understand how “you people” can’t compromise. Everything has to be your way. There are other people who play this game and do not share your opinion.
You mean 5% of the wvw population that actually liked DBL ?
At least 30% actually. Poll coming up in two weeks. Watch and learn.
It’s the old-fashioned debating strategy of argumentum ex anum.
You can look at the current poll results to see the number who prefer DBL over ABL is not that small.I voted for 2 alps 1 desert, and I know that my voting wasn’t influenced by map preference and more by a vague sense of balance/fairness.
Basically I don’t think you can appropriate that voting split (whatever the split happens to be) as a sign of map preferences. Trying to seems disingenuous.
You can fairly safely assume that the 13% of players voting for 2 DBLs prefer it to Alpine. The rest of the poll options don’t imply anything, but that gives you a minimum large enough to reveal this “no-one wants to see DBL” tripe for what it is.
The other thing they ended up doing in GW1 was running events promoting one game mode during a certain week. Player base was dwindling and there were a huge number of PvP modes competing for attention.
I think they’re keen to avoid doing that in GW2 – possibly a little too keen. One of the advantages of the WvW context is it doesn’t have to play exactly the same from one map to another, from one week to the next. PvE world has different meta events for each map. WvW has… potential for something else?
They actually did make some changes already, but these muppets wouldn’t be caught looking.
Oddly, I prefer the desert landscape despite never having lived anywhere near one. But it’s not just the theme that I prefer in DBL, it’s the entire layout (aside from the glitchy bits).
It is possible to use Chinese characters on NA/EU servers, they’re just not very reliable. The traditional character set (Taiwan, HK, SG, Malaysia) is better supported than simplified (PRC).
It’s the old-fashioned debating strategy of argumentum ex anum.
You can look at the current poll results to see the number who prefer DBL over ABL is not that small.
Actually kind of glad the option for using all of the old alpine BLs permanently isn’t in the poll.
There is an existing minority who do prefer the desert map. There would still be two ABLs + EB for those who refuse to fight on it. For those who’d rather kill off all variety just because they don’t like it, I have three words:
Go kitten yourselves.
GW3? Possibly. The suggestion is an entirely new game, that’s the issue – this could take 2-3 years to build. I like the idea of open-world PvP, but I’m not sure GW2 can really support a whole new worldmap with mixed PvP at this stage.
Just bad luck I think. Other pairings have worked much better.
EotM in particular is luck. ANet doesn’t choose the matchups there, it’s partly server rankings and mostly random numbers. (Choosing the matchups would just lead to even more whining.)
Appreciate the thought, but it turns out people really, really hate having their freedom of movement impaired by the towers. If you want them to have some sort of relevance to the rest of the map, it should be something that makes it easier to launch an attack on a neighbouring keep. This doesn’t have to mean trebuchets, it could be mercenaries or environmental weapons. But importantly it should be possible to counter or circumvent, which isn’t an option with environmental effects.
QoL change – Remove the Crafting Tables from Borders so those cheap PvE players eager to not waste 1s stop using the WvW as free bank/free crafting TELEPORT.
Every WvW player enters wvw already stocked on crafted consumables so those are not needed and serve as QUEUE creating tool – specially now that we have World Linking.
Thank you.
Get rid of the crafting tables, sure. But please dont get rid of the bank or the trading post! There are so many times we use those items because we are either changing our builds around last minute based on core comp of group, or we are changing up our food, ran out of catas/rams/ac, etc.
The crafting tables are there so WvW players have somewhere to craft without leaving for PvE. They’re also more conveniently spaced so it’s not such a faff getting the pieces together.
They don’t have any impact on queues, because like everyone else, crafters get locked out, and people who only use WvW for crafting aren’t going to be in there for hours at a time.
Plus the borderlands have never been as popular to begin with. Might see a blip when Alpine comes back, but that will lose interest even faster.
Just saying, the gap between tiers in NA is ENTIRELY FAULT of players. EU has had the same system and there have never been such big difference.
No, it hasn’t had the same system. There’s one very important difference.
If everyone in Europe spoke the same language, you’d see the same thing happening there.
Why leave team chat alone? It’s already identical to map chat in WvW.
Only if they were hosted on the NA data centre, otherwise I’d skip WvW until it got changed back. 250 ping is enough of a disadvantage already
Speaking across maps is not the same as speaking across servers. This option is meant to co-ordinate between players for the same server on different maps.
Think you’ll find ET isn’t the reason it’s queued. You’d be lucky to see them
Well, we’ve had 3 1/2 good(ish) years of a GW version without glowstick hands. Couldn’t last forever.
For the first few months after release, you could make buckets of gold salvaging brown dyes like this. The gap narrowed to almost nothing so I moved on.
Now that scribing has become popular again it may be worth a look.
(Yes, it’s probably better for the game when everyone becomes aware of this stuff… but I prefer to keep quiet about them to make a few gold while it lasts. The secret inevitably leaks out, and that’s why it doesn’t pay to be too greedy with the sell prices.)
(edited by Ben K.6238)
Wait, did you seriously just say mesmer was more powerful than reaper?
If there’s a real problem with siege effectiveness, then the siege should be adjusted. Basing their damage on player condition damage means if you’re not running a condi build, you shouldn’t be on siege. Which is ridiculous.
They listened to my proposal to offer PvP reward tracks in WvW before I actually proposed it. I grow suspicious
Got that in a month after HoT just farming flax. Can’t see the problem
Population is an exponential curve, however. SBI + CD still won’t be competitive against any of T1/2 and barely T3 before the merge. After? Welcome to the bottom tier.