Guild Wars 2

GS simply does not make sense to use while stacking since its best utility is for kiting and it does the greatest damage at max range.

One thing to keep in mind for Blurred Frenzy is that you will lose the full length of its evade if you cancel your animation, this can be a mistake. Watch the bosses and don’t use Blurred Frenzy until you need the 2.5s evade.

Guess Anet is going to have to pour another year’s effort into revamping the new player experience since it looks like one guy missed the boat.

I acquired my Razer Naga 2014 in March 2014, and haven’t had any hardware issues with it to date. The feel is great, nice mechanical response on the buttons, very smooth and not bulky, a larger mouse wouldn’t do for me. I did end up changing my setup this month, I find it hard to use all 12 thumb buttons effectively, and I decided that it wasn’t necessary anyways. The top 3 are now for targeting functions and the next 6 are now for weapon and profession skills, with the remaining weapon/utilities on the keyboard. I like the tilt wheel for dodge and heal.

I think it just depends on how each mouse feels to you, since they share most features.

I just made 5 new characters on an alt account this month. Using no special characters, 3 of them were a single or compound word and 4 of the names had specific references.

Prime names were taken a long time ago but there’s plenty others to be had.

Like others said, character names are worldwide so there’s no point switching servers to try a name again.

coglin.1867:

I’d your melting on siege, you need to talk to your team. If they are no blasting waters and giving you protection and condi clearing, that’s not A nets fault.

The whole point is that you should be able to use defensive siege even if you are totally outnumbered by your opponent. In that case getting heals, boons, and condi clears from allies isn’t possible.

edit:

Here’s a thought: Why not introduce a sort of “Iron Hide” for defensive siege? Make this only active inside an objective which your server controls, and provide a HP buff to defensive siege that is built with blueprints as well.

Stark.1350:

Maybe even limit two rams per gate.

Hm, I think a cap of two golems/rams per gate would do wonders. That way smaller teams could still hit objectives, while zergs would be at the very least slowed down. If zergs were serious about taking a fortified keep, they’d have to use long-range siege or hit multiple gates, and this would reward much more intelligent and coordinated commanding.

(Though probably the easiest way to fix golems is to make them cost at least twice as much supply and make them automatically despawn 1-2 hours after being created with no possibility for refresh)

Don’t worry about dying. If you are uplevel, you probably can’t win a 1v1, but that’s not terribly important. There are lots of other useful things you can do. I’ve got plenty of experience but get wrecked all the time when roaming, it just doesn’t stop me.

Glad to hear that you’re present, I understand you can’t be everywhere at once but I’m sure you’ll get some good work done.

It’s not PvE world completion, it’s PvE and WvW completion. There are already 5 PvE map completion achievements, and if all you do is PvE then you can have them.

If you want to get the Hero achievement and title for PvE and WvW exploration, then you have to complete all those maps. If you actually tried it, instead of just giving up because you’re afraid to do something different, you’d find out that it’s really not that hard. There are other titles that are very difficult for some players to get, that doesn’t mean there should be an easy mode introduced for those titles.

You can’t change WvW servers for free because then people would just swap over to mess up their enemies’ servers, or tour around servers excessively which would make WvW server populations and their rankings even more unstable.

PvE was changed so that you were no longer restricted to your server with the introduction of megaservers earlier this year. Guild influence and upgrades used to be tied to specific servers, that’s also no longer the case. We now have guilds that can function across servers in PvE, but not in WvW. There was never a point where they could function across servers in WvW, so the change has been towards greater freedom in guild membership, but there is still that necessary restriction.

CajunSinjin.3410:

I understand the need to protect the WvW nature but don’t you agree that I should be able to WvW with my guildmates?

Yes and yes, but what solution do you suggest that would maintain the integrity of WvW? If you make it so that guild membership decides your WvW alignment, you would have to make guild membership more restrictive (i.e. 1 guild / account, have to pay or wait to switch guilds). This isn’t optimal because even more people would be impacted!

I think you’ve recognized by now that there is a good reason why you can’t get what you want, so if you keep asking for it you’ll just baffle and frustrate everyone.

I heard that there are guilds that organize to make EotM a karma train across all 3 colours and will have friendly scouts to warn their zergs about defenders while harassing said defenders.

I haven’t seen this myself since I never enter EotM, but if it’s this bad they should just nuke down the rewards from that map. They could take punitive actions against the abusive players, but that’s just treating the symptoms. A map where players have conflicting goals but aren’t on opposing teams inevitably leads to a toxic environment.

Still waiting on an answer… the other PPK questions got a pretty prompt response.

Please address the question, which has to do specifically with the upcoming changes. Don’t use this thread as a platform for ideas you have promoted elsewhere.

Jski.6180:

Any way the kill for points effectively ends karam trains for having an effect on the outcome of the match up passive points gain from holding points for ppt even taking keep etc.. in the EotM will not match up to ppk.

So try to think of EotM for the pvp players who like to WvW but do not like to pve but still needs gold. This should be a boon for though types of players.

I’m not sure what you are talking about in the first sentence, you need to be clearer. If you are talking about points in EotM I don’t think anyone cares about that. If you are talking about rewards in EotM, the PPK change doesn’t affect that.

If you are talking about karma trains in WvW, those only really happen when one side is heavily outnumbered. In that case, there are very few kills if any for the outnumbered side so karma-training doesn’t cost much in terms of points.

The only reasonable thing I can imagine you are suggesting here is that PPK will encourage more cautious play and therefore less flipping in WvW, which means fewer incentives for zerg-style players, encouraging them to enter EotM. You then say that we should keep the bonuses for these players when they enter EotM because they need to earn gold.

The whole idea that we need a separate WvW-light mode where those players can earn gold is ridiculous. If they want to play WvW they should be able to earn gold doing so. While it might be harder to earn gold in WvW compared to other game modes, I don’t see how adding a bonus for a map that clearly isn’t WvW (because it isn’t played like a WvW map) helps at all.

I’m wondering if the WvW bonuses (experience, magic find, WXP) will be applied exclusively to the 4 “competitive” WvW maps, and not EotM.

I think a lot of WvW players would prefer there be no bonus to EotM, since we’d like this to be an opportunity to get more people into our community, rather than just another excuse to karma train on the game’s most broken map.

If someone presses alt-f4 in combat before they are fully dead, does your server still get the extra stomp point for the kill or are you denied the point?

What about the point rewarded for kills with the Sneak Attack event?

I think it’s fair to reward the point automatically, if not two points simply to discourage it.

Rentapest.6503:

I don’t care what people think or say just because I have the brains and brawn to come on here and voice my opinion about something nobody wants to discuss.

Brains and brawn to be 1-shot killed along with 50 other lemmings?

I’m happy to discuss it. Ways to avoid being feared off a cliff:
Stun break
Auto stun break
Having stability
Condition cleanse
Not running through the wall

If you can’t manage any of these things you deserve to be a loot bag. Spectral wall is a point control skill which is meant to force you to go around or use your stability, like the guardian and elementalist skills. If your reaction time is that awful then just don’t run at the front of your zerg and get your bear to help remove fear from allies.

Deli.1302:

Do you guys not know what rng is?

Yes, I do know what RNG is. Why does this cease to be an issue because it’s decided by RNG? The solution isn’t as simple as suggested by the OP, that doesn’t mean the problem isn’t worth drawing attention to.

Same with Gandara, our last 3 matchups have been against much weaker servers and it looks like this week won’t be any different.

If you’re dodging fights it’s not roaming, it’s just scouting. I still roam, it’s what I mostly do in WvW.

WvW can be plenty active and roaming still be dead if all you have are scouts and zergs.

Gandara’s Alpharius is a social and mature guild with a strong Aussie contingent. Our server is EU so plenty of overlap between your late night and our prime time, which means you’ll be able to participate in world events and a very active WvW server. I’m not a member but they’ve been a welcome presence since they joined our server in March. You should give them a shout.

http://thisisgandara.com/showthread.php?611-Alpharius-Alph-on-Gandara-and-open-for-recruitment

Gandara is your server for sneak attack. Every other server will be kittenfooting trying to avoid fights so they don’t give up kill points. We’ll be hunting them down, crushing them (see above video), and hauling in the loot bags.

Yup, no point to equipping venom unless you’re running a venom share build (but you play solo). Even then, the immobilize venom is way more useful. However it’s much better if you just get the Deadly Arts minor trait to poison on steal. You also need a second weapon set, which will help with your lack of gap closers (I suggest getting in shadowstep and/or infiltrator signet too).

You are basically letting a ranger pew pew you to death without ever getting in range for Cloak and Dagger. If you are running stealth (which is great for condi, you just apply conditions then wait in stealth) then you should take the advice of getting some stealth utilities in like blinding powder or shadow refuge.

With your thief, you already have tons of ways of apply conditions to your enemy. The venoms and even those runes aren’t necessary. Start thinking about ways to prevent them from doing damage to you, and how you can control them so it’s easier to apply those conditions. Being able to apply one burst of conditions is no good if the enemy can cleanse them and live, it’s better that you can continuously apply conditions to your enemy.

Link.1049:

However, put me up against even 1 other player and I’m toast. Doesn’t matter what player. Give a kid a keyboard, have him spam 1 and I’ll be dead. I dodge, and use my skills, have exotic armor, the works… yet find I’m constantly be one shot ko’d by pretty much every class…

That doesn’t make sense. No class, not even thief, can 1-hit KO a player in full carrion exotics by spamming 1, especially not if you’re dodging their attacks. Give us more information about what you’re doing and what’s going wrong and you might get some useful help from this thread. Hyperbole won’t help.

You can use this editor and create a quick link at the bottom to show us:
http://en.gw2skills.net/editor/

My first thought is that you have a really slow reaction time, either due to your ping or just a poor keyboard/mouse setup, but honestly I need more information.

Rin.1046:

To fix that I would suggest the following:

1) Ensure no attack takes more than half of an enemies health in one hit.

If you want to play a build where you can’t lose more than half your health, you have that option. Just run full tank gear on a soldier profession. I like having the option to run a glassier build because I like high risk/reward.

Rin.1046:

2) Change gear and levels to work exactly like it is in sPvP, so every player is on equal footing (besides build and skill).

Even if you took out the amount of gear customization that there is, you still wouldn’t get balance, because it’s impossible to balance fights at every single scale (1v1, 2v2, 5v5, XvX). This is without even considering the fact that fights are usually unequal in numbers.

In any case I like that it’s different from sPvP. If you want to have sPvP fights, you can already find those in sPvP. WvW is supposed to be an endgame that motivates you to build up your gear for it.

Rin.1046:

And before anyone says ‘WvW is not supposed to be fair or equal’, if that is the case why does each world have an identical map and identical siege weapons?

1. Eternal Battlegrounds is not symmetrical.
2. WvW population sizes are not equal.

Reborn.2934:

@Bertrand.3057 i bet they know what is gvg very well , but how to create the profit of this is the hard part of the equation . i can count more than a dozen players that can be the official poster . screaming loud doesn’t make someone more suitable for the case

It’s not a matter of screaming loud, it’s being good. Red Guard was very good. Undefeated, IIRC.

Anet could use other drivers to promote that style of WvW but if the best drivers are very abrasive types then it’s a risk to the overall GW2 brand. I like watching GvGs now and then but I notice the videos that include Sacrx’s comms tend to draw a lot hostile comments. That probably makes them a bit nervous about backing and sanctioning this particular gameplay.

There was the token inclusion of the arena in OS, but even here it seems the purpose was to ease tension with PPT-oriented players. There’s simply no sense that devs want to encourage coordinated group combat in WvW.

This suggestion should not be listened to. Players need to learn how to use stability, break stuns, and be aware of their surroundings.

Dasenthal.6520:

Nanyetah Elohi.4852:

Straegen.2938:

They can spend a week developing XYZ content for WvW that will be purchased by a small number of players or spend that same time developing XYZ content for PvE where an order of magnitude number of players will buy it.

They know how to monetize their game and I am guessing if WvW fell completely off ANet would hardly notice.

WvW is so distinctive and dramatic. Big zerg fights look very cool and unlike anything else in the game. It’s hard to imagine ANet would not miss something that makes the game look that good on video.

Looks good=/= makes money. (Wow is kind of proof). Unfortunately that’s why this thread exists, because most of us realize Anet doesn’t need wvw.

They haven’t even tried marketing it, but not surprising given how few employees even know what a GvG looks like. (Or maybe they tried but then realized that they didn’t want to make Sacrx an official poster child.)

Devs listen to enough guys like the OP and it won’t be long until we’re all mashing “1”.

Commander sniping is a legit tactic. Deal with it and stack your party with guardians.

A zerg that can’t fight with its head cut off deserves to die, commanders who are afraid to fight deserve to lose their zergs, and blobbing up as one group is too much insta-win as it is.

Avit, the way I see it, you wrote out a post that explained your feelings pretty well but it was all negative. While I don’t necessarily disagree with what you said, I don’t think there is any thing that can be accomplished with such a post. So why not put your energy, if you will put in any at all, into making better ideas like Rin is trying to do?

I don’t frequent these forums as much now but I liked what was started here which is why I hopped in.

Maybe OP just doesn’t want to change weapons out of combat (to move faster, be stronger in different situations, etc.). This is reasonable.

Avit, I think you are raising some proper concerns and I do agree with how you feel about some of Rin’s ideas. We should not add PvE content that serves no purpose other than to fill up time or serve as a distraction. I don’t agree that Rin’s doing this to make WvW a place for PvE players, and I am wondering exactly how you think we can get WvW players back. One of the things I hear that guild groups hate is how difficult it can be to find encounters. It’s too easy for a zerg to run around and avoid confrontations. So if certain kinds of events and sieging mechanics of WvW were reworked, we could encourage a lot more confrontational play. There should also be more opportunities for smaller groups to contribute and in doing so find chances for combat.

Some thoughts on your responses, Rin:

• NPC/Monster Events: I have two objections to this, the first being that while entire maps shouldn’t get flipped just because one side is briefly outnumbered, artificially balancing matches is needless. This seems to me kind of like the breakout event, though possibly on a different scale. Matches have to play out so that the appropriate score can be determined to assign ranking. Secondly, I share the concern with many others about introducing an overwhelming PvE element to WvW. I am wondering what this sort of mechanic would offer to PvE/PvP players that they can’t already find in PvE, and why exactly it is worth forcing players to do PvE when they would rather PvP.

One alternative would be to introduce a PvP/WvW buff event, where an outnumbered group gets some special bonus. Possibly make it one that has more to do with siege/defense interactions instead of stat bonuses, with the goal of making a larger force temporarily switch to the defensive.

• Resource gathering/upgrade/dolyak loading: I’m still wondering how this improves experience. All I can see is that it’s an incentive to be in a particular spot which gives server bonuses and offers an opportunity for PvP encounters. I’m just wondering why it has to be worked as a separate event that involves bundles… which is why I made the suggestions for escorting and upgrade events. One thing you could do is have an announcement to the enemy and a delay for a special dolyak event, which would encourage a fight, but this seems easy to manipulate and a bit artificial.

• Dolyak escort: If you read my idea for giving map-wide WXP bonuses for events, I think this is something that would be great to add to successful dolyak escorts/kills. I think having a dolyak as a marker on the map for possible encounters is something that ought to be built upon. I’m not on board with Mishi’s idea, it seems like handing over a NPC job to a player which would be quite tedious. I just don’t see what problem it solves.

A few simple things could make WvW a much more immersive experience, like on-screen text declaring that an objective is under attack, seeing a train of yaks being fought over, having to fight off attackers as a structural upgrade is pushed through, or getting a share of the WXP when your zerg captures a keep because you helped by stopping reinforcements. Anyways keep throwing ideas at me, I know I’m a bit biased towards my own (so point out why they’re flawed).

I do agree with that, I guess my concern is more that the way rewards are handed out, you always have an incentive to zerg.

Perhaps if there were a map-wide reward every time your server had a successful defense/capture event at a major objective. There would have to be a threshold for event participation to discourage people from just going AFK. You could also redistribute how WXP is awarded, so that this map-wide reward gives mainly WXP. This way people who just want PvE rewards don’t care about it. It would also just be a good idea to increase the material rewards for capturing/defending smaller objectives.

Baldrick if you really have the silver bullet(s) for Anet to fix WvW, why does your list of suggestions end with “etc.”? Yes, there have been loads of great ideas, there have also been a lot of awful ones. I feel like every time there’s an attempt to compile good WvW ideas, you get a couple gems and a lot of things that really haven’t been thought through to their conclusion. The siege troll discussion did manage to identify a couple useful fixes that have been implemented. More focused discussions like that will help to separate the noise from the signal.

You’re not going to get a total revamp of WvW. They’ve already stated that map size is a technical limitation, any effort to change that would be loaded with risks with only a slim to nil possibility of success because of how far back they’d have to go in the development process. Environmental effects that discourage zergs have been considered, but these would create new problems. It opens the door for players to be told they can’t even join a PUG zerg, and it means that players can troll a group just by following it. We’re aware of these problems because of the rally mechanic, but imagine how much worse it would be.

Increasing the rewards in WvW is also something that I’m skeptical would help. When WXP was introduced, we got a shift towards blobbier play, and I feel like making WvW more rewarding will just make people more inclined to game the system as they do in EotM. I care a lot more about them improving the experience rather than handing out tokens and prizes. Remember that this was what WXP was, because so many people asked for it, but it just ended up being a substitute for actual content. It seemed like for a year the only WvW changes that appeared were new WXP categories.

I really do believe that the existing WvW maps are phenomenally designed (okay, I like the BL map and usually avoid EB). They provide focal points, chokepoints, objectives give strategic advantages (Even more so when you consider they were designed with orbs in mind – Garrison is great for controlling the north half of the map, while hills is incredibly difficult to attack, making it a great place to hold an enemy orb). Think about how many great locations there were for fights in the heyday of WvW – outside of objectives, between objectives, within objectives. Just watch a few old guild raid videos and you’ll see a dozen different places where big fights happen.

I also think the maps can be improved. The lake was awful, but so are the ruins. The mechanics of taking and defending objectives is still a little thin. So thanks again Rin for opening up this topic, I popped a couple ideas into my first response, some critique would be great (Would you like me to elaborate more?). Baldrick, thanks for getting in more than a kneejerk response, I do think Rin fumbled the initial post. The discussion isn’t so much about adding PvE content as it is about making a richer WvW experience.

Baldrick.8967:

What wvw needs is a complete overhaul, with new maps, new mechanics and ways to force blobs to be less effective, as well as a huge increase in rewards. The one thing that would put the nail in the coffin for wvw regulars is filling it with pve rubbish.

I think the OP is trying to come up with specific ways to make blobs less effective, even if I don’t agree that they’ll all work that well. Do you have any specific suggestions?

We got a new map with new mechanics, it’s called Edge of the Mists. If we want something better than that (which I think we do), it will help to be a lot less vague about what will improve WvW.

I like your recognition of what’s wrong with WvW (too much PvD). I like how you have some ideas and you’ve articulated them. I like how you’ve caught onto the fact that some of the ideas behind Silverwastes might work in WvW. I like how you’ve responded to the trolls.

I do think you need to do a better job of explaining why you think these changes should be made. Saying that it’ll “spice up the game” isn’t convincing, what will add variety for WvW players will be more work on balance and introducing new types of gear/food/skills. Unfortunately that’s a different department. If what it does is bring in PvE players interested in doing PvE, you’re going to get a whole lot of objection.

• NPC/Monster Events: You’ve suggested this as a way to encourage players to stick around and defend. Either this is a big event, which pulls in PvE players, or it’s a non-event which no one cares about. I worry that a big event just means players taking up slots waiting around for an event and not contributing to real-time needs.

• Resource gathering/upgrade/dolyak loading: These look to me like busywork that will help monitor when players are scouting. Honestly, a lot of people who defensively scout are usually giving far less than 100% of their attention, so making them do something menial isn’t necessarily rewarding. Maybe if they proceed with removing automatic white swords there can be a first flag reward that a player gets if they light the beacon. Give them a chest if there’s a big fight afterwards. There could also be secondary upgrade events that speed up the process but are vulnerable to attack, like a bit of scaffolding on the outside of the wall. This would encourage small groups to make attacks on bigger objectives even if they can’t capture them, while encouraging defenders by giving them an opponent to fight.

• Dolyak escort: I absolutely agree that this is a part of WvW that needs work, it’s so crucial and it has potential to encourage more open-field confrontations. I think you’re suggesting something like a circle around the yak, where if players walk in it they speed up the yak? This could be good. I also think that a defend the caravan event actually needs to be… defensible. Dolyaks are way too easy to kill. It’s been suggested before to make a dolyak invulnerable until its NPC guards are killed. We could also have an actual caravan of yaks so that there’s a chance for partial success/failure.

Glad to see someone willing to suggest and discuss ideas.

I wasn’t sure what the mail was when I got it, I definitely wasn’t expecting anything since I only threw in 5-10 wrappers. Took a moment to realize what I’d gotten. I never put any hope into RNG but after 3000+ hours it’s nice to get something unexpected.

Can’t complain about bad luck anymore now, either

It matters if they reject an idea because of X and Y but not X, Y and Z because that means if you solve X and Y then you can go ahead and put the idea in place even if Z is still an issue. That is what the first post by Mark amounted to, and a lot of people have voiced their concern here over Z, referring to presently inactive players who want to contribute to discussions about the game’s development. I have seen the attention-seeking posts and I agree that it’s not productive, in fact as I understand it a policy exists against the “I quit” posts.

Astralporing.1957:

Bertrand.3057:

Zaklex.6308:

I think you have a personal axe to grind, I see no problem with them wanting to allow anyone that has purchased the game and had an active account to continue to post on the forums. Also, as Pixelpumpkin pointed out above, they were unable to log into the game for 2 months due to personal reasons…just what exactly do you see as their attitude towards their customers anyways…other than being accommodating.

My problem was Mark admitting they considered restricting people who had purchased the game but had not been active from participating on the forums.

Oh, you’d rather he didn’t admit it? Because the fact they have considered it was a given.
Personally, i think Mark was really reasonable in his explanation, and i don’t get why it should cause such strong reaction.

If you look at his first post, which is the one that elicited the negative reactions, it omits the possibility that inactive players might have valuable input as one of the reasons for rejecting the OP’s idea. Then it compounds that omission by pointing the finger back at inactive players in highlighting a specific sort of abuse (By definition, inactive players aren’t actually responsible for this abuse, but this kind of statement does condone suspecting anyone who admits they’re inactive as being such a fraud). With the clarifications he made it’s easier to see why his comments weren’t necessarily hostile.

Inculpatus cedo.9234:

Here’s a case of being transparent, and getting one’s hand bitten, it seems. /smh

The clarification helped, I think. The original reply could be read as Mark agreeing with the OP that only active players had valuable input to provide for the developers, which I find very alienating for anyone who has taken a break from the game.

Zaklex.6308:

I think you have a personal axe to grind, I see no problem with them wanting to allow anyone that has purchased the game and had an active account to continue to post on the forums. Also, as Pixelpumpkin pointed out above, they were unable to log into the game for 2 months due to personal reasons…just what exactly do you see as their attitude towards their customers anyways…other than being accommodating.

My problem was Mark admitting they considered restricting people who had purchased the game but had not been active from participating on the forums. That and the attitude that there was a real issue with attention-seeking individuals pretending to be inactive and that he deemed it worth his time to be labeling players in this way.

Mark Katzbach.9084:

This is something that we had considered in the past, but opted against because it unfairly works against lapsed players who want to ask what’s changed since they last played and players like Pixelpumpkin who may, for personal reasons, be unable to log into the game, but still want to interact with the forums and stay up to date on the game.

It’s also worth pointing out that some people use claims of quitting the game as an attention-getting tactic, when in fact they are still quite active. Putting in this type of restriction would just push those people to claim they only log in to keep their forum privileges active.

This is really your attitude towards your customers?

Thanks for being honest, at least.

kins.3294:

Upgrade everyone who has gems left to 2000 gems. Problem solved.

I have 2310 gems. But I guess I might as well have 2000 when they make the next round of simplifications.

Gaile Gray.6029:

Errant Venture.9371:

Add an option buy gems in 100 gem increments instead of making 400 gems the smallest denomination possible. Problem solved.

THERE! Thank you, Errant Venture — that’s a solid suggestion with a reasonable tone. Thank you.

This is not a solution. What about sale items? Or for that matter, small items that don’t come as some clean multiple of 100 gems? There is no increment that will be satisfactory apart from 1.

I like having options. This is my currency, I spent cash to acquire it. I have fewer options for what to do with that currency under this new system.

I also like having information. This information allows me to make intelligent decisions about what to do with my currency. I have less information available to me under this new system.

Reducing the options and information available to your customers makes them less empowered, hence the negative reactions. Money and time has been given by the customer, with one set of expectations, and now the conditions under which that money or time may be redeemed has been changed with absolutely no notice.

Whether or not it’s a legal sort of change, it’s a very rotten thing to do to a customer. Talking about how you want to advance the discussion or improve the system will be pointless to many so long as you fail to acknowledge that fact.

Maybe the reason you’re not getting communication because people feel this doesn’t merit a discussion, just a reversion of the change and an apology.

Berk.8561:

One thing missing from a lot of the time slice suggestions is what would happen during the transition to the things on the map from the previous time slice? Would you inherit whatever siege weapons and upgrades were done in the previous time slice by your server? Would all upgrades and siege reset? Would they be restored to whatever state they were in at the end of the last time the time slice was active?

I don’t think the game experience should change*, just how the points are counted. The great thing about reset once a week is that your game only gets interrupted once a week. Timeslicing addresses the off-peak issue without changing the rules for only a specific group of players.

*What I mean is that this can be an improvement to the game without having other changes. Certainly WvW needs continuous improvement but let’s start with this.

I like the timeslice idea (imagining lengths of 2-4 hours), just for the purpose of tallying points. I certainly think upgrades and ownership should be conserved through the week, long drawn out sieges add drama and character to a match. In addition to making matches more balanced, it could make the PPT game more engaging because players will see a more immediate goal apart from the total score, and this is good for defensive players.

I think a lot of players currently are most interested in PPT when the total accumulated scores are really close, once there’s a spread it’s harder to care about adding one more keep or tower to the tick.

While this does diminish the incentive to defend or capture objectives during a timeslice when a server has no chance of doing better than third place, those are usually where the situations where it’s impossible to defend anyways. The focus in that scenario is to prevent the enemy from getting upgrades, which is healthier for morale than looking at a giant uphill battle to regain tick.

Maybe it means we get 3 secret boons that no other profession gets to compensate for how useless this skill otherwise is.

Thanks for starting the discussion and staying engaged! You put out an interesting solution and did a good job integrating different ideas, unfortunately it’s a very tough question and I think you’ve made the right call. Glad that we were able to help you identify other improvements that could be made to siege interactions!