Guild Wars 2

There was a VERY brief mention by a developer during the CDI a few weeks of “guild raids.” Hopefully this is in support of that concept.

Even if its just someone working on world boss encounters though, it’s a positive thing.

Unfortunately, any solution that relies on players to take action – whether it be transferring servers or “playing more WvW” is unlikely to work, no matter what incentive you offer. This is a player created problem (even if it is the result of an Anet designed game mode), but it isnt something the players can be expected to fix.

Large groups of players will always look for the quickest path with the least resistance to the most profitable outcome. It is why server bandwagoning has always been the driving factor in who “wins” wvw – dating ALL the way back to the launch of the game.

After two years of players shifting, we now have the tremendously lopsided situation we do. And, there isnt an incentive or punishment big enough to convince players to even the problem out on their own. Groupthink and the desire to find the path of least resistance are just part of human nature when we are dealing with populations as large as GW2 servers.

It is time to implement the server alliance (or battlegroup) solution many in this thread have championed. It is the only way this problem is going to be fixed outside of forced transfers (which wouldnt be fair to the players), or server merges/splits (which would destroy close knit server communities).

Most importantly, it would do for WvW what megaservers did for PVE – it would give everyone, regardless of server size or active WvW community, the same potential experience in WvW. That is crucial to the long term success of this game. Otherwise, the divides between servers just become worse and worse as time goes on (due to more people transferring or simply getting frustrated and quitting WvW).

And that equality between servers is crucial. People on T1 servers keep saying the lower level servers are looking for a “quiet” wvw" experience, but the reality is more often the exact opposite – we want challenging large scale pvp the same as everyone else (that’s what WvW is). All we want is for all players to have access to that – not just those who were lucky to get on the right server or were able/willing to move their guilds en masse to a server where they were guaranteed numbers (for many, that simply isnt an option)..

Do devs really want a situation where the top 3-6 servers are fun in WvW, while the lower servers (where the new players will probably end up and experience their first WvW fights) struggle with ever dwindling numbers. Its very easy for people on the bandwagon servers to criticize or say this isnt needed, but it really (desperately) is.

And, imo, this change (battlegroups) needs to happen before they host another seasonal tournament.

I think the disconnect came from two groups – First, the people who just read the patch notes and overreacted (this is probably the largest dissenting voice, unfortunately) – and second, the veteran players who went back to give it a try/level an alt and found the experience a little more locked down/gated than they originally remember.

When I rolled an alt to give it a try, I actually found it to be a better experience for the most part. This was primarily because it feels like the first 10 levels are now a proper “tutorial.” Leveling for the first 10 levels feels about twice as fast as it used to be, which gets you to the more interesting stuff faster while still giving you a focused experience to learn the basics.

The one downside is that the early level zones are now WAY too easy as part of the persistent world. Downscaling of max level characters needs to be adjusted to account for this. This is GW2. We shouldnt be able to one shot veteran opponents or supposed enemy commanders in any zone.

I think there are a few topics that I would like to see at least high level comments on – just to know whether or not they are things that ArenaNet may or may not be revisiting in Living Story Season 2.

For me, that list is pretty small -

- Dungeons or other 5 man content
- Guild Missions
- New Traits/ Lvl 80 Progression System (from the blog post you linked)

We have heard virtually nothing on these topics in a really long time – other than a comment at a recent tradeshow saying they werent making any new dungeons in the foreseeable future – which many found upsetting – and which was probably the comment that started the entire “please communicate with us” conversation in the first place.

There has been alot of content released in the past 2 years that many of us, obviously, still love tremendously. We just want to be sure that, as we stick with the game, we might see some of those things in the near (or even far) future. I know were asking for something that’s hard to talk about, but its hard to keep thinking this is the game for us if we dont have at least a (even VERY rough) idea of what to expect in the next 3/6/12 months.

Can this thread go away now?

With the megaserver in place, I think it is past time they made a pass at the world boss mechanics and difficulty. Tequatl is going down regularly and, if enough people are on the map, it is posing only a moderate challenge at best (it is still fun though) – even if no one is in teamspeak together.

- Shatterer, Jormag and Karka Queen should be brought to the Tequatl level in regard to complexity and difficulty, with rewards similar to that dragon champion.

- Shadow Behemoth, Caladon Worm, Fire Elemental and Maw are fine as they are – they should be considered the “starter” bosses (a fifth should be added to the Charr area).

- Ulgoth, Taidha, Megadestroyer and Mark II should receive overhauls to complexity and difficulty and they should definitely scale from 20 to more than 100 participants. Difficulty level should be just a little above where Jormag or the Temple of Grenth is now (just not as long as Jormag). Additionally, several other world bosses should be added to this tier and given the same treatment.

Finally, this should apply to non-boss metaevents as well, such as temple chains, the centaur assaults in Gendarren, etc. Thinking about them as starter/standard/difficult would make it easy to ensure there is adequate support for all open world content challenge levels.

NOTE: I did not mention Evolved Worm. While I like that the fight is in the game, it is at a different level than any other fights. Fights like this (requiring 80+ organized players) should be added to the game extremely rarely (but do still have a place).

Ive made the recommendation before -

They should remove champion bags and replace them with “group event bags.” They should then make sure every champion in the game is associated with a dynamic event (most already are – this wouldnt take much effort). The big difference would be that the bags would only be available upon successful completion of an event.

In essence, turn the champion farms into event farms (Successful events only).

Spragglebolt.3509:

I really have no understanding of how the worlds/servers work in GW2. I only got the game last night and haven’t even created a character, so please bear with me. lol.

So, even if I were to create a character on a different world, I would be able to see and play with everyone on Tarnished Coast, not just the people I have friended?

Yes, that is very much true.

The only thing you could not do with them is the massive WvW PvP. You would have to do that with whichever server you did choose.

If its just RP, that is easy.

Even if youre on another server, you will be placed on the same PVE maps as your guild (or can move REALLY easily).

The concept of choosing a server for PVE purposes (such as RP) is a thing of the past.

If you do care about WvW – then you are better off getting your friends to move to a less populated servers. The bandwagon servers will be full 90% of the time and if any friends want to join in the future, you will continue to have this issue over and over (not to mention that you will help to spread the WvW population out a bit more ).

MakubeC.3026:

Blaeys.3102:

---

Room: Guild Game Hall (minigames)

Suggested Format: NPCs that offer access to guild only versions of minigames, such as Sanctum Sprint, Kegbrawl, etc. (with spectator capabilities, eventually). This would work alot like the pvp custom arena (and probably couldnt offer rewards.

That would be sweet. But then I’m afraid open world mini games would get even emptier. Everybody loves mini-games, the problem being the randomness they have, so putting them in GH like rooms would anhilate the open ones IMO.

It is something I can live with though. I know everybody (or at least I) dies for playing mini games with all of theirs friends for once.

I definitely understand. That is why the guild ones wouldnt offer any rewards (at all) or count toward the daily achievement. They would just be for the guild for fun.

To be meaningful, a guild hall should offer unique game play for guild groups. It cant just be another meeting space or just for aesthetics (even though aesthetics will be important). It has to be functional and offer something NEW.

Here are a few room “ideas” that do just that. Each would cost minimal guild influence and merits to build and upgrade (except for the living spaces, which would require minimal influence “donations” to the guild).

Room: Guild Game Hall (minigames)

Suggested Format: NPCs that offer access to guild only versions of minigames, such as Sanctum Sprint, Kegbrawl, etc. (with spectator capabilities, eventually). This would work alot like the pvp custom arena (and probably couldnt offer rewards.

Room: Guild PVE Danger Room

Suggested Format: Access to “training” room similar to the candidate trials event we saw during “Cuthroat Politics” (that scales and allows full guilds) only with random monsters from around the game – with no rewards (it would just be for practice and fun).

Room: Guild PvP Sparring Arena

Idea Format: Room in the guild hall where free for all pvp rules apply (anyone can attack anyone) for guilds to let off steam and host king of the hill duels.

Room: Roleplaying Area(s)

Idea Concept: Largish, customizable zones that can be added (up to so many with each costing influence/merits) that can be fleshed out into roleplaying areas for RP guilds. (if possible, the option should exist to invite a limited number of friends into the area).

Room(s): Guild Living Spaces

Idea Format: This is where the guild hall customization would come in – and it would be individualized per player. Each player would have a small instanced “room” where they could choose (and minimally add to) a theme – including things like a small docked pirate ship or burrow dug into the ground. These wouldnt have to be big (think about the half the size of the old trading post in LA. More advanced rooms could even be sold on the gem store).

Room: Customized Guild Jumping Puzzle

Idea: A room full of “trash” piled to the ceiling that members can add to in set patterns (for a donation of influence) that becomes a more and more complicated jumping puzzle.

Room: Outer Walls/New Guild Mission (defense)

Idea Format: New addition to guild missions where a guild is tasked to defend their guild hall from tiered difficulties of opponents (scaling down for smaller guilds and up to epic proportions for larger guilds). This would include siege weaponry similar to WvW (arrow carts, ballista, mortars, oil) and involved defending both doors and walls.

Room: Guild Visitors Area

Idea Format: An area people outside of the guild could visit to get a feel for the guild’s character (idealized in the aesthetic choices in the room and “awards” for guild accomplishments). This would be used as a guild recruitment tool and would require some interface design decisions.

The hard truth is the population imbalance is, mostly, a player created problem. Constant bandwagoning and server stacking during the course of two years (and this has been an issue since the game’s launch) have led to us to the situation we are in. Any solution that relies on players to move on their own (even with incentives or punishments) will most likely fail – players will still look for the path of least resistance that gives them the easiest possible experience on the most populated servers. There isnt an incentive big enough to stop that. This would apply to caps as well – you would still see players glomming into the smallest group of servers possible – to the detriment of all others.

ArenaNet needs a solution that will adapt with the game population, much the way the megaserver does in PVE, without breaking apart the communities that have formed during the past two years (or, in the case of the bandwagonning servers, that have been cobbled together more recently).

This is why I am so in favor of a server alliance system that groups servers together into battlegroups. It really offers the only solution, that ive seen or can think of, that allows servers to stay intact while ensuring matches aren’t as lopsided – or that the winning server isnt predetermined solely by the number of players they have.

I would be very happy with more challenging content that offered the same reward as the easier content.

The beauty of GW2 is that it doesn’t – in most cases – force you play one game activity more than another to get the shiniest loot. You can log in and choose what to do based on how much you enjoy doing it – not because you feel you have to. Adding meaningful elite loot rewards (beyond minis, titles and slightly altered skins) would take away some of that freedom for many of us. I dont want to see that in this game.

That said, I am very much in favor of adding more difficult content to the game.

The reality is – for many of us (this is very much opinion) – Guild Wars 2 is still the best MMO currently on the market. I know some of the more reactionary and antagonistic posters on these forums will immediately label me fan boy for that (even though I have no problem criticizing the game), but that is what I believe regardless of what they want to think or label.

I think the publicity for game has died down for a few simple reasons. First, ArenaNet recognizes the reactionary nature of a VERY LOUD subset of player who immediately have to dominate all conversations with “the sky is falling comments.” They dont understand how development – or business – works and therefore misinterpret many announcements.

The second, and more important, is that I think ArenaNet is experiencing some growing pains. There was some negative backlash to Season One of the living story (some justified, some not) that caused them to shift directions in the development of the game. Whenever you shift directions like that, it takes times to get back into a good cadence. I think that is what were seeing now.

Unfortunately, it comes at a bad time – and Im sure Anet sees that. Theyre trying to find there footing on a new path around the 2 year anniversary of the game – a time when a lot of their veteran players are starting to bore of the original game activities/fights/etc.

This has led to an identity crisis for the game and its developers.

Personally, I still hold out hope that, before the end of 2014, they will provide us with a better understanding of where the game is heading – development wise – in the next 12-24 months. It is something they really need to do to stem some of the bleeding/ampathy they are probably seeing right now.

There are a bunch of servers with plenty of room for you and all your friends -

and you would help with evening out the WvW population in the process.

For Anet’s side, they should offer transfer to one of those servers for free (again, to help the population issues short term).

Emplate.8791:

Mitch.4781:

ipan.4356:

This is the very thing I hate in games like this.

why though? It can help you improve ur skills

I enjoy it as a novelty in games that have it, but they do more harm than good…

Possibly instead of a meter used in battle, there were practice dummies with built in dps meters which you could practice your rotation on. I could see that as beneficial

This.

Recount, while potentially useful, is probably the most hate-inspiring software in any MMO ever.

I love GW2 and hope to never see anything even close to recount in this game.

The training dummy sounds like a decent thing though – would be a nice addition to our home instances.

DeadlySynz.3471:

I personally am in favor of WvW being separated into 3 alliances. There are more than enough servers to handle the overflow style maps.

Basically once say EB 1 is qued (or close to qued), EB 2 opens up for players to join, and so and so on. Once EB 2 gets enough players on each side (say 20 per side), the PPT score will tick), anything below a certain number, the score doesn’t tick.

If this were done, I personally think there would be enough players logged on at any given time to que each map 2x over.

I dont even think we would need overflow maps. All they would need to do is make sure we have a few more maps in the match than we could possibly fill up – even on reset night. This would elminate queues, give us places to fight in any style (large or small groups), ensure that organized groups could play together (which seems to be the biggest complaint from T1 about the idea) and give the devs a way to more easily grow the WvW aspect of the game (new map types).

Like some others have said, using an overflow system may make it too much like EOTM. Its better to go with more persistent maps with tangible objectives.

It sounds like alot of people are in favor of alliances/battlegroups (or whatever you want to call them.

If done properly, it would have a positive impact on everyone. All they would need to do is make sure enough maps are available for the larger groups that server alliances would create. That would help reduce/eliminate queues for the current bandwagon servers (making it easier to get guild groups on the same map – leading to better/easier coordination) and ensure coverage/access to fights for the lower population servers.

The change I think would make the greatest impact would be to remove champion bags from the game completely and replace them with “group event bags” (that scale in reward if the event scales) – and make all champions in the game (except those that spawn as part of scaling events) into group events.

They should reward people for succeeding at events rather than just randomly killing champs.

In the meantime, my original stance on this stands – if anyone, on either side, starts mouthing off in map chat and attacking the other side (or trying to berate people into doing things “their way”), report/block and keep on playing your way.

Dayra.7405:

Imagine it as one gigantic map where all alliances are placed to fight for their score. 2/3 of the alliances are hostile, 1/3 of the alliances are friendly (you cannot fight each other, how much you actually cooperate depends on rivalry)

Exactly – and it is exactly what we need.

To the claims from those that this would just be “EOTM” in WvW, you have to remember there are very distinct differences between how EOTM and WvW function. Most importantly, this wouldnt rely on overflow servers the way EOTM does. Logging in and out wouldnt put you with a totally new group of people.

Additionally, there is a big difference between matches that last 3 hours and matches that last 7 days.

The comparison between EOTM and server alliances simply doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

Groups that play (and coordinate) together would still be able to easily play and coordinate together. That wouldnt change.

And., the “I dont want to play with the kids from the poor side of town” argument is not healthy for the game either. Its best to look at it as a leadership challenge. Learn to work with others and this becomes an opportunity to make the game stronger – rather than one to just complain more.

Finally, keep in mind that a change like this is desperately needed to keep WvW healthy. A competitive match between the top 3 servers is fine, but if it is at the expense of the bottom three (who dont have the numbers due to bandwagonners), then it is just a wound that will keep bleeding until the entire thing is dead (large and small servers alike).

Crius.5487:

I feel like this Alliance system would have the potential to destroyer server communities.

Communities are based on relationships. If you have those relationships in place, they will remain regardless.

The model we have now cannot stand for one simple reason – it isnt fun for everyone. The people on low population servers should have access to the same experience/level of fun as those on full servers.

The megaserver accomplished this in PVE. Now its time to come up with a system that levels the playing field in WvW as well. Alliances seem like the best way to do that.

Again, I think they should be based on servers rather than guilds/individuals (to combat that loss of server identity and pride), but that is just my opinion.

Done properly, it would give us a fun experience in WvW that keeps competition in place – while making sure EVERYONE (not just the top 2-3 servers who have the numbers) gets to participate in an epic WvW experience.

Instead of basing the alliances around guilds and players, base it on servers and add maps to the match to accomodate the numbers.

So, it would be Servers A, C and E vs Servers B, D and F vs Servers X,Y and Z playing across 12 maps (nine borderlands and 3 EBGs). And, make it so only your server can defend your borderlands (to give you somewhere to retain server pride).

Everyone wins.

Both sides have the right to play the game they want to play it. It’s when people call others out or actively berate/degrade people in map chat/whispers that they cross the line.

I said it earlier and it still applies – simply report/ignore the people who feel they have to tell you how to play (on either side) in hateful ways and keep playing how you want to play.

If others can’t deal with it, then that is their problem and it is their responsibility to find a solution (eg, let them be the ones looking for another map).

Outside of that, it will be up to Anet to fix the underlying cause of the issue – which Im sure they eventually will.

Skoigoth.9238:

Alright, two things….

1. The fact that failing an event is more rewarding than completing it is a problem in and of itself. It is not the players fault, it is just horrible game design and I don´t understand why a-net doesn´t change it. And by that I do NOT mean increasing the time until events start, or removing loot from mobs, I mean ACTUALLY making completing events more profitable. Until this happens you can´t really blame people for trying to farm these events in the most efficient manner.

2. There are ALWAYS jerks on both sides of the argument, but that doesn´t mean all farmers are griefers, or similarly all people trying to complete such an event are griefers. From personal experience I can say that most people farming these events are nice, helpful and civil people, but they remain mostly silent. The ones that are vocal are unfortunately the jerks that are trying scare the “uninitiated” of the map/away from the events by insulting and harassing them. These people should be reported and warned/banned for a couple of days, no question about that. BUT, on the other side you also have people that harass and insult the farmers. Some of them actively seek to set the whole map up against the farmers, not because they actually want to complete the event, but because they take personal pleasure in ruining the farm for the others. They should be treated similarly to the griefers on the farmers side because they are doing the same thing: Insulting and harassing other players, therefore, report them if they say inappropriate stuff in map/say/whisper chat and hope they get a warning/ban.

Period.

Well said. The griefing comes when people start making attacks in map chat or whispers. No matter which direction that comes from, it deserves to be reported.

And I do believe Anet will fix this event. People (on both sides) wont be happy with that fix, but it will be needed to quell the hate were seeing.

Resubian.5823:

Blaeys.3102:

If that’s your thing, there are plenty of other champions to farm – including a chain right there in Frostgorge. It isn’t like you’re going to have to wait 10 minutes to kill another champ if this event succeeds.

I have never – and will never – fail an event on purpose. I say, let the whiners whine. If you want to do this event, do it – then report/ignore anyone giving you too much grief.

Anet made their stance on this very clear multiple times in these forums. You have every right to finish the event and griefers have to either respect that or face the consequences.

The worst thing you can do is argue back at them. Just report/ignore (if it gets too bad – not frivolously) and move on.

Don’t just call us griefers. We have every right to fail the event as well. It’s two different playstyles, neither are wrong. Anet said themselves that we are both right and wrong. None of us are griefers, we are all just players with opposing playstyles.

By griefer, I mean the people who feel they have to put people down in map chat when those people are trying to complete the event. Everyone has a right to play the way they want – its when they start yelling in map chat (or, even worse, whispers) and putting people down that they become what I mean by griefer.

If that’s your thing, there are plenty of other champions to farm – including a chain right there in Frostgorge. It isn’t like you’re going to have to wait 10 minutes to kill another champ if this event succeeds.

I have never – and will never – fail an event on purpose. I say, let the whiners whine. If you want to do this event, do it – then report/ignore anyone giving you too much grief.

Anet made their stance on this very clear multiple times in these forums. You have every right to finish the event and griefers have to either respect that or face the consequences.

The worst thing you can do is argue back at them. Just report/ignore (if it gets too bad – not frivolously) and move on.

Here is what Anet should be striving for in a single sentence:

-
The fun of WvW should be the same regardless of whether you play on the top rated server or the last.
-

That is what megaservers did for PVE. While it would be more complicated for WvW, I do believe a solution exists.

IMO, making that happen will require a drastic change to how WvW works. The only thing I see working is the battlegroup suggestion – potentially with the tweaks I noted earlier in this thread to ensure server identity and pride remain intact, while still giving everyone no queues and the ability to find engaging fights.

It isnt just about making things competitive – its about making them fun. condemning the low population servers to face off each other eternally doesnt do that – battle groups (done properly) would.

Tspatula.9086:

silvermember.8941:

Blaeys.3102:

Fairly simple solution (from a player’s perspective) that takes server pride, griefing and 24/7 coverage into account -

Right now, in North America, we have eight matches spread across 32 maps (3 borderlands and one EBG per match).

Instead, give us one huge match every week that is basically 8v8v8 (evenly split servers – can adjust if populations dont match up well).

And, have that match on the exact same 32 maps. Every server would still have a “borderlands map” named after their server.

Players could queue for any of the following three: any enemy borderland, their own borderland (no other server in their battlegroup could), or any of the 8 EBGs (which would need unique names). This would give every player a total of 16 possible maps to play on each week – at any given time – with access to players from 8 different servers (which should fix the coverage problem as well).

To retain server identity, rewards would be two tiered. First, the servers in the winning battlegroup would get the same rewards winning servers get now.

Second, servers should get slight advantages while holding their own borderland, giving them something to hold/brag about. By limiting queues to server borderlands, it would retain server identity and reduce griefing. Griefing on other maps would be a non issue because guilds or server groups could simply move to another map to get away.

This seems like it would be easy to implement from a dev side as well – all we would need is a new interface (with new scoring) and player access to multiple maps.

This is probably the best idea. So have an 8v8v8 but instead on 32 maps have it about 16 to 24 (so 1 borderland for each server and 6 eternal battlegrounds) maps to allow for increased population on certain maps that are underutilized. This will allow for over flowing servers to go support others in their league that are under populated while keeping the bigger server’s imaginary “community” in tack.

I also think something along these lines is really interesting. It takes advantage of the existing structure, solves a lot of the que and population issues at once. Individual servers maintain identity and there would be lots of opportunities for getting the particular type of WvW play that groups would be looking for.
Determining the 8 server groups is an interesting issue. Random assignment is probably the best, clear the PPT run them for 1 month, rewards at the end based on server group score. Next month shuffle, reset PPT. Additional bonuses for keeping borderlands clear for individual servers could be interesting and perhaps another bonus for having all of your server group’s borderlands clear. That would reward server cooperation, it could be like bloodlust, or give some points towards a special title or armor or something. Spoon

I know Im harping on my own idea, but another potential benefit of this type of system would be design flexibility and growth potential in WvW. It would really easy for developers to introduce new maps to a system like this in the future.

So, a system like this would -

- Retain server identities/pride
- Eliminate queues on all servers
- Better ensure all players (regardless of server) would have access to fights 24/7
- Encourage new and better ties between players across the game (new friends )
- Offer an easier way for developers to grow the WvW portion of the game in the future

all without having to merge servers, mess around with transfer incentives (or punishments), reduce map caps or add/delete any current resources (eg, the current maps). All it would take is a scoring and interface change.

silvermember.8941:

Blaeys.3102:

Fairly simple solution (from a player’s perspective) that takes server pride, griefing and 24/7 coverage into account -

Right now, in North America, we have eight matches spread across 32 maps (3 borderlands and one EBG per match).

Instead, give us one huge match every week that is basically 8v8v8 (evenly split servers – can adjust if populations dont match up well).

And, have that match on the exact same 32 maps. Every server would still have a “borderlands map” named after their server.

Players could queue for any of the following three: any enemy borderland, their own borderland (no other server in their battlegroup could), or any of the 8 EBGs (which would need unique names). This would give every player a total of 16 possible maps to play on each week – at any given time – with access to players from 8 different servers (which should fix the coverage problem as well).

To retain server identity, rewards would be two tiered. First, the servers in the winning battlegroup would get the same rewards winning servers get now.

Second, servers should get slight advantages while holding their own borderland, giving them something to hold/brag about. By limiting queues to server borderlands, it would retain server identity and reduce griefing. Griefing on other maps would be a non issue because guilds or server groups could simply move to another map to get away.

This seems like it would be easy to implement from a dev side as well – all we would need is a new interface (with new scoring) and player access to multiple maps.

This is probably the best idea. So have an 8v8v8 but instead on 32 maps have it about 16 to 24 (so 1 borderland for each server and 6 eternal battlegrounds) maps to allow for increased population on certain maps that are underutilized. This will allow for over flowing servers to go support others in their league that are under populated while keeping the bigger server’s imaginary “community” in tack.

Thanks.

I dont really see a down side. It would take the best parts of the megaserver without compromising server pride or identity – with the added benefit of giving us alot more people to play with 24/7. At the same time, it would virtually eliminate queues regardless of the server youre on.

At the same time, it would give powerhouse wvw guilds more to do – if they dominate a map and start finding it boring, they can just find another where their battlegroup needs help.

Most importantly, though, it has the potential to make WvW more fun for everyone – keeping the fights going somewhere regardless of population issues.

Fairly simple solution (from a player’s perspective) that takes server pride, griefing and 24/7 coverage into account -

Right now, in North America, we have eight matches spread across 32 maps (3 borderlands and one EBG per match).

Instead, give us one huge match every week that is basically 8v8v8 (evenly split servers – can adjust if populations dont match up well).

And, have that match on the exact same 32 maps. Every server would still have a “borderlands map” named after their server.

Players could queue for any of the following three: any enemy borderland, their own borderland (no other server in their battlegroup could), or any of the 8 EBGs (which would need unique names). This would give every player a total of 16 possible maps to play on each week – at any given time – with access to players from 8 different servers (which should fix the coverage problem as well).

To retain server identity, rewards would be two tiered. First, the servers in the winning battlegroup would get the same rewards winning servers get now.

Second, servers should get slight advantages while holding their own borderland, giving them something to hold/brag about. By limiting queues to server borderlands, it would retain server identity and reduce griefing. Griefing on other maps would be a non issue because guilds or server groups could simply move to another map to get away.

This seems like it would be easy to implement from a dev side as well – all we would need is a new interface (with new scoring) and player access to multiple maps.

Chris Whiteside.6102:

Chris Whiteside.6102:

Update. Still dealing with the same issue from Friday. Guild Missions and proposal will be tomorrow, Tuesday.

Meanwhile if anyone hasn’t don’t their top three then get to it(-:

Chris

Note Guild Missions should read as Guild Halls (Silly Me). Sorry.

So to be clear it should read:

Guild HALLS and proposal will be tomorrow, Tuesday.

Thanks GW2 Reddit (Coffee4CR) for pointing this mistake out.

Chris

Had me excited there for a minute.

Im definitely ready for the guild mission discussion.

Yenn.9185:

Make sense. Force the big guilds to transfer out of T1 so they can get all their members in WvW.

This would definitely help the issue and it is something they should do (even though I would prefer “encourage” or “reward for” rather than force).

That said, it would be a short term solution. The issue is the constant ebb and flow of players and guilds between servers (based on perceptions of performance) makes it pretty much impossible to predict populations/coverage season to season – making meaningful matchmaking a pipe dream.

A more drastic solution is needed, imo, even if it means some server communities find themselves combined with others. That is why I would be an advocate of a battlegroup model that lumped servers together into three big piles and then gave us enough maps to fit everyone on (WvW on a HUGE scale – just with more map instances adding to one score each week).

I know that has downsides, but what we have right now doesnt work for many servers out there – especially considering that greater frustration leads to even more transfers – creating a system that continually becomes more and more imbalanced with every season.

Its time to break from the model weve had the past 2 years and come up with something fun for EVERYONE, not just those on a small handful of servers.

Even though it is the simplest solution, server merges run the risk of just making a bad situation worse – and destroying a server’s identity (which some people – even in T3 – still care about).

Battle groups, on the other hand, would work.

This could work in one of two ways -

1. Similar to EOTM where there are only 3 teams for the entire region (eg, NA), with an aggregate weekly score that includes all matches. This would require figuring out how many versions of the current maps would be needed to accomodate everyone, but that shouldnt be hard using recent historic data. Then simply have the three teams fight over 20 maps (not a real number) instead of 4. This would allow for easy addition of future maps. I know the bigger servers (T1) would probably not like this idea though.

2. The other way would be to keep the matches the way they are now, but simply temporarily merge lower population servers week to week for the sole purpose of WvW. The downside would be organized servers would still be prefered over the lower tiers, but at least the numbers/coverage should look better.

There are probably other ways this would work as well.

The only thing I will say for sure is that something needs to be done – badly – and, imo, it MUST be done before the next season starts. Especially at lower tiers, WvW is becoming extremely tedious and unfun (and if they are going to suspend releasing PVE content during seasons, WvW needs to be fun for EVERYONE).

I think this would work if they adjusted the number/size of the maps involved.

There has to be a better solution than the unbalanced mess we have now.

Like others have said, I think it is more reasonable to expect similar mechanics in future maps, but probably not with older ones.

One thing I would like to see is for them to use this mechanic when we eventually fight Mordremoth (and future elder dragons) – basically an entire zone dedicated to pre events leading to the actual elder dragon fight out in the open world. Set it on a loop (like they did with DryTop – but possibly ever 3-4 hours instead of every hour) and it would be a pretty cool story style event we could play through ad infinitum.

The thing that alot of people overlook about drytop is that the differences between a T1 and a T6 are not really significant – at least in terms of reward. Its nice to be in a higher tier map and it definitely feels like you accomplished something, but it isnt game breaking or even unfun if you do end up in a T1.

All in all, I really like this direction and would be happy if they continued to employ it (especially if they used it for the elder dragon fight ).

80-90% of the problem is the server population/coverage situation. The server with the most people and 24 hour coverage wins most of the time.

For me, that is okay as long as the experience is still fun for everyone – which is not the case now.

The bigger issue comes when a server so outnumbers and outcovers the other two (or the inverse – one server has a much lower population than the other two) that the “fights” are the equivilant of an elephant stepping on a newborn kitten.

it gets frustrating and not fun.

There has to be a better way to do this. WvW is an amazing part of the game – its a shame to see it ruined simple because of math problems.

A few suggestions/ideas (none of which are perfect):

- combine low population servers for the sake of WvW
- Give low population maps a SIGNIFICANT advantage of some kind (dont like this solution, but it is one)
- Make the matches much shorter (hours) to eliminate the impact of 24 hour coverage and mix up competition more (frustrating matches no longer have to be a week long)

I don’t know what, but something needs to be fixed before we have another season. This isnt competitive – its just a roll-call with awards going to the server that has the most people showing up. They might as well just give the rewards to the servers we know are going to win and figure out something actually fun to do with the WvW maps.

Johje Holan.4607:

I feel the annoyance at Anet everytime I log in to see unbalanced matches in a competitive mode with rewards given out to the server with the most people.

This.

Imbalanced servers has always been the single biggest issue with WvW, but this tournament shows that it has reached an epic level.

It’s time for Anet to take drastic steps to improve the WvW experience for ALL servers, regardless of population levels.

Some ideas (none perfect):

- combine servers based on populations for wvw tournaments (eg, matchup would be BG/Eradon Terrace vs Jade Quarry/Ferg Crossing vs Tarnished Coast/Anvil Rock)

- giving lower populated servers a significant advantage of some kind.

- making the matches much shorter (going back to 24 hour or 3 day matches instead of one week) so that miserable match experiences dont last as long.

In the meantime, they need to start giving us PVE updates faster again – no one wants to WvW on servers where the experience is so miserable due to population imbalances (and without pve updates, we have little to do in game).

Dayra.7405:

Every single match looks like the first plays against last.
But in fact maximal distance is 7 out of 24/27.

Balance is broken and with it interest in it.

This graph is very telling. 24 hours into this week’s matches and it’s already obvious who is going to win pretty much every match – and that was probably true last week as well.

Add to this the plague that is bandwagoning and server hopping and its easy to see the current system does not equate to fun matches.

With the introduction of megaservers, it’s time to look at alternative ways of matching people up. Basing it off of servers is apparently not working very well.

After seeing a small group of our more active players regain interest in WvW the past few weeks, Contemporary Heroes is looking to build a more organized team for that part of the game.

The core ideals and guild guidelines will still apply (NO DRAMA, friendly inclusive atmosphere).

If you are interested, we are looking for both soldiers and leaders. Cuddles (GubboSupreme) will continue to lead when he can, but we really want to add to the pool of commanders we have in the guild – and anyone wanting to learn will be given the opportunity/support.

This is a good opportunity for any WvWers out there looking to get a fresh start and be a part of (help build if that is your interest) a growing WvW team – in a guild that has been on HOD since the first beta weekend 2.5 years ago and will never leave.

We have some highly motivated members who are interested in WvW. Right now, we’re working on adding to the team and beefing up our training in the field. We aren’t the best (yet), but we recognize our shortcomings and have plans to work on them.

Finally (and, to me, most importantly), CH is and will always be a no drama guild. That includes our teamspeak, guild chat and public map chats/forums/etc. We just want to play a game and have fun.

If you want to be a part of that, reach out to me (Blaeys.3102) or Cuddles (Gubbo Supreme.6498) in game.

Starring:

Poobadoo as Hannibal Smith
Lord Faren as Face
Hobotron as BA Baracas
Mad King Thorne as Howling Mad Murdock
Ellen Kiel as the random female lead (replaced by Countess Anise half way through Season One)

Bloomanoo and Penelopee as the poor oppressed shopkeepers

and Evon Gnashblade as the evil politician trying to take over the town

1. Guild Calendar
2. No suppression for guild leader mailing to members (mass mailing to guild would be good too)
3. More chat functionality (officer chat)

Note that i would be against all of these ideas if it took developer resources away from, or delayed, developing new guild missions or guild mission types. That is what I most want to see.

Here is what I think most people want (and really do need) to hear about from ArenaNet:

In the next 6-12 months, what do you (the devs) want the direction and the pacing of the game to look like?

During season one of the Living Story, we saw bi-weekly updates almost constantly for 12 months, with little to no interruptions. The downside (to many – not to me) was that content was mostly temporary. These biweekly updates included a variety of fun content types, including world changing events, story instances, dungeons, world bosses, minigames and a new map zone.

During season two, the content is permanent, but there have been significant gaps (of approximately 3-4 months each) during which there was almost nothing new added to the game. The content that was added while the season was active was the same game types every time (new map portion, short instance with very minimal replayability value).

This major shift in direction illustrated how much you actually gave us in season one and was a culture shock for those of us used to that season’s pacing.

Given what we’ve seen, I think people would really like to know (without knowing the specifics of what youre developing):

- Do you plan to get back to the every two week schedule or is the plan now to break it into story chunks with longer development times in between (like we are seeing now)?

- Will season two continue to follow the format we saw during the first 4 episodes or do you plan to mix it up the way you did season one – with things like dungeons, minigames, etc, thrown in alongside the story instances/new map zones?

Here is probably the only way to get a more accurate assessment of the new player experience -

For the next month or so, re-implement the short surveys we saw during the beta weekends – triggering for new players only (first playthrough) – at levels 5, 10, 20, 40 and 80. This would filter away the anecdotal criticisms from people who are going more off what they have read – or the patch notes – rather than off of the actual experience.

If you play it before reacting, you’ll find it isnt the end of the world and actually includes some good redesign choices.

I want something similar to the final fight against Scarlett on the Breachmaker in Lion’s Arch – mostly open world with some instanced content to finish it off/make it more personalized.

To get around the idea of a one time event, the dragon fight should be its on map – with tons of pre events and a fineal fight – with the cycle repeating similar to how Dry Top works now.

I think it is worth noting that the “mid season break” will be lasting longer than the first half the season – and the actual content delivered in the first half, while compelling, was far less (imo) than that delivered through almost any 2 month periods in season 1.

This is a very bad trend for the PVE aspect of the game.

I just saw the news that the Halloween event will not start until the end of the current wvw season – and, even worse, the next living story step wont come until after the Halloween event. I think this is indicative of a troubling trend regarding new content releases.

The decision to hold living story/content updates until after the WvW season means there is a massive gap between the first few episodes and the next few. If the next portion is just 2 months (like the first), then the idea of the living story has changed in what I feel is a bad way. It is no longer a progressive story, but rather snippets of content every few months.

I dont think most people really felt having a WvW season and living story running concurrently was a bad thing. It kept us entertained and kept the game moving forward no matter which mode of content you preferred.

If the devs keep down this path, no one will have consistent content – it will come in fits and starts every 4-5 months. That isnt what we saw in season one and it isnt what most of your die hard fans really want.

tldr: please try to get back to a real 2 week release schedule with mixes of open world, instanced and dungeon based content.

The more experienced pvpers will quickly learn counters and ways to deal with rangers.

Where it will hurt will be in casual pvp play – specifically people new to pvp will be quickly turned off due to the ease with which and inexperienced ranger can sit at range and kill players in a few seconds (and, unfortunately – whether people want to believe it or not – they can).

So, if spvp were just about catering to veterans and hardcore pvpers, I would say leave them alone. Since there is another aspect to it, I think nerfs are probably warranted (and sooner rather than later).

Chris Whiteside.6102:

I agree with everything you are saying. I am simply stating that persistence is fun (-:

Chris

That sounds great to me, as long as the individual guilds can retain their original identity – for example, the small family guild I mention would be against an overly formal alliance because it would potentially expose the children in that guild to a large number of strangers (which is understandable).

With all of what’s been said in mind, Yaya’s suggestion regarding shared or saved progression – that advances a larger alliance (with unique perks and unlockables) – seems like a really great idea.

The tricks would be implementing that progression without using a system that puts one guild above the other – and implementing a system that allows for multiple alliances between divergent guilds (basically, my guild would possibly want to be in three unique alliances with the three guilds I mention above – based on the activities we share with each).

Of course, to make things even harder, the system would need to be simple to understand and implement (makes me really glad im not a developer and, instead, just some schmuck voicing my ideas on the Internet ).

Chris Whiteside.6102:

Hey Blaeys,

But what about the awesomeness of rocking an alliance over a period of time that is famous for killing it in WvW or Legendary Bosses or PvP that you would lose if i am understanding you correctly?

Chris

here is where the idea is coming from, to (hopefully) make things clearer.

I lead a decent sized PvX of about 350 members (with daily activity being around 50-70 members logging on). We have what I think of as informal alliances with three other other guilds on our server – one that is dedicated to WvW, one that is made up primarily of APAC players and one that is a small guild of real life family/friends that want to remain small because they have young children playing in their guild.

While I would love shared chat channels with these three guilds, I could easily see how it would get out of hand, so I wanted to think about it from a “what do we do together as guilds” point of view.

We work with these other three guilds in five different ways:

1. When the WvW guild needs support and we arent doing anything as a guild, we have a large number of members hop into their Teamspeak and follow their lead.

2. When members of the primarily APAC guild have to miss their guild mission night, we have a standing arrangement that they can come to ours (and vice versa). Additionally, officers from each guild agree to help out if the other guild is short of people in a given week.

3. The APAC guild and the faimly guild both have permission to use our custom guild pvp arena (which is technically mine, but it is kept running by donations from the guild) – and we set aside one night every other week for fun 3v3 deathmatch tournaments in the courtyard.

4. The family guild leads a “themed” wvw night (all minion master, all asura, etc) one night each week that we like to participate in.

5. Officers of all guilds often whisper back and forth whenever their guild is doing anything that takes larger numbers, so alot of adhoc groups form.

The point of spelling all this out is to illustrate what I think alliances should be trying to support. The trick is drawing the line between guild and cross-guild activities. For that reason, rather than seeing a shared chat channel that is active 100 percent of the time, Im more interested in tools that could make events like the ones I list above easier to coordinate and support between the guilds involved more fluid.

My first instinct was to look at making alliances event focused rather than chat focused. That may not be the best solution – and maybe shared chat is the answer (if the logistics can be worked out). Personally, though, if alliances are introduced, I would like to see them implemented around a toolbox of functions (such as shared resources and event triggers) that offer something more than just another chat option.

The idea of inviting other guilds to participate in my guild’s activities, most notably guild missions, really appeals to me (as does the idea of them inviting my guild to theirs ). That large scale organization between guilds is how I would define an “alliance.” The more tools we have to do that, the better the experience for all involved.