Guild Wars 2

So let me get this straight. Two thieves join together to alternately stealth each other, gang up to “focus” kill you while your 18 other buddies don’t do anything to help you, and you think thieves need to be nerfed as a result? I don’t know whether to laugh or cry at that.

18 players should have been able to chain stun the hell out of those two thieves who had to be right on top of you to kill you. Stealth or not, if you were dying, EVERYBODY had to know pretty much exactly where they were.

These kinds of lame kitten posts are getting pretty old …

Jeda.5209:

Fenrir.6183:

Terrible, terrible idea.
Why should you limit the number of players playing the game ??? If it was possible, i’d love to have limitless maps. Queues are @ around 2 hours on my server

Now that’s a terrible idea.

Why a limit? Because servers can only handle so much.
No limit = lagfest and most likely server crashing.

I can’t imagine the skill lag that would be. There are times now when all 3 servers are queued in eb and there is a 3 way fiight in sm. People not even near sm are complaining about the skill lag.

If queues are an issue then transfer. Most servers I hear don’t have queues. Eu servers really the only people who really have a legit excuse for not transferring if queues is a problem.

How about simply putting in enough server capacity to meet the demand?

Yeah, I guess you’re right … it’s better to just strangle the game. Keep as many players out as possible in order to balance everything around the lowest common denominator because the devs can’t figure out a better way to set up matches. That’s going to be the best way for ANet to fend off the new games when they come out in a few months.

Draygo.9473:

Anet said it would take 3-4 months to develop and polish a WvW map. So much shorter than a year.

It’s only shorter than a year if they actually do it. Check the archives and you’ll see that they were saying the same thing about six months ago.

TyPin.9860:

Now eat this:

Over all WvW player limit for each server should be equal to the number of WvW players averaged over time of the server with the least WvW population. Transfers to servers with lower average WvW population should be free.

Aim: Equal out WvW population.

Problem solved, you are welcome.

More likely players would just transfer to another game with devs that have a clue how to design matches.

The last I remember, ANet said they had two shared devs (i.e., part timers) working on WvW, while they just recently stated that they have four full time teams (!) working on PvE content and that they plan to roll it out as often as every two weeks. It’s not hard to figure out where we stand or what the likelihood of a new WvW map is.

lordkrall.7241:

Parthis.2091:

… Devon… could you please just actually answer the question for once. Of course you want to add new maps.

Are you working on new maps now? And if so you must be able to give us some indication of whether they’re being designed, balanced, tested and prep’d for release.

The phrase “we want to…” basically comes across as “we’ve not done anything on this yet”… and as a player, that’s really very disappointing.

And if they say they are working on them people will complain about them not being in the game with every single update released until these maps makes it to live.
And with updates coming every two weeks that will be LOTS of pointless posts about this.

I would say it is a rather good idea to NOT talk about details until stuff is set in stone, since otherwise people will shout about them lying and such.

And the official ANet apologist makes his appearance …

mrochon.8765:

Haven’t played in a while and wondering if ANet actually made WvW worth playing, i.e. WvW point progression and not the garbage they first introduced?

I’m pretty certain that the majority of WvW’ers play for the simple rush of pitting themselves against other players (preferably in the context of some grander scheme) … and despise mindless “progression” for the artificial carrot/donkey diversion that it is. If you can’t relate to that, there is SO much other content in this game and others that would suit you much better.

zerospin.8604:

Each time there are any changes to the skills, all your points will be refunded.

ANet never said that, and in fact said the last refund was a one time thing.

If you knew why skill lag exists, you’d know that it isn’t going to get fixed. I’m not saying that it CAN’T be fixed … only that it won’t.

So … ANet implemented a system of WvW achievements without bothering to do the math behind them to see if they were the least bit rational. That seems perfectly congruous with ANet (probably the same team of devs) implementing a match making system for WvW based on servers without having a lick of control over the single most determinant factor for winning matches … server population and coverage. Or with ANet intending for WvW to cleanly handle hundreds of players in each match without bothering to engineer the engine/hardware/bandwidth to accomplish that without crippling lag.

There is a point at which failure ceases to be an anomaly and must be assumed to be systemic.

Parktou.4263:

Just make it a matchmaking system like all other forms of PvP in gaming. It’s the only way to solve the population issues, just suck it up and do it already Anet. Then Guilds can actually have map wide GvGs and the pugs will still be able to casually log on and kill something once in a while. Maybe even make the matches shorter and more of a situation where its 1v1, one team on offense and the other on defense.

^this^ is so obvious that it staggers me that ANet hasn’t realized it yet and done something about it. I’m not saying it wasn’t a worthy try to formulate matches around servers … but it didn’t work, doesn’t work, and never will work. It’s just crazy to think otherwise.

They did this before and it brought TONS of criticism from players. As clueless as I think ANet often is, even I wouldn’t have expected them to make the same mistake twice. Shows what I know …

You guys know that the queue for WvW is random, right? Apparently not. If ANet can’t even figure out how to make queues first-in-first-out, how do you expect them to be able to log you back in if you re-queue within a couple of minutes?

slingblade.1437:

LilMcGinley.3890:

Fist of the Empire has an editable, savable map open for the public to use.

Hope it helps.

Link: http://www.fist-of-the-empire.com/GW2-WvW-Map.html

I have used this tool in the past, but now can’t get it two work.. Tried Chrome, IE, FF on two different computers. Is the tool still functional? If yes, any suggestions?

Thanks.

That map used to work all the time for me, but I just checked it and “Toggle Panel” doesn’t seem to function anymore. Without it you can’t place siege on the map. I don’t know if that’s a temporary or permanent situation.

DevonCarver.5370:

The main reason is simply that at the point that outmanned does that, it encourages servers to have fewer players on to take advantage of the stat boost. That, in turn, will cause people to yell at other players for logging on and taking away the buff.

I agree that’s a valid concern, but I only wish that ANet had as much concern about game-ruining mismatches in the first place that they’d actually do something about that. When are you folks ever going to learn that you need to implement some other match system than server vs server vs server? Population and coverage are ALWAYS going to rule the day (and night) in WvW and if you can’t come up with some way to balance that you are always going to have a flawed game.

Leger.3724:

Every single thing in this game has multiple counters – except stealth. And for a long while there literally was no counter. Not a single one.

Stealth is pretty much it’s own counter. If I stealth to run away it is no different than if you chased me away. If I try to damage you from stealth I’m no longer stealthed. I can still be AoE’d and stunned to oblivion while in stealth … just because you can’t figure out how to do that doesn’t mean that it can’t be done. I trait to heal while in stealth but it’s slow and while I’m doing so I typically watch my opponent heal faster unless he’s also a thief.

The best (worst) thing you can say about stealth is that it lets me decide whether I want to continue the fight or not. It doesn’t make me any more likely to win against a good opponent if I decide to stay.

Johje Holan.4607:

I don’t have a problem with thieves any more. But that doesn’t mean I like them.

I think the reason you see all these anti-thief posts is because theives are annoying. Kind of like gnats or mosquitoes. Its not hard to kill a gnat or mosquito but people hate them nonetheless.

Exactly. I obviously play a thief and I’ll admit it’s probably annoying for me to stealth and run off when I decide I don’t want to die … but when I do that I haven’t killed anyone, and I’ve given my opponent time to heal/recharge. That’s not being overpowered. And yes, glass cannon thieves can kill other glass cannons quickly if they take them by surprise, but that’s all as it should be.

The OP needs to (among several other things) check out the other current thread regarding recommended classes for WvW. Aside from roaming/scouting/pissing people off, thief pretty much falls to near the bottom of most everyone’s list.

If I were ANet I’d be concerned that the 8th most recent WvW thread was three hours old.

Velzer.1325:

Shouldn’t these type of threads be considered spam at this point?

If we stopped people from posting these kinds of threads we wouldn’t know who the idiots are.

snowaugar.1823:

The skill lag doesn’t effect lower tier servers In other words leave the bandwagon server

That’s actually not true, and if you understood how ANet pools server capacity for WvW you’d know why it isn’t true. I’m currently in Tier 7 and even here we can get ability lag when either our fights get big enough to require a shift in capacity or fights in other tiers get big enough to draw a burst of capacity from us. It’s a dynamic allocation system subject to sudden shifts in demand that can affect anyone. If you’re in a lower population server and have never noticed it you simply haven’t been paying attention. Brief bursts of lag occasionally happen even in PvE.

nalenb.1425:

little ceasar.9254:

Lol, if an arrow cart can deter a Zerg what does it do to a small groups? The common answer is leave the tower and come back later with an even bigger Zerg.

We don’t have a bigger zerg. Under the new matchups there’s so little incentive to upgrade anything. Unless we focus all our forces on one location to only defend there’s little we can do to stop the enemy from taking our locations.

Last night we had a lot of people on and we barely managed to hang onto our garrison. If ArenaNet is going to make the matches so lopsided why not let us use siege to even the odds? I don’t know how to balance it with small groups though.

That’s why ANet needs to get a clue and come up with a better way to make matches instead of server vs server vs server. NOTHING they do is going to offset the population inequalities of the current system, and until they fix the fundamental problem all this other crap is just smoke and mirrors.

Ramble much?

xxx

Arbacus.8296:

players carry supply

kill player that is carrying supply

why don’t I get the supply that character was carrying

when someone has supplys dies that supplys goes on the ground and is free for all as say a little cube varrying in size based on how much it is and if you can carry more supplys and you go walk over this cube you will gobble it up

I think this would help balance wv3 as a whole

Please explain how you think this would balance anything, considering that siege (with all of its various issues) is probably the only thing helping to balance WvW at all. I’m waiting with bated breath for your answer …

Blackjack.2083:

Neeho.3859:

The answer is obvious, isn’t it? Drop the que threshold by half. People will get frustrated by long que times on high pop servers and transfer to servers with less of a que. This will also allow the low tier servers to compete more evenly against the higher tier servers, as it cuts the number of people per map.

Yea the que threshold needs to be reduced or used as a gate to help maintain a better level of balance. Long que times for overpopulated servers would help to promote transfers to less populated servers.

More likely it will eventually promote transfers to other games whose designers are capable of figuring out how to set up fair matches. The clock is ticking …

A better handicap would be to give the lower ranked servers in each match a head start in terms of points for the week based upon their respective Glicko-2 ratings. It might take some time to determine appropriate handicaps, but now that ANet has freed the Glicko-2 system from the shackles of tiers it should be completely feasible to do so.

But yes … variety without equality is just obfuscation.

Nay of the Ether.8913:

Well this thread went sour fast, way to go guys. This one gets tossed on the other complaints now :/ Sometimes it doesn’t hurt to give a little encouragement. I never said this was the fix-all for wvw. But it’s a step in the right direction. And while they didn’t specifically outline how they would make these changes, they were pretty clear on what changes were going to be made, and for the better imo.

And just in case you didn’t bother to actually read what it said:

• Better incentives and rewards for small groups and defense
• Better incentives to run organized zergs rather than disorganized steamroll blobs
• Better commander tools
• More dynamic matchups (this one is a “meh” imo. I don’t particularly feel this will change much but it has potential to make it more interesting, time will tell)
• Tweaks to server “nighttime” and while this one was left vague, any change to help low server population hours would be welcome if it does indeed help
• Changing rules ( I assume similar to the “Flux” feature in GW1 which I think would be very interesting and fun)- http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Flux
• Better functionality and variety for siege (yes I know the current view on siege is "zomg QQ siege " but I think if it had better counters it wouldn’t be such a large problem.

So feel free to flame and troll me, but those things seem pretty good imo. We don’t need details to see progress that could benefit wvw is being made. So like I said, never hurts to offer a little encouragement.

Nobody flamed or trolled you, but you really need to grow up. Why on earth would you make a post to a public forum and then get all bent because some people simply disagreed with you??

Dumb Woob.9415:

Zoel.9154:

Dumb Woob.9415:

LilMcGinley.3890:

Math and RNG are the best fun destroyers ever.

Two points:

1) Don’t talk bad about math. Though I concdede that I am a bit odd for doing math in my free time for fun, I contend that everybody likes math; just those who think they don’t just haven’t realized it yet.

2) What would be less fun: total certainty or a lot of uncertainty? A very interesting question, since you claim that total certainty is the only thing that is not un-fun. Unless, of course, you mean some artifacts associated with the implementation of a pseudo-RNG in this game are un-fun (which you should say instead—words mean things after all).

If you’re good at math tell me what numbers you want to make analysis of whether glicko was accurate or not and i’ll pull them from millenium and put them in excel for you.

I don’t know what you mean by this. Even if I did, I suspect I would to need to make some assumptions (and thus a weaker argument) in order to support one position or another.

What I can tell you is the previous system of matchups had reduced match variety to the extent that you could not easily compare servers by rating—which is why people ended up using tiers to talk about server rank. Specifically, you could only compare servers that were close together in rating—because they were the ones who played each other.

The current matchmaking system will bring more match variety and make corrections to the ratings structure to make the ratings of the servers more “accurate” or closer to their theoretical true values. Now, would we see perfectly accurate ratings? Of course not—we don’t have infinitely many matches to play. But this system over the course of 5-10 matches will probably better seed the servers. Then, the variation of the matchmaking rating can be reduced to make better matchups on average, with greater match-to-match variety.

Is this painful in the near term? Absolutely. It’s an artifact of the previous matchmaking system. However, I’m willing to bet that our patience will be rewarded.

I would agree with all of that except for the implied assumption that accuracy translates to parity. It doesn’t. Just because we know precisely how much better or worse one team is relative to another does not mean that we will get equitable (and therefore enjoyable) matches. All that it means is that we will know more accurately in advance how bad the mismatches will be.

We are probably going to have to abandon the server vs server vs server matchup system if we ever want to see equitable WvW. We all know that WvW population trumps all else (unless siege is buffed even more to the point that it completely dominates the game), and ANet forfeit all control over that when they set up matches by server. Instanced matches make more sense, in my opinion, but ANet would have to get creative to preserve any sense of community and what are the chances of that happening?

Somebody a couple of months ago suggested a handicapping system based upon ratings, where a server with a lower rating would start out the week with a higher point score that the higher rated server would then have to struggle to overcome throughout the week. That might work with enough randomization of matchups to make the Glicko-2 ratings semi-accurate, but I will be very surprised if anything like that get implemented either.

I’m dead against PvE events, “dragons”, quests, and even skill points in WvW, but I think the PvE mobs serve a totally useful purpose. They represent a jeopardy of sorts to hinder free movement around the map, they can be used in a small scale fight in much the same manner as structures/terrain can be used for LOS purposes, and they can be used to accumulate bloodlust if you want to devote the time to it. All of that adds a bit of depth to the game that still more or less directly relates to how you compete against other players.

DevonCarver.5370:

One up and one down solves some problems but creates a bunch more. Including that it invalidates ratings entirely. It no longer takes into account quality of victory but simply uses the fact of victory to move a server out of the matchup they were previously in. The system we are using now creates varied matchups, which will allow us to get more accurate ratings. As those become more accurate we can dial down on the amount of variance we are introducing to have matchups that are varied, but less prone to large rating gaps between the servers. But, again, this is entirely based on server rating, which is the thing we have actually been calculating this entire time. Until that number is a more accurate reflection of server quality, we are going to keep mixing the matchups up.

All of that is completely true, but it beats the crap out of me why you folks (ANet) can’t grasp the fact that the fundamental fault here is the WvW population imbalance between servers … period. You can shake things up all you want … and yes, it will give more accurate ratings … but you’re still going to end up with significantly imbalanced matches each and every week, and the “fresher” they are the more imbalanced they will be. Everybody (well, almost everybody) on these forums knows that accuracy does not equate to equality. We’re still going to have lots of disparity, with match results for the week that are obvious after the first 24 hours of play.

There are mechanisms available to you to fix this, but you obviously aren’t willing to change the system sufficiently to implement them.

Ahmrill.7512:

When good suggestions are posted in the WvW forum it’s simply moved and forgotten.

I’m pretty sure that’s the way Anet wants it …

Jewel.1457:

Isn’t that the idea ESO is going with. Universal server instead of separate but everyone picks 1 of three legions to fight for

Sort of. They plan to have everyone play on the same massive group of servers and there will be three factions, but as I understand it the faction you are on depends upon the race you choose when you roll your character. If I remember correctly, there are nine races and three of them will form each faction. If players more or less spread out over the races, the factions should be approximately balanced. At the very least it means that there shouldn’t be a lot of faction hopping.

I think it’s hilarious that so many people seem to think the ranking system is at fault here, no matter what it is. The Glicko-2 system is totally misapplied to GW2 (especially with randomization to subvert it), but the fundamental problem is that WvW will always be flawed as long as there is so little control over the number of players matched up against each other. It beats the kitten out of me that ANet can’t see that either.

Let’s see now … design a game where population and coverage trumps strategy and skill, then create matchups between factions (servers) that have completely uncontrolled populations, and then throw in some randomization just to spice things up.

Who would have ever thought that wouldn’t work well??

gennyt.3428:

If Anet is going to take it on themselves to balance WvWvW populations then many people would probably end up giving up something called “server pride”, which is funny and sad at the same time because this is exactly what server vs server fosters especially since the servers don’t get bo diddly for their efforts anyway. There are some shockingly short sighted design choices at the core of WvWvW. I would have preferred to see guild or alliance battles with say…20 or 50 man teams in a three way fight from a pool of all servers, instead they went ape kitten with this whole “persistent world” bit.

^this^

Pain.3756:

You can’t.. it is not technically possible to limit one side to no more than 5-10 more players than the other side? This couldn’t be done?

-grump

Just think it through. What are you going to do when the population shifts significantly? Kick some players off the map because a group from the other server decided to call it a night?? And it only makes sense to track players by map, so what are you going to do when a zerg from one server decides to jump from EB back to their own BL?

The only way to control player populations is via the queue, and if you limit the entry to the level of the lowest population server you effectively prevent LOTS of players from even playing WvW in the first place. <—- stupid idea

As long as ANet persists in making matchups server vs server vs server this will continue to be a huge issue. To fix it I see no other way than to convert to some sort of non-server-based factions.

Nikola.3841:

Cactus.2710:

Nikola.3841:

Cactus.2710:

Just because I think you made an ignorant suggestion doesn’t mean that I don’t understand or that I’m new to MMO’s … neither of which is the case.

Dungeon is extreme pvp, and you said its extreme pve…do I have to go further?

LOL. No … you don’t have to go any further at all. I think you’ve proved my point quite well.

You had a point?

point —-> http://tinyurl.com/8v6szmw

Nikola.3841:

Cactus.2710:

Just because I think you made an ignorant suggestion doesn’t mean that I don’t understand or that I’m new to MMO’s … neither of which is the case.

Dungeon is extreme pvp, and you said its extreme pve…do I have to go further?

LOL. No … you don’t have to go any further at all. I think you’ve proved my point quite well.

Nikola.3841:

Cactus.2710:

Nikola.3841:

Cactus.2710:

Nikola.3841:

Create dungeon, lets call it Darkness Falls.
It should have good stuff inside, and be open for wvw fighting, but only realm with
highest tick has access…I think that would lead to some interesting dynamic in wvw

Because adding something (a dungeon) that is pretty much the opposite of WvW is going to give WvW’ers an incentive to do something different than WvW??? Please tell me you aren’t old enough to vote.

I surely don’t understand what you said here…I’m pretty sure even you don’t know

LOL. I know exactly what I said, but I’m not surprised that you don’t so here’s the third grade synopsis:

- a dungeon is extreme PvE

- most WvW’ers prefer WvW to PvE and play WvW because they like WvW (read that again if necessary for comprehension)

- adding a dungeon (i.e., PvE) to WvW is not at all likely to persuade WvW’ers to switch midstream to something that is pure PvE instead of them continuing to play WvW the way they have been. What percentage of actual WvW’ers did you see stopping to do the JPs or fight the Wurm? Certainly not the ones who you’re worried about.

Its pretty obvious you didn’t read previous posts, or didn’t understand them, or, most probably, both. And its 100% sure you started playing MMOs after WOW

Just because I think you made an ignorant suggestion doesn’t mean that I don’t understand or that I’m new to MMO’s … neither of which is the case.

Nikola.3841:

Cactus.2710:

Nikola.3841:

Create dungeon, lets call it Darkness Falls.
It should have good stuff inside, and be open for wvw fighting, but only realm with
highest tick has access…I think that would lead to some interesting dynamic in wvw

Because adding something (a dungeon) that is pretty much the opposite of WvW is going to give WvW’ers an incentive to do something different than WvW??? Please tell me you aren’t old enough to vote.

I surely don’t understand what you said here…I’m pretty sure even you don’t know

LOL. I know exactly what I said, but I’m not surprised that you don’t so here’s the third grade synopsis:

- a dungeon is extreme PvE

- most WvW’ers prefer WvW to PvE and play WvW because they like WvW (read that again if necessary for comprehension)

- adding a dungeon (i.e., PvE) to WvW is not at all likely to persuade WvW’ers to switch midstream to something that is pure PvE instead of them continuing to play WvW the way they have been. What percentage of actual WvW’ers did you see stopping to do the JPs or fight the Wurm? Certainly not the ones who you’re worried about.

Nikola.3841:

Create dungeon, lets call it Darkness Falls.
It should have good stuff inside, and be open for wvw fighting, but only realm with
highest tick has access…I think that would lead to some interesting dynamic in wvw

Because adding something (a dungeon) that is pretty much the opposite of WvW is going to give WvW’ers an incentive to do something different than WvW??? Please tell me you aren’t old enough to vote.

Thaia.5146:

1. Anti Stealth Traps are USELESS. Period.
10 supplies and nearly 4 seconds cast? Really? Seriously guys? Thief will kill me before I open my Inventory…
2. Thieves can easily escape from EVERY fight. He starts a fight, loses, stealths, heals and resets (or escapes)… and so on. Two days ago I saw a Thief kiting 2 people AND killing a Dolyak in the same time… that’s insane…
3. There is no possible way to counter stealth. I am asking – WITH WHAT? With that useless traps?
4. The risk of roaming as a Thief is 0. Beautiful, round ZERO. He can run away whenever he wants.
I have leveled an Engineer especially for WvW (because my Ele was nerfed again, and no – I’m not talking about D/D but about my Mist Form) and I use dual Pistols + H S B U Elixirs and Supply Crate of course. Traits: 10/30/0/30/0. Armor: Power/Vit/Condi. I have a question – how am I supposed to fight versus someone who is invisible 75% of the time? Glue Shot immobilize and Supply Crate stuns are useful but still – they only let me to harass him – not kill…

What a stupid post. A thief that is constantly in stealth is a thief who isn’t killing you. A thief who runs away is a thief who isn’t killing you. A thief who repeatedly resets the fight is a thief who isn’t killing you. A thief who isn’t killing you is annoying, not overpowered. Grow up and learn the difference.

TallDan.6350:

I’m not usually one to QQ at Anet and I will have to wait to see how this plays out but my initial thoughts are that it is a stupid idea. Take a failing system and fix it by randomizing the matchups, who comes up with this stuff?

^this exactly^

Mooodster.3470:

so you complain about fighting the same people every week..they add a random factor so you don’t fight the same people every week and you still complain…why not just go out and admite that unless you get what you want you will always complain..in which case someone else will complain because they didn’t get what they wanted leading to nothing ever getting done…

lets hope this adds some much needed omg we are getting stomped time to step our game up and some o wow we are stomping them think ill take some time and go do something else for a few hours because ohhh now its not going to be about who buys or looses the most players to there servers just to be able to fight someone new after 2-4 weeks because it takes awhile to move up or down

I guess it hasn’t occurred to you that the people who complained about stale matches aren’t necessarily the same ones who are now complaining that this is a stupid idea that only makes the likelihood of blowouts stronger. “You” is an ignorant generalization when applied to an entire forum.

Besides, even many of those who complained about stale matches wanted to fix it by instituting an entirely different matchup system that would offer fresher matches BY VIRTUE of it creating more equitable matches across all of WvW. I guess you couldn’t figure that out either.

You can shove your omgs and your oh wows …

Zil.3071:

what are u doing…….. the tiers are too far apart to random match. it wont be ‘who will win’ u kitten kitten. it will be ticking 600 points total domination. total turn away both the competitive and casual wvwers.

It seems that everyone understands this except ANet. All the new system does is make sure that there are even more blowouts, and that players will lose interest by late Friday evening instead of by Saturday afternoon.

ANet needed to implement a different way to create three-faction WvW instead of by server, and they needed to shorten the match from a week to something less. What they’ve done instead is the rough equivalent of rolling their face across the keyboard.

Zietlogik.6208:

I do alot of WvW, and I do alot of exploring, one thing I have noticed is that when exploring in PvE, I think “how would this play out if this were a PvP map?”

And certain maps definitely stand out more than others in this respect.

http://wiki.guildwars2.com/images/d/df/Timberline_Falls_map.jpg

This is a good example, while going for 100% completion I noticed how many nooks, crannies, canyons, overlooks, and just the entire general layout of the map was so much more complex and well designed than the current WvW maps.

It almost feels as if the open fields in WvW were designed to actually hold more than what we have now, player build outposts, structures etc. that maybe never ended up in the iteration process. but in the end just because void large open spaces instead.

These PvE maps on the other hand are complex enough to lower the amount of “zerging” that takes place, but still has enough main path ways to have them, and enough smaller areas to promote small squad tactics and roaming.

This probably sounds crazy, and it may just be that, but I kinda wish Anet would open their minds to a Test Server so they can put some of the community suggestions, or their own internal tests to the public to test, even if it fails, I would love to see how a map like this would work in a Server v Server setup (only 1v1, not the current 1v1v1, though that may work for some maps.)

And with the variety of maps and areas available in PvE, this would instantly create a massive amount of variety for the playerbase.

A small part of me actually kinda wished that WvW was actually in fact the PvE world, but with open player vs player combat between servers, competing over events, waypoints, locations, etc.

All of that is because you understand what WvW could be and ANet does not.

VOLKON.1290:

Niim.9260:

Dayra.7405:

Niim.9260:

So I saw this and began hitting my head into the nearest wall:

Dangerous New WvW Abilities
Become even deadlier in The Mists with new World vs. World abilities like Burning Oil Mastery or new ranks in Defense Against Guards!

Who comes up with this stuff and can you please make them actually play WvW before they do?

1) You never saw a bunch of golems dying in forgotten oil? There are some funny youtube videos about that.

2) This is an advertisement not a patch note, this is written by an advertisement designer and not by a player/game designer. It contains as many useful information as any other advertisement

I am not sure we should use events of stupidity as a basis for what makes a mastery useful or not.

Even if it is an advertisement, it still represents two new abilities being added that are completely worthless. Each of those abilities represents design/development time that could be better spent on useful aspects of WvW, real changes.

It’s nice that we have you to tell us what’s useful and what isn’t in WvW. It saves us the time and trouble of actually waiting and seeing what gets added.

Apparently you haven’t been paying attention, because history is on Niim’s side.

lioka qiao.8734:

The real tragedy is that they know that storms like this hit these areas and yet they continue to build houses out of wood and brick. Apparently it is possible to build a structure that can withstand winds of a tornado: These guys have done it

Yet i’m watching the Weather Channel who is really covering this and what I see is a whole block of wooden houses that got reduced to foundations. Anyone who didn’t have a storm shelter was seriously screwed in that situation. And the school is the worst part about it. Each classroom could have a storm shelter in it and yet they send the kids into the hallway which is only marginally better than the classroom at protecting them.

Oklahoma is no stranger to tornadoes. Surely they could have building codes in place requiring shelters at a minimum.

It’s tragic to see this happen and my heart goes out to them.

In 1999 Oklahoma was struck by a series of tornadoes that whacked many homes but left others standing relatively unharmed , so one of the government agencies (I think it was the Army Corp of Engineers) tried to analyze why. What they found was pretty incredible … exterior walls made from wire mesh and stucco over mere slats across the studs (no sheets of OSB to prevent racking), roof trusses simply toenailed to the top of walls instead of using hurricane straps like the IRC (essentially a national building code) requires, etc. I found the report complete with pictures on the internet so I assume it is still out there somewhere, but the bottom line was that the majority of homes built to code held up far better than the rest and saved lives in the process.

It also beats me why schools there don’t have concrete basements (with tunnels for safe egress) for the kids to go to when a hurricane warning is in effect.

Tarin Twisted.4183:

I had written this in another thread but thought it would be a good separate discussion…

The biggest problem with WvWvW is the population issue. At the moment if you cannot field at least 80% of the numbers the top team is fielding you are going to lose. So although there are many other valid issues fixing any of them will not change the fact that the population imbalance (coverage wars) is the real issue.

There is a silver lining of hope however that could potentially fix the population problem and wonderful thing is it already exists.
Scalability.
In PvE bosses scale in difficulty to meet the number of individuals during the encounter. Why not make the NPC guards scale to meet the number of players engaging in the encounter?
Example…
Attack a supply camp with 5 people and you are on equal ground.
Attack a supply camp with 50 people and the damage and hit points of the guards scales up to make it challenging for the number of people there.
The bonus would also be applied to defending players as well giving them an opportunity to survive and participate in the fight. If you did not apply it to the players as well than they would not stand a chance.
Apply that same principle to every guard and supply yak on the map.
Everything scales from 5 and up. The system would take into account the other opposing force as well. example 20 vs 50 is a 30 difference so the encounter would scale to +30.
In order to qualify as someone who scales up the difficulty it would be anyone that gets tagged for the event bonus on either side.
Sure there are other problems in WvWvW but the population one is the biggest and this just may help out enough to even up the odds a bit.

Just an idea….

This suggestion has come up in one form or other several times before, but frankly it doesn’t show much thought.

Are you only suggesting this for supply camps? It kind of sounds like that, but if so that’s a pretty limited “fix” for WvW since at least on my server the great majority of the population problem shows up at towers/keeps or in the open field. Camps usually just get flipped.

How exactly do you determine the size of the group(s) in the fight? Anyone that gets tagged or tags within 1200 units? If so, you just initiate the fight with a small number to set the ratio and swarm in later with a larger one. No way you could make the buff dynamic as the population ratio changes..

Within 1200 units of what? The center of the battle? If so, how exactly do you even determine that for a bunch of spread out players.?

How do you handle players that die and rez nearby to rejoin the fight? Do they count as extra numbers?

tl;dr It’s not definable in practice and can easily be gamed.

Vanchatron.2306:

I’m a level 80 thief, with full Berserker’s Armour & Accessories, Rings etc.

After having run several dungeons recently, and played a bit of Fractals it seems that my survivability is well under par. I’m so used to the glass cannon way of playing in other MMOs, that I have failed to give myself much survivability other than what I have in my traits.

I decided that I should perhaps leave my Berserker’s Armour to one side, and replace it all with Soldier’s Armour, which gives Power/Toughness/Vitality. This way I’ll still get a DPS increase with the +power, but also some nice survivability aswell (hopefully).

The only problem is, having checked the Trading Post for armour with these stats, there isn’t a single piece of Exotic 80 armour with them on the TP.

Therefore, do you guys know of any other way of acquiring this particular type of armour? Preferably the easiest/cheapest way possible.

Thanks guys, and of course if you feel the need to add any advice or suggestions, I would gladly welcome it!

With the exception (if I remember correctly) of leggings, you can get a full set of PVT armor from the temples in Orr for 42,000 karma each item, and you can of course equip it with appropriate runes from the trading post to buff it further.