Guild Wars 2

thiagoperne.7340:

Skill lag is slightly better, at some big fights that before we usually get skill lag we’r are not. But something is going on, something is wrong, at some points we’r getting a massive lag that sometimes takes like 3-4 sec to get back and when it doesn’t you get DC’d. But Anet should be aware of that by now and we should expect a fix soon.

LOL

If you think there is a fix coming soon, you clearly do not in the least understand what causes the lag in the first place.

Vena.8436:

Cactus.2710:

ANet implemented something that they didn’t fully test, clearly didn’t understand, wasn’t asked for, and generates more angst than it addresses.

People have been asking for traps, barricades, more siege options, for ages. Stop bullkittenting to try and fill in your usual daydreams. The rest of your points are fine but don’t make kitten up.

Given the hundreds of posts expressing shock and dismay at these particular traps I’m pretty sure that you’re the one making kitten up, not me. As a thief, they don’t bother me particularly because I view the potential utility of the supply trap more than compensating for the jeopardy of the stealth trap, but clearly both traps were pulled out of the blue (or some even darker place).

And wtf with the comment on my “usual daydreams?” I don’t troll, I try to stay objective, and I try to be honest even when I’m being sarcastic. Did I insult you in some previous life?

Lemme see here …

ANet implemented something that they didn’t fully test, clearly didn’t understand, wasn’t asked for, and generates more angst than it addresses.

I’m totally shocked. Who would have ever expected this?? This is so out of character for them.

Absolutely nothing is going to change as long as WvW is server vs server vs server. There are simply too many uncontrollable population variables to ever assure even matches.

Valik Shin.9027:

I think bigger maps with same number of players would work better than more maps with less players.

You know that ANet has said several times that larger maps are not technically possible in GW2, right??

MrKnieves.4162:

“Right now” doesn’t really works for anyone. They have acknowledged the issue, alas, they are working on it. Have patience or stop playing until they find a solution.

Actually, they already know the solution. So does most everyone else on these boards. It requires server-side hardware upgrades, more server-side network bandwidth, and probably some server-side software modifications since ANet merges server capacity for WvW. And while ANet has acknowledged the problem, agreed it is one their end, and stated that it would be a difficult thing to address … they never actually said they planned to fix it. If you believe otherwise I’d like to see the link.

Korsbaek.9803:

ok ANet has admitted it to be server side so they might be doing something to it.

the removel of culling has brought the skill lag instead

Culling and skill lag are not related (not from the technology aspect), except for the fact that removing culling brought more people back to WvW and therefore created a greater server-side burden.

Phoenixfudge.5290:

Is Anet planning to do ANYTHING to address this lag? I need a straight answer right now.

I guarantee that you aren’t going to get it. ANet has acknowledged the lag and has admitted that it is a server side issue, but nothing beyond that.

Swamurabi.7890:

imo, siege wars is boring.

I don’t get it. Why are you playing WvW when you fully know that the objective is to capture (i.e, “siege”) objectives and hold them while the enemy tries to capture (i.e., “siege”) them back?? You get points only for the objectives you hold, right? While killing players is eminently fun in the process of capturing objectives, you don’t get points for kills … only objectives. Beats me how you wouldn’t have figured that out yet, and that if you don’t like the siege component that you should probably be playing sPvP or tPvP instead.

WvW is supposed to be primarily a map strategy game, and that means deciding how best to siege and hold objectives. I like killing other players too, but there’s no map strategy to that at all.

UnrepentantProcrastinator.7420:

I’d rather have a decreased range trait.

Defense-wise, mortars overshoot too often. It forces players to awkwardly use mortars on the other side of the fort or even go to an adjacent tower and use its mortars.

So build an arrow cart.

I never understand why so many people want to take the variety and complexity out of the game. WvW is too narrow and simple minded the way it is without making it even more so.

Aneirin Cadwall.9126:

As much as I argue against the constant availability of stealth (to thieves, that is), I’d argue just as much that activating stealth should break and interrupt channeled attacks. :\

I’m a thief and I disagree … we’re supposed to be invisible, not immune to damage. I do think, however, that for consistency the path that channeled projectiles take should disappear when a thief goes into stealth even if they still can hit him.

Coinin.2590:

I fail to see the point really in this at all…looks like all this is, is 1 thief who decided to be a pest to a small little group by just spamming c/d and refuge while not even attempting to kill anyone lol

I keep saying that same thing over and over again … a thief can be exceedingly annoying, but unless he manages to burst you down right away he is either dead or merely annoying. If he simply kitten es you off without killing you he isn’t overpowered, no matter how many times he manages to do it.

Annoying does not equal overpowered.

Aneirin Cadwall.9126:

I can 1v1 a thief… until the point where they are losing and begin to endlessly stealth. They then run away, return 12 seconds later with full health, and have effectively reset the fight at their convenience.

Nevermind all the mobility they have over certain professions (Heartseeker, Infiltrator’s Arrow and +Movement Speed, for example).

LOL. I don’t run a burst thief and I use stealth almost exclusively for defense. Every time I use stealth to reset the fight my enemy does the same, so I’m not sure what you’re doing wrong if you can’t. I find it amusing how so many players seem to equate being annoying with being overpowered. The thief who ran away so you couldn’t kill him is the same thief who didn’t kill you.

Besides, all that mobility is exactly why I play a thief … and the things I sacrifice to get it are not so surprisingly why I need it.

Exosferatu.2961:

WvW needs more map variation. Here what’s on my mind.

Naval Warfare:
1) Sailing our own ships / galleons (we need to use more cannons in wvw… they are relatively insignificant to arrow carts)
2) Defending beachheads (/w towers + keeps but has typical Lion’s Arch building concept http://i.imgur.com/wv1Q6Q7.jpg)
3) Stormy weather…
4) Pirates (mercenaries)
5) Camps (coves or random isles)
6) More aquatic weapons
6.5) More underwater combat.

Sky Warfare
1) Airships http://i.imgur.com/NWW5Ix7.jpg & http://i.imgur.com/t2hk0sV.jpg
2) Colossal mountains / colossal structures, floating terrain (/w towers & keep)
3) Tengu, harpy mercenaries

I hope you have lots of patience. ANet hasn’t even been able to drain the lakes in the BLs yet, and what you’re asking for takes way more programming than that.

Linanthony.1809:

So I was thinking, how about we put in a radar into WvW? It can be a buff in guild Art of War section or be a tower/keep upgrade. It will basically show enemy players in a vicinity of a tower/keep.

How guild buff would work:
Queue up the upgrade then it will last for a period of time-this should cost a lot of influence as it is somewhat a cheap method

How keep/tower upgrade would work:
So have it as one of the last upgrades for like a gold, radars that take supply pop up and people build them and they show when enemies are close by and they can be destroyed by enemies so it wouldn’t totally be unfair

I think this would really add to the amount of tactics it would need to take down a tower or keep! Thoughts?

Cute doesn’t equate to smart. It would be far more effective to just deploy a couple of scouts.

SilencingMachine.5049:

Just now took part in a tier 1 battle in EB at Stonemist …..three way fight just now…..large armies on all 3 sides….game was near unplayable with severe skill lag, target switching lag, and worse for me as a elem, attune swapping was near nonexistent due to lag.

So simply put….much like the limitation of your engine to have larger WvW maps (which you clearly stated with “sorry, it is what it is and can not be fixed”), will ANet PLEASE address this lag with large scale battles. Can it be fixed or are we just stuck with it?!?!?! VERY frustrating.

It’s going to cost a lot of time and money to fix ability lag. So no, it isn’t going to happen … at least not before TESO comes out and you won’t care anymore anyway.

Xsorus.2507:

Sometimes PvPing in this game makes me feel like i’m PvPing in Stillmoor in Rift, I’m sure people who played Rift will get that reference.

I know exactly what you mean, since ANet has fallen into the same exact trap that Trion did with Conquest (Rift’s version of 3-faction PvP in the zone of Stillmoor). Both of them mindlessly incorporated activities that promoted individual rewards instead of the objective-based game play that the game was designed to deliver, thereby giving players on the same team different motivations. And both floated lazy patches that delivered stupid fluff instead of improvements/additions/extensions to the fundamental content of the match.

I seriously thought that Anet would learn from Trion’s mistakes (which is why I switched to GW2 in the first place), but now I’m just hoping that Zenimax has learned from both of them.

Bela, I recognize the voices … but who did the awesome drawings? Did you?

In any case, that was an OUTSTANDING video.

Well, maybe ANet’s intent was simply to generate interest (whether good or bad) in WvW. 430 posts in 7 hours is pretty impressive.

I play a mostly tanky D/D thief, and I’m pretty useless in a mass battle at killing a unique target because if I openly charge in I just get chain stunned and gang kittened with AoE. I can often help my team mates, though … I stealth toward the tightest mass of enemy, Daggerstorm in a u-shape heading back toward my group, and then use Blinding Powder and Hide in Shadows to slink off to heal. If I wait until most of the enemy are already engaged one way or another and if I trait for heal-while-stealthed, there’s usually enough confusion (not referring to the ability) in play to make it work repeatedly. Sometimes I can even peel off a Death Blossom or two before bailing. Worst case I kitten off a bunch of the enemy and draw WAY more DPS than it takes to kill me, thus reducing the overall damage to my group.

And yes, I’m fairly decent strafing with a shortbow, but being tanky I don’t contribute as much that way.

JJBigs.8456:

Not even going to list all the reasons, as the community can for me.

All I am saying is, Treb’s are OP, they need a nerf on several levels to even them out.

Thoughts/Comments/Suggestions?

Another idiotic comment from somebody who thinks all weapons/siege/classes/abilities should be completely equivalent in all situations. WvW isn’t checkers … it’s a dumbed down version of chess.

lordkrall.7241:

Yoke.4671:

FPS does not = lag let alone skill-lag.
really wish people could comprehend that, its only said 10 times a day on the forums.

The WvW lag is Server side and not client side, Please try know what your talking about before giving people dreadful uneducated advice.

And this server side lag would effect EVERYONE, but when it happens with 10 people for him but not happen for 25 people for me it is quite clearly NOT server lag.

Nope … you still don’t have a clue what you are talking about. ANet uses a system that merges server capacity for WvW. That means there is a dynamic allocation system of some sort that assigns and redistributes server capacity based upon real time need … it’s the only way it could work. I can’t say for certain that it spans all tiers or just the servers in a particular tier, but I’d bet it’s the former. In any case, a sudden demand for server capacity (say in Stonemist) could pull “capacity” from other situations and create ability lag in weird and wonderful ways as the system tries to stabilize. I’ve experienced ability lag while soloing my daily in PvE, and I can pretty much guarantee that I have a better computer than you do.

I’m tired of posting the link that explains this, so if you don’t believe me just search some of my earlier posts for it. If you’re too lazy to do that, at least have the decency to stop posting bad advice.

scootshoot.6583:

Yamato Shinobi.4378:

So Anet.. Any fix? Is it even ‘possible’ to fix this?

In the tech section many mentioned the games engine is outdated for a 2012 release and is direct9 compatible only. DirectX9 does not utilize multi core cpu’s which is pretty much standard these days. Game will require a rewrite in code from the ground up which is not gonna happen.

Think of it this way, a huge 70 on 70 zerg meets and they are all jammed on your screen. Your poor cpu has to calculate 140+ players, pets, npc’s dodging, spamming abilities and try to transfer all that information on your end in real time……..

Except that skill lag is a server-side problem ONLY, as ANet has repeatedly confirmed. It is ANet’s CPUs that are bogging down … not yours, his, or mine.

Luvpie.8350:

Hi Anet,

SoS has been reporting a couple people siege capping by building lots of useless siege in last match on EB border and this week our home borderland in garrison. we have reported him in game. sent email to exploits@arena.net etc but still he is on today and keeps building useless siege and siege capping the map. What is the most efficient way to get this taken care of because normal channels are taking TOO long.

Given all the unacknowledged and unanswered forum complaints, in-game reports, and emails on this topic, I’m pretty sure that anything involving ANet will not be the most efficient way to get this taken care of. I’d suggest flooding the other server with secret agents (probably thieves stacking stealth to avoid the NPCs) that you purposely allow to live near the supply depots in your towers and keeps to kill the miscreants.

(offered only slightly tongue in cheek)

Glenn.3417:

Remove the aoe cap and in turn reduce overall dmg of the aoe skills.
Also get rid of those ridiculous golems. They are no way proper siege and any nitwit can for a blob with 10+ golems and rush the map while the others are asleep/outmanned.

The only tactic viable in wvw is:

1. Blob up
2. Stack buff
3. Hide behind obstacle
4. Rush enemy blob

Add to that the horrendous skill lag and you get tired of wvw pretty darn fast.

To get what the OP is asking for you’d pretty much have to remove AoE (both dps and buffs) altogether. Removing the AoE cap just makes it less of a 1v1 type of fight. And by 1v1 I don’t mean like a duel within a group … I mean where I target you, he targets me, somebody else targets him, etc. I think (not sure since he wasn’t very clear what he wants) that’s what he meant by picking somebody out of a group.

Iruwen.3164:

They did, this was their intention. If you can’t group and organize properly, the game won’t fix it for you. If the others have a big zerg, either try to play better, have an even bigger zerg, or split up and play tactically.

This is quite possibly the most ignorant and clueless post of the day in the entire WvW forum … and that’s saying quite a lot.

Two reasons why he’s still doing that. One, he’s a sociopath, and two, ANet lets him get away with it.

Lalnuir.4957:

Don’t stand in melee range of a ballista.

^This^ … but I really don’t think the OP gets that yet.

A few years ago, just for kittens and giggles, I did some web searching for information regarding the behavior of cheating. The list of reasons is pretty long, but the ones particularly relevant to online gaming are:

o anonymity … people are more likely to cheat if they don’t think they can be seen

o it doesn’t matter … people are more likely to cheat if they think that the result of their cheating isn’t causing anyone real harm

o the challenge and thrill of being able to get away with it … cheating becomes almost like a contest within a contest

o no penalties … some people are willing to do almost anything if there aren’t any repercussions

o the perception that everyone else is doing it anyway … people are way more likely to cheat if they think they need to do so to avoid an undue disadvantage

The last two are particularly relevant here. The more that ANet is unable or unwilling to police their own game the more of this crap we are going to see.

Niim.9260:

DevonCarver.5370:

Some additional members of the excellent WvW team, by no means all, and even then remember that countless members of the ArenaNet staff are involved in every piece of content that goes out the door:
John Ryan, writer
Hugh Norfolk, designer
Matt Witter, designer
Patrick “El Capitán de Culling” Mera, programmer
Chris Barrett, programmer
Tirzah Bauer, artist
Brian Cautrell, producer
Jessica Boettiger, Assurer of Quality

So, they are okay being called out by name, and they all rock. Like I said, though, that’s just the start of everyone who bust their butts to get WvW made better.

Which one is responsible for the WXP system?

LOL

I would have thought by now that everyone would know that ANet does not have much of an in-game monitoring process.

Demas.1064:

For about 10 Weeks now we have been up against the Same Servers, it sucks because our server has alot of downtime and during this time, the dominant server pretty much takes over the whole of WvWvW.

Because of this i am unable to 100% My WvW maps required for Map Completion.

So i ask how much longer must we as a server endure getting our Butts kicked Over and Over and Over?

When ANet changes the matchup system. In other words, don’t hold your breath because I don’t think it’s an easy change for them to make.

But as an aside, your map completion is pretty much last on my list of reasons why ANet needs to change the matchup system.

There are more problems with players being too dumb or indifferent to place siege properly and actually use it than there are with the siege itself. Arrow carts and sometimes catas can often be used effectively to protect cannons and other siege, not to mention various player abilities that don’t get used nearly enough. A properly sieged and manned tower can easily defend against 3:1 or more odds.

It’s also part of the game strategy that you actually place siege in one tower/keep to protect a nearby tower/keep. Fireballs from mortars and cows from trebs can make a huge difference if people actually cared about defending.

A massive zerg is going to cap your tower no matter what you do, but I’m pretty sure that’s the way it’s supposed to be.

Atherakhia.4086:

No one else feels siege inside a tower/keep is an issue in and of itself? I’m fine with arrow carts as they tend to be more defensive in nature. Even catapults and balista to a lesser extent. But trebs?

One of the major problems I have with the way WvW works right now is how you can effectively siege surrounding structures from within the walls of another. There’s no real risk involved. Same with meleeing gates. Why allow weaposn to hurt gates at all? Why not have hand-held siege weapons that do like 10% damage to players and gates. That way if you want to siege a structure with players, you run the risk of being caught without real weapons equiped and you’ll suffer for it.

Say what?? What’s the point of having a tower or keep at all if it doesn’t provide you with walls to protect you and your weapons? It doesn’t sound like you understand the concept of WvW. Part of the game is the ability to be able to hit a tower or keep from another, and part of the strategy is to know, cap, and hold those that allow that versus those that don’t. You’re SUPPOSED to have to attack and capture structures that protect siege instead of just attacking the siege itself.

We might as well be playing some sort of open field capture the flag if you had it your way.

No chance of that happening. War Machine has way too much loyalty to ever leave their server, as this link proves …. https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/pvp/wuvwuv/SBI-WarMachine

Oh wait …

Oozo.7856:

Mike.7320:

dank.3680:

Mike.7320:

graverr.6473:

Do the 20 man you are looking to fight need to be organized ppl or just pickups preferebly upscaled ?

The 20man can be organized or not. As long as the small guild has the skill to fight them. Im looking for the one skilled guild above all.

You might also look into ADD NOQQ and BTSY not sure what servers they are on now though… Of the ones I mentioned I’d say XOXO/SPCA aren’t really focused on synergy and supporting each other rather just skilled players who run together.

OG has fought and killed ADD, NOQQ and BTSY. Need something better than that.

Well, that is pretty much a flat out lie. OG never beat us in a straight up GvG fight. They might have been a part of a larger force that killed us, of course, or won some 1v1 fights here and there (of which I was not involved). OG had some individually strong players but they didn’t communicate well (they admit they weren’t even on voice) while in a group which is why they lost against us when we did run across them GvG, which wasn’t often.

We’ve fought many of the people mentioned here. They know I don’t lie about fights we’ve had. I’d strongly advise against recruiting someone who makes things up like this.

Well, Mike seems so off-the-wall puffed up about himself that he’s either a troll or a child (of any age), so I’m not sure I’d take anything he says very seriously.

Mike.7320:

I need players to match my skill. Simply put.

That was simply put, alright … I’ll give you that much.

Littlefeather.8623:

Cactus.2710:

Littlefeather.8623:

Cactus.2710:

Almostfaceman.1804:

Cactus.2710:

Cirus.5748:

The problem with rewarding this is that it will result in a abuse of it’s mechanics.

Escorting yakks used to give nice rewards, do you know what happened? About 20 bots would be escorting the 1 yakk. They removed the rewards and bots are no longer in wvw.

Imagine getting a good reward for every time you repair or build, your keep has 300 supply and it’s needed for an attack, everyone drains it on a door so they can get shinies…

Or imagine getting Wxp and golds for every siege weapon you build, your keep will be filled with irrelevant siege and the map would be siege capped in no time.

These types of things get abused and ruin the game, that’s why they don’t offer direct rewards, yet they are so important. Playing WvW properly and helping the entire server is a reward in itself. You don’t need shinies for that, especially since if you did, it would ruin the game.

^this^

I’m amazed that so few players get this, but astounded that ANet doesn’t either.

Nah, as it stands right now in my experience too many are riding on the coat tails of those who are doing all the unrewarded work – because they get more rewards running about. Something needs to be done about it and “they’ll exploit X” is a poor excuse for not coming up with some way to solve the problem.

I really wasn’t clear since I was only responding to part of the situation, but I’m against individual rewards at all … I think they break the intent of WvW. Almost everyone zergs now because that’s the fastest way to get WXP no matter whether you’re team is winning or losing badly. I played Rift for quite a while and saw first hand exactly how this kind of thing happens when I played Conquest … Rift’s kitten version of 3-faction large scale objective-based PvP. I repeatedly used that example here on these forums to argue against individual rewards in WvW well before ANet implemented it in the March 26 patch.

So what would I do differently to give individual players a sense of contribution? One possibility would be to grant WXP to players based upon the point ticks their team receives while they were playing. That would at least encourage team play and more participation time. It would also force ANet to come up with a way to create balanced matches … which is probably why they will never do it.

This is not about individual this or that, this is about the logistics of WvW, and the few fools that run supply for it. We are getting shafted everynight and we know it, its not fair accross the board, its not fair and equal for us, and 90% of WvW’ers dont know how important it is but if we dont do it, well than yea theyll see how important it can be.

I don’t understand your reasoning, or lack thereof. All of this is EXACTLY about individual rewards. You wouldn’t be complaining about getting shafted if ANet hadn’t put in place a system that grants individual rewards for kills but not for other things (like running supply) that contribute so greatly to team score. You might feel under-appreciated, but that’s not the same as saying you’re being “shafted”.

My point is that individual rewards that aren’t based upon team performance will ALWAYS undermine team activity. They pit team mate against team mate in terms of intent … in exactly the disgruntled manner that you display here.

I can careless about rewards personally, we all know people dont do it because it doesnt reward those who do.

I used to do this, everyday, I even askd for volunteers to help me seige up something or whatever, but hardly any one cared. Well sometimes a few people did help, and it was only then when a defensive team of mine repelled multiple 50-70 man zerg hits on a tower like ogrewatch or keep like AH or Bay, that people began to see how important it is. But still no one wants to be on that team, every one wants to be on the karmma train. Which I excersise as a commander, but then no one is seiging anything up so all of our structures are paper.

This is why I an so disgruntled, not becuase the rewards, but because 99% of people can careless to do it, only because the lack of rewards.

OK … I can completely understand that point of view. I sometimes fight with the group because it can actually be useful (you can’t hold onto an objective until you first take it), but I and many members of my guild are often the ones breaking off from the zerg to repair gates/walls and lay down defensive siege. We do it because it in most cases it needs to be done and lots of players, as you say, can’t be bothered to do it. It’s often a pretty thankless task, though.

Littlefeather.8623:

Cactus.2710:

Almostfaceman.1804:

Cactus.2710:

Cirus.5748:

The problem with rewarding this is that it will result in a abuse of it’s mechanics.

Escorting yakks used to give nice rewards, do you know what happened? About 20 bots would be escorting the 1 yakk. They removed the rewards and bots are no longer in wvw.

Imagine getting a good reward for every time you repair or build, your keep has 300 supply and it’s needed for an attack, everyone drains it on a door so they can get shinies…

Or imagine getting Wxp and golds for every siege weapon you build, your keep will be filled with irrelevant siege and the map would be siege capped in no time.

These types of things get abused and ruin the game, that’s why they don’t offer direct rewards, yet they are so important. Playing WvW properly and helping the entire server is a reward in itself. You don’t need shinies for that, especially since if you did, it would ruin the game.

^this^

I’m amazed that so few players get this, but astounded that ANet doesn’t either.

Nah, as it stands right now in my experience too many are riding on the coat tails of those who are doing all the unrewarded work – because they get more rewards running about. Something needs to be done about it and “they’ll exploit X” is a poor excuse for not coming up with some way to solve the problem.

I really wasn’t clear since I was only responding to part of the situation, but I’m against individual rewards at all … I think they break the intent of WvW. Almost everyone zergs now because that’s the fastest way to get WXP no matter whether you’re team is winning or losing badly. I played Rift for quite a while and saw first hand exactly how this kind of thing happens when I played Conquest … Rift’s kitten version of 3-faction large scale objective-based PvP. I repeatedly used that example here on these forums to argue against individual rewards in WvW well before ANet implemented it in the March 26 patch.

So what would I do differently to give individual players a sense of contribution? One possibility would be to grant WXP to players based upon the point ticks their team receives while they were playing. That would at least encourage team play and more participation time. It would also force ANet to come up with a way to create balanced matches … which is probably why they will never do it.

This is not about individual this or that, this is about the logistics of WvW, and the few fools that run supply for it. We are getting shafted everynight and we know it, its not fair accross the board, its not fair and equal for us, and 90% of WvW’ers dont know how important it is but if we dont do it, well than yea theyll see how important it can be.

I don’t understand your reasoning, or lack thereof. All of this is EXACTLY about individual rewards. You wouldn’t be complaining about getting shafted if ANet hadn’t put in place a system that grants individual rewards for kills but not for other things (like running supply) that contribute so greatly to team score. You might feel under-appreciated, but that’s not the same as saying you’re being “shafted”.

My point is that individual rewards that aren’t based upon team performance will ALWAYS undermine team activity. They pit team mate against team mate in terms of intent … in exactly the disgruntled manner that you display here.

Almostfaceman.1804:

Cactus.2710:

Cirus.5748:

The problem with rewarding this is that it will result in a abuse of it’s mechanics.

Escorting yakks used to give nice rewards, do you know what happened? About 20 bots would be escorting the 1 yakk. They removed the rewards and bots are no longer in wvw.

Imagine getting a good reward for every time you repair or build, your keep has 300 supply and it’s needed for an attack, everyone drains it on a door so they can get shinies…

Or imagine getting Wxp and golds for every siege weapon you build, your keep will be filled with irrelevant siege and the map would be siege capped in no time.

These types of things get abused and ruin the game, that’s why they don’t offer direct rewards, yet they are so important. Playing WvW properly and helping the entire server is a reward in itself. You don’t need shinies for that, especially since if you did, it would ruin the game.

^this^

I’m amazed that so few players get this, but astounded that ANet doesn’t either.

Nah, as it stands right now in my experience too many are riding on the coat tails of those who are doing all the unrewarded work – because they get more rewards running about. Something needs to be done about it and “they’ll exploit X” is a poor excuse for not coming up with some way to solve the problem.

I really wasn’t clear since I was only responding to part of the situation, but I’m against individual rewards at all … I think they break the intent of WvW. Almost everyone zergs now because that’s the fastest way to get WXP no matter whether you’re team is winning or losing badly. I played Rift for quite a while and saw first hand exactly how this kind of thing happens when I played Conquest … Rift’s kitten version of 3-faction large scale objective-based PvP. I repeatedly used that example here on these forums to argue against individual rewards in WvW well before ANet implemented it in the March 26 patch.

So what would I do differently to give individual players a sense of contribution? One possibility would be to grant WXP to players based upon the point ticks their team receives while they were playing. That would at least encourage team play and more participation time. It would also force ANet to come up with a way to create balanced matches … which is probably why they will never do it.

This would seem like a pretty obvious feature (requested before, by the way) that would in no way break the game … it would in fact add depth to it by giving players situational options. There are so many potential improvements like this that go unfulfilled, though, that I’m beginning to believe that GW2 has so little modularity that making any change is some horrifically complex process which ANet does not dare attempt for fear of breaking everything else.

Either that or everyone is busy coding new things for the gem shop.

Brassnautilus.2941:

I don’t know about lower tiers, but in T1, sometimes a few commanders would pin up on a map, and compete for players. Going separate routes doing opposite things, and unwilling to coordinating with each other.
For those that just want to find a pin and follow, they don’t know who was doing what, and the little info they could use to find out about these commanders usually came from the query in team/map chat between these commanders and their followers/supporters.

Now that we have ranks, why don’t we use that to assign priorities?
people with higher ranks obviously been playing more successful hours in wvw. They are more experienced at the very least.

Limit the total number of commanders on a map. Better yet, allow the highest ranked player(s) to determine the allowed number of commanders within a range. Give highest ranked player with commander tag purchased the priority to pin up, if he so chose to forfeit that opportunity, the next highest gets priority.

Why not assign siege priority (other than the one who dropped the plan) according to rank? Yall know how frustrating it is to watch an inexperienced trebber when there’s a small window to perform the task, like counter trebbing.

I’ll make 2 examples of such utilization of ranks.
In planetside, command rank (CR) gave bonuses, and only way to gain higher ranks was to play the hours, rank up xp. At higher ranks players gain access to exclusive chat channels between commanders, at even higher ranks, players were rewarded with powerful weapons.
In america’s army, ranks determined priority of class selection at start of game. Higher ranked players take away powerful weapons (203, M82, etc) every day, there was no whining, rank up kitten.

Since the rank system has no cap (or a very very high cap), eventually we will have huge differences between the hours played by casual and hardcore wvwers. Why shouldn’t the HC players’ efforts be rewarded? Why should the casuals given the right to come into a game and take away the other guy’s zerg just because he had couple friends with him and they would clutter the chat channel to make their argument seemed like the only argument?

There is already a measurement stick. A rudimentary one, but one that’s been used successfully by many games before this to institute basic order.
Make the move, anet.

This is a really bad, even ignorant idea. The people with higher ranks are NOT at all necessarily better players. They simply zerg more … almost the opposite of what the game needs more of. Besides, turning WvW into some kind of elitist club that excludes newer players is a terrific way to kill it. We need to encourage new players to join and then educate them on how to play, not discourage them. The good thing is that ANet has several times stated they want to make WvW accessible to everyone so they will no doubt flush this idea like it so totally deserves.

Cirus.5748:

The problem with rewarding this is that it will result in a abuse of it’s mechanics.

Escorting yakks used to give nice rewards, do you know what happened? About 20 bots would be escorting the 1 yakk. They removed the rewards and bots are no longer in wvw.

Imagine getting a good reward for every time you repair or build, your keep has 300 supply and it’s needed for an attack, everyone drains it on a door so they can get shinies…

Or imagine getting Wxp and golds for every siege weapon you build, your keep will be filled with irrelevant siege and the map would be siege capped in no time.

These types of things get abused and ruin the game, that’s why they don’t offer direct rewards, yet they are so important. Playing WvW properly and helping the entire server is a reward in itself. You don’t need shinies for that, especially since if you did, it would ruin the game.

^this^

I’m amazed that so few players get this, but astounded that ANet doesn’t either.

Well, for starters, let’s take the example where 55 people from server A want in the game, 70 people from server B, and 90 people from server C. The new map opens up with 5 from server A, 20 from server B, and 40 from server C. Yeah … that sounds a lot better.

You should have spent more time thinking and less time writing.

I find it disturbing that some people (most of them … but not all … being from the U.S.) have turned this thread into NA-vs-EU bashing. The EU guys have had a totally justifiable gripe since launch and it isn’t their fault that ANet decided to toss out a crippled fix instead of a good one.

Johje Holan.4607:

It’s not ideal but it I can understand it – having reset at 2am would be horrible. And due to the laws of physics, we live on a round world. Darn laws of physics messing up our WvW… Looks like I’m leaving work early on Fridays from now on too.

I’m pretty sure that the laws of physics have nothing at all to do with ANet not separating NA and EU starting times. It might be lack of available manpower, it might be due to some sort of hard coding careless devs wrote into the software that handles the reset, or it might be something else … but it isn’t a physical problem since the server banks for NA and EU are independent of each other.

Swamurabi.7890:

As to the topic of rewarding WXP for yak running. maybe the WXP should be inversely proportional to how much supply the tower/keep already has.

That doesn’t make any sense. There are lots of times that capping off the supply in a tower or keep is every bit as important as at any other time. Maybe an attack is expected and all the supply possible is needed for defense/repair. Maybe the tower is sitting at 730 supply and needs that last yak to justify ordering the upgrade instead of saving the supply for defense. I see no purpose at all in making the WXP proportional.

THAT was the most descriptive title you could think of for your thread??

azizul.8469:

Cactus.2710:

Phoebe Ascension.8437:

Google how much AMD opteron/Intel Xeon cost (especially the faster models). Then realize this game doesn’t have subscription. Where do you think they find this amount of money for 50 servers? I’m afraid it won’t happen. The problem is just to small for Arenanet to pay this much money for. (with small i mean, for me i get this skill lag for about 5-10% on a global scale, although some days are really bad, like weekend).

You need to take a math course. ANet has sold 3 million copies of the game at an average price of at least $50. I don’t honestly know how many hardware servers ANet runs to handle all the various realms, but we’re probably talking something on the order of 1% of sales even to totally replace them with top end hardware. The ability lag may indeed be due to insufficient hardware, but I’d bet that the barrier to fixing it has far more to do with the software side … game engine or whatever software they use to merge server capacity for WvW (which they in fact do). Either that or the active WvW population is so low relative to the rest of GW2 that Anet has decided even 1% of sales isn’t worth it to keep us around.

you forgot the monthly overhead cost of maintaining the server man, especially the electricity…. running a managed service is not a easy and cheap as people thought….

Ahhh … you mean that they aren’t already paying pretty much that exact same overhead cost for the servers they are already running?? Got it. I didn’t realize that their current servers didn’t use electricity … my mistake.

Scionyde.2704:

Cactus.2710:

Phoebe Ascension.8437:

Google how much AMD opteron/Intel Xeon cost (especially the faster models). Then realize this game doesn’t have subscription. Where do you think they find this amount of money for 50 servers? I’m afraid it won’t happen. The problem is just to small for Arenanet to pay this much money for. (with small i mean, for me i get this skill lag for about 5-10% on a global scale, although some days are really bad, like weekend).

You need to take a math course. ANet has sold 3 million copies of the game at an average price of at least $50. I don’t honestly know how many hardware servers ANet runs to handle all the various realms, but we’re probably talking something on the order of 1% of sales even to totally replace them with top end hardware. The ability lag may indeed be due to insufficient hardware, but I’d bet that the barrier to fixing it has far more to do with the software side … game engine or whatever software they use to merge server capacity for WvW (which they in fact do). Either that or the active WvW population is so low relative to the rest of GW2 that Anet has decided even 1% of sales isn’t worth it to keep us around.

Yeah, because the one-time purchase of hardware is the ONLY cost a company like Anet will incur, right?

It’s the only cost different from what they are already paying. Or couldn’t you figure that out?