Guild Wars 2

Acelerion.6820:

A new map. No objectives, just rolling golf course like hills and a sparse amount of structure. A main place for everyone to have some good fights, “emain” if you will.

Sorry, but that’s kitten All you’d have is one mass battle in the middle with no tactical content to offset uneven populations. One mindless zerg against another with everyone going ranged (guaranteed … it happens in every similar situation in other games).

RiceRepublic.9271:

Hey SBI players! You probably know me. Im commander Rice. Im just gonna say… do we really have to respond to these people talking about us? I mean they were in low tier for a long time and don’t even know how to fight/put up sieges well. IOJ has been in tier 1 once so I think they fight faily well. But I don’t really mind DR talking bad about us ..why? cuz they just sound cute to me.. it’s like babies whining. "oh they have a zerg.. Oh!! we just beat 30+ zerg with 15 !! " Seems like Oozo has posted a video “stomping SBI zerg” Well.. great job. Congrats on your work. Probably happens 1/10 times. Even if it happens 10/10.. So what? We are winning You can call us anything… Zerg server, noobs, etc. I really don’t care. The end result is.. we are winning.

I have seen a DR video saying “stomping SBI zerg” and then specifically say [Kiwi]. I was watching the video, thinking “dam did we lose this bad.. we need to learn how to fight better then.” and then figured something wrong.. “wait.. i only see one fight with many Kiwi people… and most of the scenes of the video has 3?4? Kiwi tags..” So I was wondering why did this person specifically said [Kiwi].. and figured “oh he probably got beaten by us Kiwi like 10 times.. So he wanted be proud of wiping SBI zerg with about 3,4 Kiwi members..” LOL. So I am guessing.. that video is actually a compliment for us because you really wanna kill Kiwi that badly.. (meaning we are that great!) Thank you!

People will probably attack my post since it’s a bit offensive. Well.. I am not trying to offend everybody~ Just these forum warriors out here who whines too much. I took the posts by DR players really offensive. So.. I am gonna focus on you guys this week. So better watch out. IOJ, Kiwi won’t hit you most of the time (unless you get aggressive on us!"

Hey SBI.. as I said.. let’s stop worrying about these people. We are winning anyway..

I have great respect for SBI in general … they fight hard and they mostly use sound tactics involving more than one group on the map. They typically (not always) have numbers on us at certain times of the day but that’s the breaks of the game and I’d have no problem going up against SBI on a regular basis. You, however, as an individual sound as childish as you accuse all of DR of being.

Well, I’d probably be really disappointed with that interview if it didn’t simply confirm what I had already concluded. ANet short-changed the game engine (thereby affecting map size, etc), undersized their server and network capacity (thereby creating lag, queues, and the need for culling), and skewed their staff toward content instead of software (bug fixes and game improvements). ANet did a lot of things right when it came to PvE mechanics, but they stumbled badly on PvP in general and there does not appear to be much hope for any meaningful change. That interview clearly shows that they don’t have the resources to deal with the issues.

GW2 was a good idea with crippled execution.

Sunreva.8714:

You should do a percentage less damage based on the size of the zerg. 50 man zerg means that players within the zerg do 50% less damage (example using arbitrary numbers). Whereas a 25 man zerg does 25% less damage (again, arbitrary numbers). But the scaling damage would make it so that the 25 man zerg stands a better chance against the 50 man zerg, and thus, skill (instead of more players) would play a bigger role in determining which side will win.

Not sure how the mechanics of this could be implemented, or even if its possible.

It is neither possible nor desirable. Strategy and tactics in open field warfare should be more important than individual 1v1 skills, and that includes positioning your players for strength. If you want individual player skill to be the dominant factor, go play a different game because you came to the wrong place for it here.

“Is there anything being done about this.”

Nope.

Much of the game (although not enough) resides on your own computer, thereby making it pretty easy to modify. ANet may occasionally catch and ban somebody who is hacking, but they haven’t been able to do a thing to prevent it. Any hack you heard about six months ago is still there.

Lopez.7369:

I’m more interested in an official response.

Good luck with that.

LieutenantGoogle.7326:

o_o, its probably designed this way to that more people can WvW at the same time (map cap is probably at a point where its to hinder possibility of 200 vs 200 battles where even high-end pcs would crash). As well as giving every map a different feel as every map you start at a different location.

-1. The map sizes are limited by the capability of the legacy game engine Anet bought.

-2. ANet’s servers run out of sufficient bandwidth to handle large numbers of players way before any high end PC starts to choke.

-3. ANet’s game engine does not properly utilize even a middle of the road multi-core CPU and it doesn’t make optimum use of most GPU’s either.

tl;dr The constraints on GW2 are primarily a function of the short shrift that ANet game the game when they configured it.

Urrid.4593:

I know there are changes to achievements and possibly titles as well as changes to when orange swords are displayed (more than 20 people attacking the same target) but beyond that I am clueless.

Does anyone know what the long awaited WvW patch will contain this upcoming month?

Make a list of the top 20 things you’d like to see changed in WvW. Then make another list of potential changes you couldn’t care less about. Now throw away the first list and randomly pick three things from the second list. Add in two new bugs and there you have it …

I didn’t say it was great to be pitted against the same servers each week, but it IS more fun than getting totally blown out even worse every other week by servers from the tier above you. And the way player dynamics work, blowouts almost always lead to greatly reduced map populations as people get demoralized … so you’d be having even less fun when you can’t even find server mates to play with. At least at the moment, there is simply way too much disparity in server WvW populations to have balanced matches AND new matches very often. Anybody who cannot understand that is too dense to be of any use.

SundayTrash.9562:

It suck to be domanated by the same server weeks after weeks, How after get we rid of the ranking system to loser move down, winner move up.

LOL. With the current disparity in server populations, all that would do is make you be dominated by a DIFFERENT server each week … unless of course you were on the lowest server in the tier. Don’t believe me? Look at the current tiers and see what would happen under a winner-up/loser-down system.

Say what? All three borderlands maps are identical except for location names.

Majik.8521:

Cactus

you bring up some good points, however i think we can all agree that there are some bugs with how credit is done.

on two different SM takes i was in the lords room fighting for a good 10 min got many kills, did good damage to keep lord, and was in the circle the whole time and did not get credit.

then there have been times i get to a tower just in time to get a few shots in on someone that was already downed or get to the ring just in time for the last tic and end up with gold contribution.

i don’t man siege often but i have seen the same thing with trebs and cats. sometimes i get credit for helping take the wall down sometimes i don’t. the only thing i can think of here is that maybe the ones i got credit for i may have hit some players that ended up getting killed. about a week ago OW was taken from us so i manned a cat at OL and knocked the wall down and didn’t get credit. about an hour later they took it again so i manned the cat once again. this time after the wall was down i started tossing boulders into the lords room. this one i did get credit for.

I can believe you on that, and just to be clear, I would never claim that the system currently in place isn’t free of bugs. Who knows how culling might affect such things, for example. In general, though, and while I rarely defend ANet on such things, I can pretty easily see why any sort of “contribution” measurement is doomed to failure and lots of QQ’ing from the user base.

drwookie.6391:

Have the developers ever commented on this? It is crazy to me that months after release you can still randomly get no credit for a tower capture. You can be in the ring and get nothing. Many many times if you are out of the ring you get nothing, even if you were integral to the capture (I was just in a golem, destroyed the gate, ported the golem back and got nothing).

Do they ever intend to make it more consistent?

I don’t think you understand what you are asking for. Exactly how would you quantitatively determine a specific player’s contribution to taking an objective?

-1. Dropping a piece of siege? If so, how close does it have to be to count and how much damage does the siege have to do to walls/doors/enemies in order to give you credit for dropping the siege?

-2. Dps to enemies? What if there aren’t any enemies defending the objective? How much damage do you need to do if there are 3 defenders versus 30?

-3. What if your role is protecting siege or other players versus inflicting damage yourself? What if your role was running supplies to rebuild offensive siege that had been destroyed by the enemy defenders?

-4. What if you simply ran into a tower and killed the quartermaster while everyone else was up killing the lord? Is that a “contribution?”

So where do you draw the line between significant contribution and incidental participation? It’s a hopeless thing to define and a nightmare to code. It’s much more practical for ANet —AND-- the players to simply credit anyone in the circle when the flip happens.

yagerau.6438:

Especially in a T1 server where there are many players, we often come across people teleport hacking or sometimes speed hacking when they think noone is around. Generally its the same repeat offenders too, whom I am assuming keep doing it because they get away with it. The problem, unlike PVE content is that I can’t see the info of the player to report if they are an enemy. This would not be be an issue if there was a report hacking button or something but there is not. Instead we are asked to send an email to exploits where the only info we can provide is MAYBE a screenshot (which won’t show anything useful because its just a picture,) and a few lines of text saying “some guy in SoR server who is a necro in EA guild or some guardian on SoS but I forgot the guild.” If they are on my server I can give the account details through friending them (I follow a lot of hackers just to see how long they get away with it and if they keep the account… a lot do sadly, even after I reported and sent SS months ago.)
So how do we identify these folks better so that exploits team can take care of them? Is there some way i’m missing other than right click to get more details? Should I just install fraps and send videos, upload to youtube? I just want to be more helpful in taking care of these cheaters because it is very disheartening to see blatant cheaters who have been exploiting for weeks, months still playing the day away every day with the rest of us who arent.

If you were able to accurately and conclusively identify cheaters ANet would be compelled to do something about it. Therefore it isn’t likely to happen.

To be honest, I’ve never understood why the game wouldn’t be more interesting if you could use hotkeys to swap gear … or even utility skills … when out of combat. We can do all of that now … except that it is abysmally clumsy to do so. Worst case a cooldown could be used to prevent any hypothetical abuse.

Jiiub.7135:

eeh no? this would unbalance the entire system… and if you dont know why it would do, then i wont be the one to tell you, figure it out yourself

No, this wouldn’t imbalance anything, and if you don’t know why it wouldn’t, then I won’t be the one to tell you … figure it out for yourself. Hint: pretend you’re ingame and walk yourself through the motions.

Psychotic EGG.1376:

I may not be able to speak for my whole server. But I know I hear the same gripe from just about everyone. Fergusons Crossing is fed up being pitted against Sorrows Furnace. We are lightly populated Server and they are a highly populated server. Not only should that be enough to change up the rosters. But to make it worse (and no fault on Arenanet for this part) They seem to be a server that goes on WvW a lot while our server seems to be mostly PvE. So you have not only does there over all server out number us by a lot. The WvW is even worse. Should you not have some sort of algorithm program that checks the numbers of active players per server, which you have that part done, then pits servers against other servers that are close to the same numbers. This would then fix big servers just kitten us little guys. And would then mix up who you are against from time to time as the numbers flux.

If you are either in FC, then you know what I mean, or are on another server in the same boat, like Eredon Terrace. Make a comment stand up. Get Arenanet to fix this.

Which server do you think you’d stand a better chance against? If SF is rolling you that hard I don’t think any server in T7 wouldn’t be doing the same.

In any case, what is happening is what several of us have called “tier-locking”, and not long ago I had about a week long argument with a couple of folks on this forum about it. My contention is that tier-locking is an unavoidable consequence of using the Glicko-2 system in a tiered environment unless ANet were to choose the constants in the formula to make it highly volatile, and if they did that they’d risk increasing the number of blowouts. If anyone doesn’t believe tier locking is real, just look at the servers that win their match by a large number of points and still have their rating points decrease. It’s a flawed system … pure and simple.

Straegen.2938:

Cactus.2710:

Donner.6293:

Matt Witter.6982:

If you think you’ve found a bundle item that should be added to that list feel free to post it in this thread, send me a PM, or send in a bug and someone from the team will look into it.

I don’t really expect an answer but I’m probably not the only one wondering about this:
Why don’t you just have a person go through all existing bundles and set the no-wvw-flag on anything but bundles with visual effects only? It can’t be that hard to build a list of all existing bundles in your game, can it?

You’re not the only one wondering about this and you’re not the only not expecting an answer. I find it laughable that ANet has to ask players which consumables may not be appropriate for WvW.

Yes! It is funny for a software company to ask their user base for feedback. I am so glad most other MMOs don’t do that. <sarcasm>

I love how users get exactly what they want and still find a way to complain about it.

ANet isn’t asking players for feedback … they’re asking players how their own game works. And yes, that is pretty laughable.

By the way, how many other bits of WvW feedback has Anet actually done anything about in the six months since launch? I think I could probably count them on the fingers of one hand. Go ahead … prove me wrong.

I really don’t understand the question. All you have to do is log into WvW, hit the “M” key, and zoom way out. You’ll see EVERYTHING in real time. That doesn’t guarantee anything will stay that way, of course, but nothing else is going to predict the future for you either.

You posted this to the wrong forum.

As greatly flawed as I believe ANet’s choice of the Glicko-2 system for WvW to be, no rating system is going to give you both parity (roughly equivalent populations) and variety (different matchups). Beats the kitten out of me why so many players are unable to grasp that simple fact.

Donner.6293:

Matt Witter.6982:

If you think you’ve found a bundle item that should be added to that list feel free to post it in this thread, send me a PM, or send in a bug and someone from the team will look into it.

I don’t really expect an answer but I’m probably not the only one wondering about this:
Why don’t you just have a person go through all existing bundles and set the no-wvw-flag on anything but bundles with visual effects only? It can’t be that hard to build a list of all existing bundles in your game, can it?

You’re not the only one wondering about this and you’re not the only not expecting an answer. I find it laughable that ANet has to ask players which consumables may not be appropriate for WvW.

EasymodeX.4062:

Tbh, I don’t think it’s useful to even begin any sort of discussion around “build your own keeps”. That seems silly.

It’s not silly at all in the context of a week long match. Keeps/towers/camps, etc could all require blueprints to be built, with supply camps needing to be near various resource nodes to be viable. The location of those resource nodes could even be reset each week (just like already occurs with ore and plants) so that scouts would initially be needed to find them. Some resource nodes could even be richer than others, thereby providing greater supply. If keeps and towers were destroyed upon capture there would be more emphasis on placement, defending, and attacking while weak. The resulting variety of strategies and tactics would be tremendous and make each week a truly fresh match.

I can easily imagine that some of those things would be difficult to implement and may even have unintended consequences, but please tell me why any of that would be “silly.”

Slamz.5376:

WvW really isn’t an “open world sandbox game”. It’s more like a WOW battleground, just somewhat bigger. It’s Super Alterac Valley is all. It could be so much more.

^Exactly this^

Lavath.8924:

An example of one change would be to remove the predefined keeps altogether. Leave it up to the world’s teams to decide where resources should be moved, deployed, and where those resources should be used to build the keeps. Found a mine that is rich in stone required for building a fortified keep? Build a supply camp, deploy troops to guard it, and build a supply chain to the build site. You will have to defend a lot of stuff here. On the flip side, you will have scouts looking for where the enemy is doing these things and you will be deploying teams to disrupt or destroy them.

I have also thought that this would be a much better approach, mostly because it would probably add a couple of layers of strategy and a LOT more variety to the game. It would probably require a different game engine, though, since it would need bigger maps and ANet has already said they are max’d out in that regard. It might also require different points system, such as earning points for territory held instead of for structures held. Given, though, that ANet was too cheap to buy a decent game engine in the first place and that their creativity in sPvP was limited to having four maps all with the exact same mechanic I sincerely doubt that any of this will come to pass no matter how good the suggestions from the player base may be.

Rei Hino.5961:

It would be nice to have maybe at least during each countdown how many people you have for your server listed at the top beside supply so you can have a better estimate of how many people you have to do what.

That can’t happen until ANet gets their act together to accurately know themselves what the actual player population on a WvW map is. I’m pretty convinced that they don’t.

whiran.1473:

WvW players don’t pay the bills at ArenaNet. They’ve done a bad job at monetizing WvW. Unfortunately for ArenaNet they need to avoid “pay to win” scenarios but they haven’t figured out what WvW players would purchase on an on-going basis.

So, instead, they put their resources where they get real money from that resource investment.

I still don’t understand the structured PvP thing but I suspect it is because some fella over at ArenaNet still dreams of making it a “professional gaming league” type environment. And, somehow, they figure they will be able to monetize off of that or, at the very least, it’ll be marketing.

I’d like to see WvW get far more attention. It would bring me back to the game but it is clear to me that WvW won’t get any real attention since ArenaNet doesn’t know what to do with it. I suspect that WvW was more popular than they thought it would be but, more than that, they didn’t have any plans in place on how to make it a self-sustaining business element in the overall revenue stream of Guild Wars 2.

I can think of a lot of ways to implement gem-store desirables for WvW that wouldn’t turn it into pay-to-win but that’s me. It doesn’t appear that the folk over at ArenaNet have any imagination when it comes to making money off of WvW without completely kitten off the playerbase.

I think this is a pretty accurate description of the situation on all counts.

Yemeth.5462:

And for cactus – it’s WvWvW. If you don’t know what it means – it’s World versus World versus World.
Where it isn’t only YOUR character.
But gee, thief from US, of course you just want COMMUNAL aspect of game to be just about you. Since yeah… you paid for the game… Nothing to say here really.

I never said I wanted the game to be about me … I said pretty much just the opposite. The whole reason I play WvW is for the group strategy aspects. I simply said I don’t want to have to convince a bunch of other players that they should enjoy what I enjoy in order for the game to be workable, and I certainly don’t want to have to pay them for it as you suggested. Trying thinking before you type.

It’s not a new thought at all, but it is a really bad one. Points for kills simply means that support classes become marginalized and everyone will zerg because it will be the fastest and most reliable way to get points. NOBODY is going to hang around a tower waiting for attackers, and nobody is going to siege up a tower to make it a less desirable target for a battle. Go play Conquest in Rift if you don’t believe me.

The single greatest source of customer dissatisfaction in any arena is the feeling that you’re being ignored or aren’t important. ANet has raised this to an art form.

A couple of weeks ago I checked on a tower we had held for quite some time. It was full of supply but hadn’t been upgraded at all and it wouldn’t let me upgrade the walls. Everything else still showed as being locked. Finally I saw that the supply had dropped, and when I checked the quartermaster it showed that the supply had gone to adding another worker even though the worker upgrade icon still showed as being locked.

I’m beginning to think that ANet adds these bugs (like siege floating in the air or spinning wildly) on purpose for the amusement/distraction value … probably a lot easier to code than fixing the real content.

I like certain aspects of WvW quite a lot, but the numerous significant flaws are overpowering it for me, and I’ve also come to the conclusion that variety (freshness) and parity (fairness) are impossible to achieve at the same time in a server versus server format. It might be different if ANet showed any indication at all that they cared and were working on the key issues, but they don’t say anything and they don’t do anything so at this point GW2 is merely a placeholder for me until TESO arrives.

grave of hearts.7830:

Yorric Hunt.8214:

Are you serious? You are a Tier 1 server that is in 2nd place ticking high. How do you think servers that are getting ROFL Stomped in Tier 8 on both sides of the Atlantic feel? Your server is 2nd best in the US so your whinging is pointless….

You might want to invest on a better keyboard since you seem to have some extra g’s on your grammar.
(snip)
But hey if it makes you feel better please toss more insults my way.

Happy to oblige. Get a clue:

— Yoric is on a European server
— http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/whinging?s=t

EnRohbi.2187:

Okay,
People calling for resets for more varied matches need to wake up.

Matches are stale and stagnant because servers are so different in their abilities during wvw that there just aren’t enough different combinations of fair matches.

Stagnant matches are the tradeoff you get for stacking the top 6 servers in the game.
If you shake up the matches and get new opponents, you’re either going to faceroll over them or get facerolled yourself.

If 95% of the wvw population in this game wasn’t so focused on being on the “best” servers, we would have some amount of balance between tiers that would allow servers to move more often.

But if you’re asking us to trade the closest thing to balance that we can achieve, just so that you get to see new nameplates above your opponents next week, you are clearly very out of touch with what’s going on in this game.

^this^ ^this^ ^this^

Anybody who thinks we can have fresh matches each week that are even close to being balanced is totally clueless. There is simply way too much disparity in server populations for that to happen.

Unfortunately, I’m not sure there is any viable solution to the problem:

-1. outmanned buffs that actually provide any benefit break other aspects of the WvW gameplay

-2. pairing high pop servers with low pop servers in a 2v2v2 format creates queue problems and kills small team play for people who transferred to low pop servers to get it

-3. using a mercenary system like Rift did (where you get assigned to the the lowest pop faction when you join the match) defeats the server identity and ruins any sense of continuity throughout the week

-4. capping player pops at the current level of the lowest pop server merely excludes lots of people from playing the game

-5. adding companion NPCs when undermanned turns the game into something entirely different … more like PvE and with less independent thought/action.

Let’s face it … Anet probably needs to reconfigure how they handle WvWvW entirely. It may simply not be possible to get decent (i.e., fun, fair, fresh) matches between servers the way that WvW is currently organized. From what I understand, TESO is planning some sort of large virtual server that will handle everyone at once in a single massive format, so maybe that’s a direction that ANet should consider … although I’d bet ANet’s game engine is not capable of doing so. I don’t really know what would be the best solution, but it seems pretty clear that GW2 WvW is displaying some fundamental problems that require a change of some sort. My guess is that we would have to sacrifice server identity to get better game play.

Yemeth.5462:

And back on topic. So, ok let’s take for example T4. There are three servers with maybe equal population, or some servers play at day or night to close gap in points. So gap isn’t wide. Now, two of that servers do something with their community – either somehow interest people to transfer to them (maybe even giving gold for it), or rally PvE parts of their community to show more presence in WvWvW.
Now people of third server don’t care about things i listed, and some day find themselves outmanned. This server gets less points and eventually after some weeks falls a tier below. Now in this new tier all 3 server’s population will be more or less equal, and no one will get outmanned buff. Everything is fair now, don’t you think?
What most of the people here want to implement is basically this: server which was literally doing nothing to improve quality or numbers of their www community should just be with opprotunity to play on equal level with opponents WHICH WORKED to get at that level. Sigh. Everyone wants everything for free now.

That’s just simpleminded BS. I want the people who designed the game to be smart enough to make it balanced and enjoyable. I shouldn’t have to spend my entertainment time trying to convince lots of people I don’t know (or even worse, pay them) that they should play the game the way I want them to instead of the way they want to, and I shouldn’t have to wait weeks for a decent match. I’m not asking for anything free by expecting that … I paid for the game, I worked hard to level my character and learn how to play it at least decently, and I’ve spent LOTS of hours learning the ins and outs of WvW. Go peddle your sanctimonious crap somewhere else.

Given the large disparity in server populations it is simply impossible to have both parity and variety with the same rating system, and it staggers me that people cannot understand that. Pick one or the other, but you can’t have both.

Reize.2176:

I was reading some other threads and something popped in my head.

Instead of bothering about using outmanned or some other balancing mechanic that would probably make things even more imbalanced, i was thinking about using population caps to limit the number of people that can enter into a particular W3 map.

Maybe limit it to 1.5x or 2x the number of players on the server with the smallest presence?

That’s been suggested several times before, and in my opinion it’s a horrible idea. A certain way to kill a game is to prevent people who want to play it from being able to play it. It is often the case that a losing server ends up with rather few players on the map toward the end of the week, and constricting the other two servers based on that level is just crazy.

Dante.1283:

Cactus.2710:

Dante.1283:

Cactus.2710:

Dante.1283:

Cactus.2710:

This is an untenable proposal for a WvW type of contest. It puts ALL of the emphasis on the individual with no viable way of accurately measuring individual performance, and it isolates the individual from any team strategy or map progress because he will likely end up in a different layer if he logs out and comes back an hour later. This is fundamentally nothing other than a really large scale sPvP.

The suggestion being nothing other than a large scale PVP is accurate and straight to the point. People want to have the most fun out of the time spent playing.

Players ending up in different layers after log in/log out will keep helping on the bigger picture by selecting the same color they were before leaving thus continuing the global effort. I can see how it would be bad on map progress but the bigger picture is what maters here.

Individuals will be playing not only for their “ranking” but also for their color. This will give players more incentive to play and compete.

I said it was nothing other than large scale sPvP, not just large scale PvP. The “s” stands for “structured”, and is not at all the same as WvW. Your proposal wouldn’t necessarily make for bad game play, but it would ruin WvW. It takes away the strategy, tactics, opportunity for lower ranked players to make a contribution, and most of the team play. Quit trying to turn WvW into something totally different.

To fix the lack of balance WvW needs to be changed into something a bit different. If it stays the same it will keep on having the same amount of flaws that is making players not use this fantastic feature. Can’t blame them, people get bored doing nothing but dying to 40 vs 3, or even not having a challenge.

As for taking away strategies, tactics, opportunities, etc. you mentioned above, that’s completely inaccurate. Players will keep on enjoying the same thrill and sense of organized warfare, it just won’t let them stay completely in touch or participate with the same players. In fact, it will help people stay together with their guilds and form alliances. This suggestion calls for a bigger picture perspective than just a server population but a nationwide organization, whether it is red, green or blue. Lower rank players will be equal to top ranked players in terms of opportunity, because it doesn’t mater where they end up playing at, layer 1 2 3 4, they will keep on helping their respective color.

I can’t believe that you can be so oblivious to the probable consequences of your proposal. Look at it this way … it’s virtually the same as if you were playing the game now in a balanced tier but were randomly assigned to a different team every time you logged in. You work your butt off to cap and put defensive siege in a tower or keep, you take a break for dinner, and when you come back you find yourself on the other side of all your previous effort. It’s lame, it’s discontinuous, and it defeats all sense of strategy and community.

It isn’t a “fantastic feature” just because you thought of it.

That whole message tells me you didn’t quiet read the original post well. It sates: “A preferred color system can be put into place to allow players to always join that particular color. If that color is full they will enter a join WvW waiting queue.”

This will allow players to always support a color no mater how many times they log in or out. They do have to join a different layer, but the battle will be for the same purpose, to allocate points for the preferred color.

And while we are on the Internet, the place where all inhbitions go away faster than getting drunk, I would like to ask you to keep your comments as less personal as possible and more argumentative. Personal attacks such as your last line won’t help the conversation at all.

It doesn’t matter whether or not you end up the same color … if you end up in a different layer you will be playing with different folks and whatever effort you expended in the previous layer is lost to you. It’s a disconnect in several ways, pure and simple.

And I wasn’t being disrespectful by pointing out your dogged defense of a flawed proposal. I truly doubt that you would be so rabidly supportive of it had someone else proposed it. Be that as it may, it is clear that you are really locked onto it so there is no reason to further argue it with you. The rest of us can simply take solace in knowing that Anet won’t ever implement it.

Dante.1283:

Cactus.2710:

Dante.1283:

Cactus.2710:

This is an untenable proposal for a WvW type of contest. It puts ALL of the emphasis on the individual with no viable way of accurately measuring individual performance, and it isolates the individual from any team strategy or map progress because he will likely end up in a different layer if he logs out and comes back an hour later. This is fundamentally nothing other than a really large scale sPvP.

The suggestion being nothing other than a large scale PVP is accurate and straight to the point. People want to have the most fun out of the time spent playing.

Players ending up in different layers after log in/log out will keep helping on the bigger picture by selecting the same color they were before leaving thus continuing the global effort. I can see how it would be bad on map progress but the bigger picture is what maters here.

Individuals will be playing not only for their “ranking” but also for their color. This will give players more incentive to play and compete.

I said it was nothing other than large scale sPvP, not just large scale PvP. The “s” stands for “structured”, and is not at all the same as WvW. Your proposal wouldn’t necessarily make for bad game play, but it would ruin WvW. It takes away the strategy, tactics, opportunity for lower ranked players to make a contribution, and most of the team play. Quit trying to turn WvW into something totally different.

To fix the lack of balance WvW needs to be changed into something a bit different. If it stays the same it will keep on having the same amount of flaws that is making players not use this fantastic feature. Can’t blame them, people get bored doing nothing but dying to 40 vs 3, or even not having a challenge.

As for taking away strategies, tactics, opportunities, etc. you mentioned above, that’s completely inaccurate. Players will keep on enjoying the same thrill and sense of organized warfare, it just won’t let them stay completely in touch or participate with the same players. In fact, it will help people stay together with their guilds and form alliances. This suggestion calls for a bigger picture perspective than just a server population but a nationwide organization, whether it is red, green or blue. Lower rank players will be equal to top ranked players in terms of opportunity, because it doesn’t mater where they end up playing at, layer 1 2 3 4, they will keep on helping their respective color.

I can’t believe that you can be so oblivious to the probable consequences of your proposal. Look at it this way … it’s virtually the same as if you were playing the game now in a balanced tier but were randomly assigned to a different team every time you logged in. You work your butt off to cap and put defensive siege in a tower or keep, you take a break for dinner, and when you come back you find yourself on the other side of all your previous effort. It’s lame, it’s discontinuous, and it defeats all sense of strategy and community.

It isn’t a “fantastic feature” just because you thought of it.

Dante.1283:

Cactus.2710:

This is an untenable proposal for a WvW type of contest. It puts ALL of the emphasis on the individual with no viable way of accurately measuring individual performance, and it isolates the individual from any team strategy or map progress because he will likely end up in a different layer if he logs out and comes back an hour later. This is fundamentally nothing other than a really large scale sPvP.

The suggestion being nothing other than a large scale PVP is accurate and straight to the point. People want to have the most fun out of the time spent playing.

Players ending up in different layers after log in/log out will keep helping on the bigger picture by selecting the same color they were before leaving thus continuing the global effort. I can see how it would be bad on map progress but the bigger picture is what maters here.

Individuals will be playing not only for their “ranking” but also for their color. This will give players more incentive to play and compete.

I said it was nothing other than large scale sPvP, not just large scale PvP. The “s” stands for “structured”, and is not at all the same as WvW. Your proposal wouldn’t necessarily make for bad game play, but it would ruin WvW. It takes away the strategy, tactics, opportunity for lower ranked players to make a contribution, and most of the team play. Quit trying to turn WvW into something totally different.

Master of Timespace.2548:

This indeed. That guy knows what he is talking about. And you are right, WvW tries to be sandboxy but fails miserably due to several elementary design flaws, one of those being simply bad map design.

Hopefully the next patch brings some new life to this game young game that already feels older than it’s precursor.

Sorry, but the most exciting thing for WvW I’ve come to expect from any new patch is what new bug might have been introduced.

Tekyn.5376:

So you think commanders should have the right to spam chat more often then non-commanders? Are commanders more important then non-commanders? Is the $60 I paid for the game of less value then the $60 you paid for your copy?

For pity’s sake, learn how to use squad chat.

/ignore

anfhrtsb c

The same thing has been happening to many of us on Devonas Rest lately. It’s only been the last few days for me (since the last patch maybe?) and at first I thought it was just something glitching with my internet connection, but last night everyone I was with (about 15 players) all got kicked back to the character screen at the same time right as we broke down the gate to an undefended Bravost. The little black GW2 dialog box comes up saying that the connection to the server has been lost. On average I would say that this kind of thing is happening to me about every two hours of playing time now.*

Got to hand it to Anet for coming up with new and creative ways to make this game frustrating. I sure hope that ZeniMax is paying close attention to all of this so that they don’t make the same stupid mistakes that ANet has.

*No, my computer is not at fault. I’m running a fresh install on a month old 3770k/680GTX/SSD/16gb/Win7-64 machine with only TS3 running in the background. It is not overclocked (the highest temperature in the box is less than 40 c) and I didn’t have any problems until the last few days.

Interesting side observation … these are factors that are hard coded into the game. They aren’t variable, and SOMEBODY at ANet has to know the answers to them. What do you figure the odds are that anyone will actually bother to tell us?

Does at least one person always get credit for a kill?

echo.2053:

Theres something oddly particular about this. I count ( correct me if im wrong) only 20 “supposedly problems” ( lets be real not all of them are life/death problems) and yet your stating that theres “hundreds of user threads”( most likely per each topic too). Then you wonder and condemn anet for ignoring them? this isnt their first pony show mate nor are they going to waste time repeatedly answering the same question to every alike thread only to recieve " hey anet why come you only answer with generic responses"

There are several dozen of threads on culling alone, and at least a couple of dozen more on the problem of erratic queues. Learn to count. In six months time ANet has offered exactly one informative post on culling and zero informative posts on queues … with zero progress on either to date. Anybody who has had the slightest responsibility running a business will tell you that the surest way to lose customers is to ignore them, and the businesses with the strongest customer loyalty are the ones who don’t.

This is an untenable proposal for a WvW type of contest. It puts ALL of the emphasis on the individual with no viable way of accurately measuring individual performance, and it isolates the individual from any team strategy or map progress because he will likely end up in a different layer if he logs out and comes back an hour later. This is fundamentally nothing other than a really large scale sPvP.

Sunspots.9861:

If you don’t get loot for a kill, chances are you didn’t really even get credit for the kill. Getting a high enough percent of the damage done on someone before they’re dead isn’t always easy. This is why it appears your sigil isnt stacking, and also why some people get so few badges and loot.

Does anyone know what that percentage is? Does the person who inflicts the most damage always get credit for a kill? If 10 people each do 10% of the damage does anyone get credit for the kill?

echo.2053:

chillax mien. these things take time. Be happy with the fact thats it pretty deceant considering its free to play as well as they are coming from private instances.

be happy that culling affects both sides. could be worse where only 1 side was invisable.

rewards will come in time be patient.

The dynamic event reward is fine considering that they occur more often then reg pve events.

The dolyak guards are fine. supplies are suppose to be a weakpoint of the forts, otherwise itd be a nonstop siege/repairfest. guards harass people trying to solo yakkityyaks making it somewhat more complicated. want extra protection on supplies, escort them.

blueprint swapping is a bug.

sigh bigger maps but you complain about culling…. not even gonna touch

dont understand the rework npc one.

dont like the water, stay outof it.

bug indeed most likely in the works to being fixed.

agree on the outman buffs… lol that developer was asleep while deciding what buffs it would give.

The titles are fine. we dont need a system that rewards you for every minicle action that we do " look left, congrats !!!! you now recieved the left-dominate title!!" You only care about it becuase its not easy to get.

There are so many things wrong about that post it’s hard to know where to start. First of all, the OP asked for actual updates on the issues … not BS like “they probably are working on it.” Saying that culling is OK because it affects everyone is simply inane, larger maps would NOT make culling worse (sigh), and ANet has already already stated that blueprint swapping is NOT a bug.

The issues listed by the OP are a compilation of those raised by hundreds of user threads in the six months since launch, and Anet has done an absolutely horrible job of acknowledging/explaining them or proposing fixes that they actually follow through on. ANet doesn’t simply deflect … they ignore. Rift had terrible open world PvP (which is why I left it), but at least their devs were candid and communicative (which is why I stayed with it as long as I did.) The only people responsive here at ANet are the forum moderators.

Dee Jay.2460:

Currently Waypoint usage is free in WvW while you have to repair your gear when you die.

The costs of one waypoint usage is very close to that of a single death so why not simply interchange to two? Add waypoint costs to WvW and remove the damaged gear.

Pros:

-People will no longer associate death with repair bills (although they’ll still be paying more or less the same bill unless they get resurrected constantly)
-Waypoint costs may discourage people from excessively teleporting around the maps.

Cons:
-None

Overall I think the costs of WvW should come around to roughly the same. You don’t have to pay as long as you get revived but you have to pay for your waypoint usage.

The positive thing is that you tax people for excessive waypoint usage, borderlands hopping etc. and people stop associating death with repair bills.

---

Some of you MMO veterans may recall the “rested XP bonus” debate from the WoW beta, where people would only earn 100% XP while their “rested bonus” lasted and 50% thereafter. Due to the negative outcry Blizzard simply said “you gain 200% XP during your rested bonus and 100% during the rest of the time”.

Effectively the same thing but it was much better received.

Hhhmmm … I suspect that you might be one of the very few that would be glamored by that ruse.

Besides, how is it inappropriate to use a waypoint that you fought and paid for as often as you kitten please?