Guild Wars 2

So reset isn’t interrupted by Friday end-of-work-day PST patches.

You are the definition of evil.

RodOfDeath.5247:

Something lately I’m noticing too is my player just stands in place. Won’t respond to directional keys but skills still work, anyone else experience that?

Did you get cc’d, especially by one of the new mechanics/skills like taunt or headbutt? Sometimes it clears if you stop pressing movement keys or get cc’d again. Other times you still need to /emote.

It is a known bug.

Or he leveled up.

Chaith.8256:

fedegf.6534:

And btw most of them, like Caithe and such, they’re teenagers, so whatever, it’s ok.

What the hell is this post. Lmao. So much wat. You think I have any pride in my casualwars2 ranked queue badge, yeah, nope.

Since when are you a firstborn female sylvari?

volpenvieh.3201:

Or when the commander needs a quick break. Hell, 2 minutes wouldn’t even be enough to go to the toilet. Or answer the door/phone. Or grab a drink.

What’s real life again? LOL Wish more people thought like you do.

Norbe.7630:

i was only saying in order to increase fight activity the capture points should be minimized

How does that work? If capture activity drives fight activity, we should be adding more capture points so that there are more opportunities for people to capture, not taking them away. /sarcasm

Sviel.7493:

At any rate, one of the points I make here is that WvW needs to have viable strategies for the server that doesn’t have the most people. That is how I’m asking Anet to change the meta. I’ve identified some of the aggravating factors but, on the whole, I wanted to lay out the idea and perhaps refine it through discussion.

I don’t believe any attempts to provide buffs to the server that doesn’t have the people will make things better. In fact I think it is yet another bad idea. History has shown it to make things worse. Any time Anet has buffed up defense, offense has to increase numbers and they do, from the arrow cart dmg increase to nerfing stability to ni-impenetrable fortifications replete with airship defense.

Miha.1940:

Lexander.4579:

well if you cant carry legendaries yet then maybe you still deserve to stick around diamond for some more time

this is literally the most kittened post today.

and ive been on the forums all day

I appreciate fine sarcasm.

Honestly, I don’t understand what is meant by meta-game for WvW here. There is only one meta for WvW: exploitation of population and coverage. Get more people in another server’s weak timezone and take all their stuff and make them quit. Get more people for your own weak timezones. Try to avoid stacking your strongest timezones to avoid boredom.

And that meta won’t be changed until Anet changes it.

gennyt.3428:

All servers PvD and use seige but when it’s virtually all a server can offer opponents, it becomes a problem especially at this stage in the game where PPT is what it is. YB doesn’t have to be outgunned to resort to this, even vs other pug groups and this isn’t some myth.

No need to argue about this. YB’s own success at reaching Rank 1 as players leave the game and remove the obstacles that used render that playstyle ineffective is its own proof that it isn’t a myth.

And why not? T1 is known for exploiting various flaws in WvW to stay in T1 and exploiting population and coverage to do it. #buygate

DeceiverX.8361:

Zenith.6403:

What makes a person type essays like these on the forums?

A genuine passion for the game itself and what once was in attempts to improve upon it.

The only time anyone ever made a successful attempt to “improve upon” WvW was when RG starting doing GvGs and everyone followed suit.

+1 this match-up thread!

Yea it depends upon whether you finished the previous Year of Ascension part. The next part doesn’t unlock until you’ve finished the previous part.

For example last season I made it to Diamond but I didn’t play enough to finish the dailies for Part 3. I only unlocked Part 4 after I was already out of Amber this season. So I’m sitting at 3 of 4 divisions on Part 4 even though I’ve crossed 4 divisions total this season. Or maybe it isn’t supposed to work that way?

TorquedSoul.8097:

my trend doesn’t definitively and deductively prove my assertion that capture activity drives fights. Nor was it intended to. It was provided as supporting evidence to the claim.

What?

If you are just trying to give out information, why try to make assertions about it? I like to see good logic and clear and concise communication so I can say “Oh that’s so right”. I see a lot of shortcuts instead.

Radian.2478:

The double cata spot at earth keep is pretty easy to defend against. If you are doing a good job checking for white swords and scouting, the double cata wall at earth keep won’t work often.

The double cata spot at earth simply means attackers gain the time/supply advantage of not having to set up a second siege site for an inner wall. That translates into less time needed to attack earth keep compared to a side keep. Whether or not defenders are “doing a good job” doesn’t really play into this comparison because it is about time usage, not ease/difficulty of defense.

Sviel.7493:

If the catapults couldn’t be built directly against the wall, they would be in range of the north cannon on the east inner gate

The cannons are a joke if the attackers got there first. Just sayin’.

Considering that earth keep is the defender’s HOME bl, defender’s should get the advantage there with a keep that can’t be so easily sieged as the sides.

Both side keeps on DBL cannot have their inner walls hit by siege built to hit the outside walls. This was a problem on the old Alpine BL’s hills keep that the new side keeps on DBL were designed to avoid.

Yet with the rampart/garrison on DBL, it has become common to place catapults right against the northeast outer walls because the splash damage from them will also take down an inner northeast wall. I’m not sure such a design was intended because the side keeps do not have this issue.

If Anet redesigns DBL, this problem should be fixed. The rampart keep should not be easier to siege than the side keeps.

TorquedSoul.8097:

Chaba.5410:

TorquedSoul.8097:

Chaba.5410:

TorquedSoul.8097:

Chaba.5410:

TorquedSoul.8097:

In my experience, those that reject data and assert that the truth is unknowable usually have arguments for which they little or no data to support. If you wish to counter my argument, use something other than your gut.

I don’t need my gut to see that your analysis is inconsistent with your own data. You identified a trend. That isn’t in question. Your conclusion for that trend though is not supported by your data. Any good theory requires explanation for the exceptions. Your conclusion basically presumes that if a server were to increase their capture activity, they would increase their fight activity. YOUR DATA DOESN’T SUPPORT THAT. You cited SoS as an example of a server with high capture activity relative to fight activity. You also listed servers with high fight activity compared to lower capture activity. If “capture activity drives fight activity”, those cases would not exist.

Do you know what a trend is? You seemed to be a bit confused.

Like the trend of higher populated and better coveraged servers having both higher fight and capture activity?

How does that invalidate the relationship that I present?

/sigh

I keep talking about conclusions for trends and you keep talking about trends themselves. Tell us again how SoS could increase their fight activity if only they were to increase their capture activity.

And you keep going on about outliers as if they invalidate a trend.

I do not. That’s the source of your confusion. The outliers invalidate your conclusion. The outliers should be telling you the answer to your topic question is no. All you’ve shown is a relationship between capture activity and fight activity, not a cause and effect, which is what your question is about. If capture activity drove fight activity, SoS should be much higher in fight activity for the amount of captures they do. Stop ignoring your data.

TorquedSoul.8097:

Chaba.5410:

TorquedSoul.8097:

Chaba.5410:

TorquedSoul.8097:

In my experience, those that reject data and assert that the truth is unknowable usually have arguments for which they little or no data to support. If you wish to counter my argument, use something other than your gut.

I don’t need my gut to see that your analysis is inconsistent with your own data. You identified a trend. That isn’t in question. Your conclusion for that trend though is not supported by your data. Any good theory requires explanation for the exceptions. Your conclusion basically presumes that if a server were to increase their capture activity, they would increase their fight activity. YOUR DATA DOESN’T SUPPORT THAT. You cited SoS as an example of a server with high capture activity relative to fight activity. You also listed servers with high fight activity compared to lower capture activity. If “capture activity drives fight activity”, those cases would not exist.

Do you know what a trend is? You seemed to be a bit confused.

Like the trend of higher populated and better coveraged servers having both higher fight and capture activity?

How does that invalidate the relationship that I present?

/sigh

I keep talking about conclusions for trends and you keep talking about trends themselves. Tell us again how SoS could increase their fight activity if only they were to increase their capture activity.

TorquedSoul.8097:

Chaba.5410:

TorquedSoul.8097:

In my experience, those that reject data and assert that the truth is unknowable usually have arguments for which they little or no data to support. If you wish to counter my argument, use something other than your gut.

I don’t need my gut to see that your analysis is inconsistent with your own data. You identified a trend. That isn’t in question. Your conclusion for that trend though is not supported by your data. Any good theory requires explanation for the exceptions. Your conclusion basically presumes that if a server were to increase their capture activity, they would increase their fight activity. YOUR DATA DOESN’T SUPPORT THAT. You cited SoS as an example of a server with high capture activity relative to fight activity. You also listed servers with high fight activity compared to lower capture activity. If “capture activity drives fight activity”, those cases would not exist.

Do you know what a trend is? You seemed to be a bit confused.

Like the trend of higher populated and better coveraged servers having both higher fight and capture activity?

TorquedSoul.8097:

In my experience, those that reject data and assert that the truth is unknowable usually have arguments for which they little or no data to support. If you wish to counter my argument, use something other than your gut.

I don’t need my gut to see that your analysis is inconsistent with your own data. You identified a trend. That isn’t in question. Your conclusion for that trend though is not supported by your data. Any good theory requires explanation for the outliers. Your conclusion basically presumes that if a server were to increase their capture activity, they would increase their fight activity. YOUR DATA DOESN’T SUPPORT THAT. You cited SoS as an example of a server with high capture activity relative to fight activity. You also listed servers with high fight activity compared to lower capture activity. If “capture activity drives fight activity”, those cases would not exist.

Seen it about three times today now in PvP and a fourth time in WvW. Been happening after yesterday’s patch.

TorquedSoul.8097:

I’ve attached a couple charts (correlation shown at the end of the title). The first shows that as capture activity increases on a server the amount of killing and dying by that server also increases. But some could just write this off as a consequence of increasing population. And since Anet doesn’t give hard numbers on population you could entertain that notion.

The second chart shows that the rate of killing and dying is increasing with the increase capture volume. This means the proportion of killing and death increases with the capture activity of the server. Again you could claim that there are more people involved in fights at higher population so more people die.

…

There are always some notable exceptions to these trends. For instance, Far Shiverpeaks and Seafarer’s Rest both have far more fight activity than would be expected for their capture volume. And Sea of Sorrows looks like they don’t care for fights at all.

So basically you are making a singular and simple conclusion even though your own data has some exceptions which you are unable to explain with your theory. Worse, you completely write off one idea even though it is a perfect explanation for those exceptions AND the loss/gain of population explains why capture and fights activity increases/decreases over time. Remember in a previous post you mentioned that capture activity in a tier is “calibrated” by the third server? That’s population effect.

People drive both capture and fight activity. It is people choice of what they want to spend their time doing in-game.

Caosaur.3871:

I’m on TC and giving this from a roamer perspective.
On EB the roaming is pretty good, until TC decides to go full ppt hero and there’s nothing to fight for hours at a time. Unless you’re into spawn camping lol.
FA continues to get it’s rear kicked every week and I’m surprised they still try considering they basically took SoS’s position.
Can’t say I actually like fighting DB, but it’s better than the horror stories I’ve heard about YB.
Desert borderlands are still somewhat dead, outside of reset.

I’d say t2 is okay, although I do miss SoS.

LOL!

On EB the fights are pretty good. FA gets its rear kicked every week but there’s plenty to fight.
TC continues to go full ppt hero and I’m surprised they still try considering they basically took the position of the most stacked server.

Right now the tier is about who can ktrain the most: DB during SEA, TC or FA during EU or late night. Thrilling. /sarcasm

X T D.6458:

Chaba.5410:

X T D.6458:

Swagger.1459:

TorquedSoul.8097:

Swagger.1459:

WvW is dying, that’s what is happening to every server.

Global capture volume went up last week 1.4%.

WvW as a whole.

So that means basically more people are capturing stuff, and PvD is somehow a measure of health for WvW now?

Fights follow capture activity. Except in the case of outliers like SoS. It’s always the exceptions, isn’kitten

Not necessarily, for all we know, more undefended stuff is being capped because less people on maps…Kind of a vague statistic.

I meant to sign my post with /sarcasm. Sorry.

X T D.6458:

Swagger.1459:

TorquedSoul.8097:

Swagger.1459:

WvW is dying, that’s what is happening to every server.

Global capture volume went up last week 1.4%.

WvW as a whole.

So that means basically more people are capturing stuff, and PvD is somehow a measure of health for WvW now?

Fights follow capture activity. Except in the case of outliers like SoS. It’s always the exceptions, isn’kitten

I think the real reason is so that JQ and TC can 2v1 YB.

sparc.3649:

RodOfDeath.5247:

Ricky.4706:

Maybe as a community we can have understandings to keep the fights fun until anet comes up with tech in game solutions as well.

So I propose…

when in a match where 1 server is obviously larger than the 2 opponents combined –
the smaller servers become an alliance and the fight becomes 1v1

when in a match, where 2 servers obviously outsize 1 small server, the smaller server can choose to have an alliance with their server of choice OR the smaller of the 2 larger servers ( when obvious) – and the fight becomes 1v1

the score then becomes understood as the 2 allied servers totaled vs the larger server.

You’re the red color I kill you, end of story.

What are you 12?

He’s highlighting the fact that such agreements are extremely difficult to make. WvW is a sandbox environment and people play how they want, including players who don’t read this forum. Unless the game is designed for it, it will not happen. That isn’t to say that players can’t try, just to say “don’t get your hopes up”.

TorquedSoul.8097:

Chaba.5410:

TorquedSoul.8097:

Dusty Moon.4382:

Well, this is PPT data and the servers that do only PPT rate high. The servers that want fights, are low or are dying (FA being a prime example).

PPT activity implies fights. Activity is activity. Kills and deaths follow capture rates and volume.

There may be a few exceptions to this but I would guess not many.

You present a ranked list of captures by server. Then you use it to imply that this ranked list implies fights by server. When asked about kills and deaths, you present charts with the data rearranged by tier rather than by server. So basically you are just saying what everyone already knows; higher tiers have higher levels of activity. You essentially say nothing about individual servers other than show which ones spend more of their time capping objectives over fighting.

What I have held is that PPT play drives fights. The exact numbers of kills and deaths on a particular server isn’t important as the overall conflict created by capture activity.

And just so you know … it takes at least two servers two have a fight. So I think grouping the activity by tier is a good way to express overall activity levels. In addition capture levels tend to be calibrated by the server with the lowest activity level so a weekly capture volume isn’t indicative of a servers capacity to cap. But I wasn’t arguing that. It was just a list of capture volumes.

You seem to think that I posted activity levels show who was “better” … that was not it. I simply posted it to see what type of discussion it would drum up.

I think you think I am arguing something I am not arguing.

The discussion you drummed up is one asking for clarification of what you’re trying to say. You’ve written that PPT activity implies fights so I think that is what you’re trying to argue for.

The terminology you use could be cleaned up. The title is “server activity” followed by charts that are “capture volume” so you use those two terms as synonyms. “Server capture activity” perhaps? The second set of charts are “overall activity level” which cannot be expressed without grouping by tier, adding in deaths by tier, and is something different from server capture activity. Capture volume is also subject to calibration, as you said.

This “overall activity level” is what exactly? More fights? More people? PPT implying fights? Doesn’t the scoring system and glicko rating already tell us overall activity levels and is a better reflection of actual server activity than a simple list of “server capture activity”?

TorquedSoul.8097:

Dusty Moon.4382:

Well, this is PPT data and the servers that do only PPT rate high. The servers that want fights, are low or are dying (FA being a prime example).

PPT activity implies fights. Activity is activity. Kills and deaths follow capture rates and volume.

There may be a few exceptions to this but I would guess not many.

You present a ranked list of captures by server. Then you use it to imply that this ranked list implies fights by server. When asked about kills and deaths, you present charts with the data rearranged by tier rather than by server. So basically you are just saying what everyone already knows; higher tiers have higher levels of activity. You essentially say nothing about individual servers other than show which ones spend more of their time capping objectives over fighting.

TorquedSoul.8097:

Skynet.7201:

Chaba.5410:

TorquedSoul.8097:

Skynet.7201:

PPT doesn’t give us a kitten clue about the actual number of people playing.

I never said it did. It is possible that thousands log in and never capture anything. The only activity I’m measuring is capture volume. Not sure why that upsets you.

Considering that he replied after you said “PPT activity implies fights”, I agree with him.

Sometimes you have to remind people of statements they posted.

You referenced the number of people “playing” not specifically fighting. So your argument is fundamentally flawed there. And as I said fights are correlated to PPT. But some people prefer to use their anecdotal evidence rather than actual data. And you can do that, but I am going to put the data in front of you to force you into a more delusional state.

The first chart shows that killing (aka fights) is strongly correlated to capture activity. The correlation is 0.98.

The second chart shows that not only is fighting correlated to capture activity, but that the rate of the fighting increases with capture activity. that is, the proportion of kills to caps increases as caps increase. (correlation 0.94)

The only conclusion that can be reached from this data is that capture activity drives fights.

The data used in the charts was last weeks NA data.

These charts are meaningless to your capture volume by server (your first charts) since you’ve switched to capture volume by tier.

Bump. Tried this last night with some friends and discovered it is now bugged. Need Caithe’s Remorse!

Just doesn’t happen. The average player doesn’t think this way. Then there’s the veteran players who purposely exploit it, still living in 2013. And since the game allows it, the easier player choice is going to happen.

SpellOfIniquity.1780:

Guardian’s Virtue Of Justice bugged/lingering.

I would not be surprised. It wouldn’t be the only skill that is causing an effect without a range limit. Sometimes I get hit by Soul Spiral in PvP when the enemy necro is on the other side of the map.

TorquedSoul.8097:

Skynet.7201:

PPT doesn’t give us a kitten clue about the actual number of people playing.

I never said it did. It is possible that thousands log in and never capture anything. The only activity I’m measuring is capture volume. Not sure why that upsets you.

Considering that he replied after you said “PPT activity implies fights”, I agree with him.

pepsis.5384:

Sure, a pure berserk power Reaper can potentially land a 10k+ crit gravedigger and finish you off with a 8k crit exec scythe but in the current state of the pvp game very few people stand around for gravedigger to land.

Please don’t use Necro GS.

rhapsody.3615:

Essentially, my guild (and most of our server) would still not have a proper “Friday Night Reset” if you go with 10PM eastern.

My guild is PST and we’ve NEVER had a proper “Friday Night Reset”. Please be willing to compromise. The majority of NA players are not EST, but in the hours between EST and PST.

1. Please do not design by simple tabulation of player feedback.

What players are asking for with Alpine IMHO is to set free the fight lanes of DBL and increase ease of access to those lanes. Alpine suffered from not enough chokes on immediate approaches to objectives that would break up zergs. DBL puts too much of a maze in the fight lanes (garri->side keeps) between objectives. No one can see each other. You’d have to really fix both maps. Temple and Forest may be good examples of such design where there are relatively open fight lanes between capture points with immediate chokes around the points.

2. What do players mean when they say rewards?

I’m in favor of sPvP style personal rewards (in addition to current player loot bags) and exposition of an individual player’s contribution in WvW, like personal score in sPvP. Ricky’s also suggested ladders for different things since PvP players like to have something to brag about, like Top Silly Person ladder. I guess that would be analogous to Top Condition Remover in sPvP maybe. TBH even PvE players like to have those kinds of titles.

3. I would not have put skill balance above population balance, but I can see that skill balance would have much more immediate an impact in play experience. Make playing melee fun again.

lil devils x.6071:

Believe it or not , there are quite a few that want to play as the underdog or they get bored and go play something else instead.

As I wrote, the VAST MAJORITY in this game do not care to play as the underdog. It can be unrewarding, stressful, and not fun. I stopped having faith that players want to be the underdog since Season 2.

FA’s SEA consists of GK and MM who do not rally every day. TC’s ND is much respected for the fights plus TC has a large amount of pugs from their time in T1. DB’s SEA is just a ktrain blob that looks for easy PPT when they lose.

I gave up believing that players are interested in any form of balance for coverage and population after Season 2. LOL

Bump! Contact me tonight if you are interested!

lil devils x.6071:

If a match up is stale, too many Queues on your server, if you could easily transfer between the servers to balance that out

This is just disingenuous lip service. In the three years of this game, the only guilds who ever cared about transferring for balance were GvG guilds and that scene is beyond dead. The VAST MAJORITY have transferred to the latest bandwagon server.

PariahX.6970:

Friday or Saturday make no difference to me since I am PST NA with a flexible schedule

I’m PST and would rather a Friday reset than Saturday. Saturday during the day is absolutely pointless since it is the end of the match, as is Friday night currently. I didn’t feel any need to log into GW2 at all today until my rally.

Truearrow.3527:

if the entire wvw community of a server left it would send a clear message to Anet.

That’s how we thought too. A clearer message would be sent just by not playing anymore.

#BringBackFridays

Tyler pls, TY.

Do you know? There was one time some crazy people on Fort Aspenwood had the idea to raise funds to all xfer off because of a lack of OCX coverage, but then it was pointed out that if we could raise that amount of gold, we could instead pay for people to come. So they decided to offer to pay for the transfers of “all of the IOJ WvW community (up to 500 players)” and only IOJ. IOJ was picked because of the shared history between the two servers: there was first a mass transfer from IOJ to FA lead by Kylia of AVTR when IOJ dropped out of T1 before the end of free transfers early in this game. Many months later more guilds from IOJ went to FA. This resulted in both servers ending up with a similar server culture. Some of the past and current leaders on FA are originally from IOJ, including my own guild leader in TLC. IOJ was also the first server I had ever xferred to.

I was asked to help argue for that crazy plan though I felt it was somewhat arrogant. We wanted to include the militia too out of respect for the IOJ community. We were pretty crazy and only managed to raise about half the amount of gold we would have needed to pull it off. Ultimately the offer was turned down then a month later individual IOJ guilds ended up transferring to FA anyway.

Do with this information what you wish. I simply find this thread about “buying a whole server” rather ironic given my experience so that’s why I am posting this. It is your choice what you ultimately decide. GLHF!