some of us enjoy both the large and the small scale regardless of how uneven it can be at times.
Having both large and small scale is the diversity that makes WvW healthy. I’ve seen those choices become harder to obtain as guilds leave.
I made some corrections to your statements
That’s called mansplaining in other contexts. Anet said that WvW is inspired by RTS. They have also referenced DAoC. I never excluded DAoC in any statement I made. It is off-topic to enumerate a long list of what inspired WvW when highlighting one aspect of it yet here you are “correcting” it. No one “corrects” you over omission of your gaming history before you make GW2 comments so stop responding on this thread if the only reason you are responding is to bog down the conversation with off-topic minutia. Go start a new thread about what inspired WvW if you are so passionate about it.
(edited by Chaba.5410)
As for reserving spots for guilds, not going to happen.
The battlegroups idea floated by Anet seemed to indicate that that was going to happen in some form. The so-called leak of it showed an added alliance chat in addition to map/team/guild chats. It is one way of encouraging guild play, but perhaps there are better ways such as offering some type of reward that cannot be obtained by “pugging” or some sort of progression only guild rallies in WvW can obtain.
Learn to deal with the ‘pugs’, who outnumber guilds considerably
That’s a bit of a circular argument because when you say that pugs outnumber guilds, you have to wonder if the reason for that is because the game doesn’t encourage guild play over “pugging”.
But there are also guilds who rally and want militia to join them. Not every guild that rallies in WvW is looking to be esports. Problems arise on a team when there aren’t enough guilds to lead the militia. How many public tags do you know run without a guild to help anchor their pug blob? That number has greatly dwindled because it is a lot on one person. Many vets like myself look back on the time when WvW had more guilds rallying in it as times of nostalgia.
Sviel suggests the problem is related to educating the militia. Educating militia has become somewhat of a joke over the years because people will get into these “server meetings” and someone invariably recommends that the militia need training. Players not only burned out on public tagging, but also in militia training. Heh. Very few players remain who do actual militia training.
(edited by Chaba.5410)
And that’s right, wvw was inspired by rvr in daoc, not rts games as you stated.
RTS quotes demonstrably came from Anet, as did DAoC quotes. There’s nothing wrong about making that statement.
Desert BL was designed to try to encourage more RTS like elements. That isn’t all that was added. Tactivators allowed for some more strategic play and those are WvW-wide. Don’t forget the new Squad UI and especially shared participation, which was meant to help incentivize the scouting role.
Adding more strategic and tactical elements to maps is vastly different than what you are proposing.
It’s really good to see you picking up and using my talking points btw.
You back to your “gvg battlegrounds” kick? You don’t own talking points, especially not ones that were created by Anet. Nor do you get to cherry-pick Anet talking points. At this point what is your purpose here in continuously responding on the thread I created and put words in my mouth by cherry-picking and taking something out of context of the whole conversation? You already contributed your feedback about how to encourage guild-centric play through better rewards for it and you seem to have nothing further to add.
And that’s right, wvw was inspired by rvr in daoc, not rts games as you stated.
RTS quotes demonstrably came from Anet, as did DAoC quotes. There’s nothing wrong about making that statement.
Desert BL was designed to try to encourage more RTS like elements. That isn’t all that was added. Tactivators allowed for some more strategic play and those are WvW-wide. Don’t forget the new Squad UI and especially shared participation, which was meant to help incentivize the scouting role.
(edited by Chaba.5410)
A better way would be to have an informed militia. If it is clearer to individual players what’s going on and what sort of actions are productive, they are better able to act as a group. We still needs guilds and such, but we can’t put the entire responsibility of organizing the war effort on them.
That could work. Problem has always been that the game doesn’t have any sort of guides in that regard. The traditional solution was to get people to join a guild to learn WvW, heh. Also server community forums. Remember that dude on TC who wrote like a 20 page document for TC on “how to wvw”? Heh.
I can’t say ANET was inspired by RTS or not (really off topic probably lol). However, there are strong correlations to RTS. After all people often refer to blobs as zergs. Do I need to say which RTS that word comes from?
Yes, it is off-topic, but if you are interested, Game Director Colin Johanson kept using the RTS analogy in interviews regarding Heart of Thorns when talking about how they wanted to bring more strategic thinking into WvW (think tactivators and shrines). RvR of course comes from DAoC.
I.e., “Johanson said they want to continue building on the idea of players being units in a massive RTS for the game’s world-versus-world mode.”
Edit: here are two fun old threads from 2013 to read about RTS and posters touched on a lot of points we are making in this thread.
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Guildcraft-Applying-RTS-logic-to-WvW
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/What-if-we-turn-WvW-into-a-RTS
(edited by Chaba.5410)
A lot of you seem confused, the op wasn’t asking for the limited PvP amulet system. He was asking for existing gear to be scaled to ascended stats in WvW.
I pretty much took from his post that he was asking for that because of his assumption that legendary armor was going to have higher stats than ascended armor (ascended the new exotic), which it won’t.
OK I see that I need to clarify something. I used the example provided by Sabull because yes, his comments were refreshing, especially in the idea that guilds fighting each other improves WvW rather than just casual blobs of players. He was against the idea of GvG as esports.
“My assumption will be that by focusing on guilds, you presume that there won’t be mega-blobs because the guilds will be running separately. As a result, other players are ‘protected’ from blobs because there are no blobs.”
So my background in this game, I started out playing havoc mostly on the BLs, trying to do the strategic thing called “map politics”, as a direct result of playing on a laptop that couldn’t handle the large lag-inducing blob fights. Zergs would seek out other zergs to fight and thus would create “spaces” or “protections” for havoc guilds to do stuff like cut off supply lines or ninja towers in support of a public tag’s zerg. As guilded zergs died off, it became such that servers were left without a main force to effectively tie up another server’s zerg. This lead to a die-off of havoc-sized guilds and other roamers who either quit or moved down to lower tier servers to get away from the frequency of the casual public tag blob. When you’re a small 5-man guild and you can’t find other similar sized guilds to fight against your options are reduced to either finding a public tag to “zerg surf” off of (exacerbating the blobbing) or a lot of boring PvD against the lone hopeless scout on the other server who is crying on teamchat asking for the 50-man EBG blob to respond.
I also have spent a lot of time in this game as a public tag, especially during Season 2 when I lead without a guild, and many times wishing for a small 5-man havoc guild to support my main force on a defended map. When I didn’t have such support, especially when trying to defend, I called it “sucking wind”. It is very difficult to get a few militia to form a separate party off your tag and doing some havoc in the southern or northern half of a BL to support you. You get put into a reactive position where you cannot dictate your opponent’s movements at all. In my experience, guilds invested in such activity do a much better job at this function than militia.
As well I’ve also participated in the so-called toxic GvG scene that used maps as personal battlegrounds. These types of guilds really only flourish during so-called prime time timezones like NA EST or OCX Prime because those times of highest population activity provided a type of high activity luxury where people could ignore playing WvW “as it was meant to be” because servers tended to have relatively even population during these times. Prime times are also the times when the most guilds tend to be rallying. When your guild rallies during an off-time, you don’t get a lot of playstyle options, especially if your guild is the only one during that time. While I’m not opposed to what GvG became, you have to understand that that was not WvW because it was too structured for WvW. A healthy structure of WvW requires a diversity of guilds/playstyles (see RTS comments below).
So about mega-blobs, yes guilds will “voltron” up sometimes. That’s up to individual guilds to manage as they seek the kind of sized fight they are looking for, but the important thing to remember is they have a higher probability of managing that than militia who generally play really conservatively and won’t take the kinds of risks in fights that people in the same guild and voice comms will. And yes, I too get frustrated at guilds who do this blobbing up against opponents just for an easy win while they are discouraging their opponents from playing to their own detriment. My point is that guilds have a greater potential for managing numbers than casual militia do and a lot of that is because the leaders of these guilds are more likely to contact each other in PM to arrange fights than militia will.
I’ll bring up EOTM again because EOTM most of the time looks like what WvW is without guilds.
So in the end, “guild-centric” means an organized WvW with a diverse option of playstyles. Militia by their nature do not provide the organization and diversity that guilds do. When a team has more militia than guilds, that presents a particular problem for both that team and their opponents.
Some of you are trying to say something about Anet not wanting to cater to what I’m trying to describe, but remember Anet once said that WvW is inspired by RTS where you are the unit around the time HoT came out. You usually need to build different kinds of units to be successful in an RTS. That’s always meant to me not only the different class builds but also the playstyles. I’m not going to go into WvW as RTS here. You can Google that for some insightful discussions that took place on this forum in the past.
(edited by Chaba.5410)
I didn’t want to play JQBL tonight because you really got no 15-20 man sized guilds at this hour that are gonna come defend against my 10-15 man which would mean we’d just PvDoor which we don’t want to do. All you got is “that celebrity commander” blob on. We saw about 20 guys on FABL but they buggered off and didn’t give us the chance to change some of our stuff up to better engage.
I’m confused by the OP. You seem to be taking issue with Legendary Armor because of “stats advantage”. I’m pretty sure Legendary Armor is going to be handled the same as Legendary Weapons in regards to stats, which have the same value as Ascended.
The only advantage there is to obtain by Legendary Armor is the ability to change stats on the fly like one can with other Legendary equipment.
i think the “jobs” idea should be fullfiled by the classes and builds themselves.
Agreed. This suggestion reminds me of the “Campaign Skills” that one can trait into in ESO. It wouldn’t fit the Mastery system we have because a player could spend all their points on all those jobs and become way too over-powered. There would have to be some sort of limitations placed on which job you can have in your build at any one time.
Maybe along similar lines, there could be some sort of traiting that becomes unlocked by participating in WvW in the different playstyles, although it isn’t clear if playstyles could be differentiated through the data too well.
BTW, my co-leader in NERF who is much more a PvE and casual pug WvW player than I put forward the idea to me recently that WvW needs gvg battlegrounds to survive.
You want anet to redesign wvw to favor “guild centric” aka gvg play with more population cap restrictions
We can stop here. You continue to equate “guild centric” with gvg and think it has to do with population cap restrictions so that’s your problem.
Nah, you should probably read on and learn from your own words.
You can attempt to deflect all you want, but at least I know anet will never kill off the open world style pvp sandbox that wvw is… At least you’ll still be able to enjoy your structured “guild centric” gameplay in OS and guild halls.
“Structured gameplay” means you are not reading. You are out of rational arguments. The beauty of forums is that people have the option to clarify OP to those who are following the conversation closely.
(edited by Chaba.5410)
/15 charrs sacrificed to the forum god.
You want anet to redesign wvw to favor “guild centric” aka gvg play with more population cap restrictions
We can stop here. You continue to equate “guild centric” with gvg and think it has to do with population cap restrictions so that’s your problem.
Both you and Haem recognized that to encourage guild-centric play means rewarding guilds better for performing regular rallies in WvW to differentiate it from militia play since right now rewards are the same for both playstyles yet for some odd reason you keep going on here about gvgs.
You emboldened quotes from Sabull to hyperfocus on the gvg thing (the risk I took with quoting Sabull) without taking away the core points he made that I tried to emphasize in a later post regarding how guilds seek out fights they feel are more equal to their own sizes to your own detriment. I am not Sabull. I only agree with him that guilds form a core function in WvW that serves the purpose of improving the open world PvP experience so it doesn’t become a single playstyle like what we see in EOTM.
At this point I think all you are interested in is in trying to prove me as some sort of gvg battlegrounds fanatic rather than interested in what constitutes a health-through-diversity WvW team. I’ve been posting here for four years now that a healthy WvW means having a good mix of playstyles and I stand still by my assertion that guilds are what provide that diversity. As we lose guilds we lose that diversity and thus we lose the options that everyone can find fun in fighting against.
(edited by Chaba.5410)
You want this mode to be all about the gvg, with all else secondary, but the devs won’t do that.
I never said I want it to be all about gvg with everything else secondary. You’re just ignoring whatever I wrote to substitute it with your assumptions.
We already know what WvW looks like without diversity. You say my comment about EOTM is elitist, and yet EOTM is what it is and there’s no guesses about how it turned out. That’s not an opinion, that’s how EOTM is played.
(edited by Chaba.5410)
At this point in the game, there are a lot of time zones where there are no pugmanders…
And some teams have only one during NA prime even.
WvW isn’t going down the path of wow battle grounds or your gameplay rules like we have for structured pvp.
…
WvW is designed to be an “open world” pvp experience tailored for everyone and multiple styles of play, it’s not a space designed to revolve around the gvg experience.
I never played WoW so I can’t relate.
There’s not a whole lot of “open world pvp” going on though without the kind of organization that guilds provide because most militia do not take risks (outside the exception of Maguuma militia IMHO – also I think you are defining “open world pvp” differently; it originally means like duels or small faction skirmishes in PvE maps which is a playstyle in itself). New players log in and are completely lost when there aren’t groups running around. That’s the whole point of Anet not ever doing private tags for guilds.
There’s also not a whole lot of “experience tailored for everyone” when WvW is reduced to only a few guilds and mostly militia chasing the lone guy who decides to tag up. In fact, there is no tailoring at all in WvW. There’s no different reward for playing in the multiple styles. Players had to create multiple styles of play on their own and understanding of how those styles interact or are necessary for fun WvW experiences remain obscure.
If you were really honest about it, those multiple playstyles evolved via guilds. We had large server-based PvX guilds that would zerg and ktrain or run orbs and spent their time upgrading keeps and playing “map politics”. We had the “EBG militia guild” usually started by a celebrity commander who spent all his/her time on EBG. We had small havoc guilds that would seek to disrupt supply camps and and provide support to a main zerg force. We had original WvW fights guilds that would do the “PPT for fights” thing such as camping a single tower all night and tying up another server’s PPT zerg. We had the small-man fights guilds/groups, roaming guilds, etc. Later we got the GvG guilds that mostly evolved from the WvW fights guilds and would tie each other up. The variety developed based upon what the stated purpose or mission of the guild was.
There’s only one playstyle that emerges from an unorganized mass of militia unwilling, for whatever reason, to organize into regular groups and that’s EOTM.
You remind me of that e-sports meme clip with the charr… You don’t care about the important things wvw really needs because you’re too enchanted with gvg stuff.
How about offering what you think “wvw really needs” instead of being insultingly hung up still on gvg after I took time out of my day to give you a thoughtful response? A response like yours indicates that you have nothing and every point I made is valid.
It’s not about preventing people from running tagless. People have always, and will always do that. It’s about spending resources on something the devs don’t want to support.
Yea, I’d rather see them spend resources on encouraging guild play. When a server loses its guilds, the “no tag” problem also appears.
WvW isn’t going down the path of wow battle grounds or your gameplay rules like we have for structured pvp.
…
WvW is designed to be an “open world” pvp experience tailored for everyone and multiple styles of play, it’s not a space designed to revolve around the gvg experience.
I never played WoW so I can’t relate.
There’s not a whole lot of “open world pvp” going on though without the kind of organization that guilds provide because most militia do not take risks (outside the exception of Maguuma militia IMHO – also I think you are defining “open world pvp” differently; it originally means like duels or small faction skirmishes in PvE maps which is a playstyle in itself). New players log in and are completely lost when there aren’t groups running around. That’s the whole point of Anet not ever doing private tags for guilds.
There’s also not a whole lot of “experience tailored for everyone” when WvW is reduced to only a few guilds and mostly militia chasing the lone guy who decides to tag up. In fact, there is no tailoring at all in WvW. There’s no different reward for playing in the multiple styles. Players had to create multiple styles of play on their own and understanding of how those styles interact or are necessary for fun WvW experiences remain obscure.
If you were really honest about it, those multiple playstyles evolved via guilds. We had large server-based PvX guilds that would zerg and ktrain or run orbs and spent their time upgrading keeps and playing “map politics”. We had the “EBG militia guild” usually started by a celebrity commander who spent all his/her time on EBG. We had small havoc guilds that would seek to disrupt supply camps and and provide support to a main zerg force. We had original WvW fights guilds that would do the “PPT for fights” thing such as camping a single tower all night and tying up another server’s PPT zerg. We had the small-man fights guilds/groups, roaming guilds, etc. Later we got the GvG guilds that mostly evolved from the WvW fights guilds and would tie each other up. The variety developed based upon what the stated purpose or mission of the guild was.
There’s only one playstyle that emerges from an unorganized mass of militia unwilling, for whatever reason, to organize into regular groups and that’s EOTM.
(edited by Chaba.5410)
Guilds already run together, not sure what more you really want?
More guilds, more variety of guilds = more community organization = more activity.
Less militia standing around only defending or waiting for the single public tag guy to log in and form a map blob.
2 hour skirmishes with better rewards = more players and guilds playing = better way to have more activity than making wvw into gvg battlegrounds.
Fix lag issues = more players and guilds playing = better way to have more activity than making wvw into gvg battlegrounds.
Improve professions like we have begged since launch = more players and guilds playing = better way to have more activity than making wvw into gvg battlegrounds.
…
When you say “gvg battlegrounds”, you’re letting the past gvg scenes color your perception. What I’m describing is more like the diversity we saw in WvW at the beginnings of GvG. Reread my OP: “Because WvW is boring without guild rallies”
Like jamesdolla above said, when there’s more guilds doing regular rallies in WvW, what I describe happens naturally.
Like Haematic pointed out, there’s no incentive right now for a player to chose “guild play” over “militia play” because the results are the same. So fixing lag issues and providing skirmish rewards only serves the purpose of “more people”, not “more guilds”. Results will still be the same.
Look, you wrote earlier even: “Want more incentive for guilds to play? Add better guild reward goals.”
Want to kill WvW? Turn it into EOTM pug blobs.
This forum for a long time benefited from having much of those conflict loving people voice their thoughts elsewhere. Unfortunately that time has ended and now the moderators are dealing with what is normal in an mmo community.
And yet those locked threads were not written by those people who “voice their thoughts elsewhere”. What moderators are dealing with is nothing different from what they’ve always dealt with when a player that doesn’t follow current events logs in, finds it not fun, and then comes here to make a match-up thread.
Have a person who is not leading create squad and set a couple lieutenants. Use a raid marker instead of a tag and have the raid leader quit raid and rejoin
Lieutenants and squad markers disappear when tag does.
Sorry this is nonsense. And elitist. At the very least non-inclusive.
WvW cannot afford to ignore any warm bodies.
If you truly only care about guild quality play, organize, take your own advice, and move to a lower tier where you can play unmolested from the unwashed masses.
I do care. That’s exactly why I lead by example and took my own advice and drive for a guild in WvW that rallies four nights a week, am a member in another guild that rallies two-three nights a week during a different time, and also moved a “casual play” account to a lower populated server so I quit taking up population space on a server that has lost guilds and is Full which makes it difficult for that server.
I describe what happens when a server starts to have an imbalance where there isn’t enough leadership for the militia. An active and fun WvW environment doesn’t just consist of warm bodies. It requires diverse playstyles. Or you are willfully ignoring the complaint posts that keep getting locked on this forum the past few days by those militia on that particular server who are not having fun and are blaming server links or 2v1s or saying they are only going to do dailies or their server is dead.
(edited by Chaba.5410)
Most of the players in WvW are just upset that nothing has really happened in months and we feel like we’ve been ignored.
We just want to see what is actually going on behind the scenes with WvW, maybe given some DevBlog update style stuff since you’ve been mostly silent on what is changing and being worked on.
Different companies communicate in different ways and sometimes the process evolves over the years. Mike O’Brien explained how we choose to communicate in this forum post a few years ago. What he said was, “We’ve set a clear policy in the past year: we don’t talk speculatively about future development. We don’t want to string you along. Creating fun is an uncertain business: sometimes things work out and sometimes they don’t; sometimes we go back to the drawing board over and over before we get something right. If we make optimistic promises and then can’t deliver on them, everyone suffers. So when we attend a trade show or give an interview, we’re there to talk about what we’re getting ready to ship, not to speculate on what we might ship someday.”
I understand that some players would prefer a different manner of communication. I wanted to share the comments above to show that silence does not point to inaction or neglect or indifference.
The topic of conversation doesn’t matter. Nobody’s asking to talk about future developments.
What people here want is actual communication. Look at how many ANet devs often make cheeky oneliner comments on Reddit. It fosters a sense of cooperation there, and people on Reddit know that the Devs are listening even if no Dev ever actually talks about future releases.
We need that here. We need the active presence of a few different devs, so that people know they’re being listened to. So far, regardless of what you may say about WvW not being abandoned and Devs are listening, it sure as hell doesn’t feel like it here.
Nah. I personally am not bothered by the amount of red posts here. I’m much more interested in results and I think it would be important for Anet to be more involved with regards to team trends or doing something like making server links every month instead of every two months or forcing players who are not counting currently towards their world’s WvW population if that world is Full to be forced to pick a new world before re-entering WvW. There’s too much “cruft accounts” from the past login blackouts and all Full status does so far is make guilds leave while the cruft remains.
(edited by Chaba.5410)
with the server im on this bs is once again making me want to quit the game when you see your server getting tag teamed constantly when your server get little to no help at all .
I was on your server. The problem isn’t server linking. Your server won the last few weeks. It is your server’s lack of enough guild organization to support the militia. Your server had FOUR guilds leave in the last month or two. And it won’t change anytime soon since the server is Full.
If you want to have fun again in WvW, I recommend finding a guild to run with and possibly transferring to a lower tier server.
Guilds already run together, not sure what more you really want?
More guilds, more variety of guilds = more community organization = more activity.
Less militia standing around only defending or waiting for the single public tag guy to log in and form a map blob.
Sorry Gaile, it isn’t about in-game rivalries. It’s about frustration with Anet who has a more direct hand in match-making now through manual glicko adjustments and server linking choices without taking the time to understand the community trends going on with those teams.
Bumping more constructive topic.
@Pinko, you don’t need to have a “competitive fights GvG guild” to have regular guild rallies in WvW. Not everyone is looking to “compete in tests of skill”. Read, for example, the “Why you keep playing WvW thread”.
Is this another attempt at a guild trying to get people to leave a certain server so it re opens and they can flood it with their mates?
I’m curious, what server is the Op on?
She is both FA and BG.
Nah, I moved the BG account off to a linked server so it can get bounced around with server links a bit. Wasn’t fun anymore for casual play after so many guilds have left and/or died. My OP is from personal experience. Had that account there for about a year and a half.
My experience from FA moving between T4 and T1 is that the mid-tiers were a lot more fun, more diverse. If you are just looking at “score”, you’re not looking at things like guild-to-militia ratio or the guy who just wants to do dailies for the rest of the week when losing by a single skirmish. He’s not having fun and my guess is that it is related to what I saw personally before moving that account.
Do you enjoy getting into WvW to do dailies and are finding them harder to accomplish because no one else on your team is doing anything?
Do you find your favored WvW activity getting more difficult to do because your server has very few other people roaming and the only tag around is on a queued map?
Do you log in to WvW and find a lot more people standing around idle inside EBG keep waiting for another server to attack than actually playing WvW?
If the answer to any of those questions is yes, you and your servermates could be suffering from a “ded gaem” malaise where the casual players outnumber your server’s smaller number of leadership-providing guilds after years of over-stacking through “login blackouts”.
Consider these steps towards revitalizing your WvW experience:
- Transfer to a lower tier server where there is a larger variety of guilds. Many guilds run a lot smaller than in the past and enjoy the lower tiers more where blob frequency is not as high. They are always recruiting.
- Transfer to a lower tier server where there are more people out roaming around. Again, since blob frequency is lower, roamers find more roaming fights.
- Transfer to a lower tier server where players aren’t standing around waiting for someone else to do something. Guild rallies are the lifeblood of WvW. Unorganized militia do not usually take risks.
(edited by Chaba.5410)
That’s a great idea! Can we have our raid in GW1 tonight, Haematic?
it would seem reasonable that in order to get good stats on the top 3 worlds that they be solely responsible for their actions and not be linked with other worlds
That would make sense if the top three worlds got there without being linked and without manual Anet manipulation of glicko rating. That is only true of one of those servers, but you are right that it is more reasonable for servers to be there through their own actions, not glicko manipulation.
(edited by Chaba.5410)
So what if you have to work a little? I did a guild mission like that not long ago. we where only 3 and we had to cap everything. We defended the camps and the tower, even dumped speedy dollies in. Must have killed 20 or so enemies, lost one of the camps once but took it back (luckily that wasnt the speedy camp). Did it take a while? Sure.
Now do cap n hold for camp, tower, and keep in one three-hour rally, one at a time because you can’t run them simultaneously.
why do you need to do it in a single rally? You know as long as you participate in the initial cap of the objective while the mission is active. The mission can actually complete later in the week with completely different members and everyone who took part at any point will get credit. That’s basically what our guild does. We’re not a big guild, so we just pop missions whenever we have more than 3 in WvW at the same time. Then they just kinda get completed at some point during the week.
You can even do tricky stuff like, pop cap and hold keep before you cap the keep, then wait a short while. Fail it. Pop cap and hold tower before you cap a tower, repeat. Then do the same for camp. Then just pop it on again when the tower/keep is like 2 yaks from upgrading or something.
Ah, sounds like you are exploiting some bug with the mission that isn’t well known.
As to why we do it in a single rally, well, that’s what schedules are for; setting expectations for members so they will attend that night for X reason. Why wouldn’t we?
So what if you have to work a little? I did a guild mission like that not long ago. we where only 3 and we had to cap everything. We defended the camps and the tower, even dumped speedy dollies in. Must have killed 20 or so enemies, lost one of the camps once but took it back (luckily that wasnt the speedy camp). Did it take a while? Sure.
Now do cap n hold for camp, tower, and keep in one three-hour rally, one at a time because you can’t run them simultaneously.
Rolling three Cap and Hold missions, yea that’s pretty annoying.
In a recently deleted thread, I pointed out that Anet needs to do more to encourage guild-centric play in WvW.
Why?
Because WvW is boring without guild rallies – no matter the size. When all a server has to offer is a casual militia blob, that kills the fun for a lot of players as well as makes the activity on the server dependent upon a small number of pugmanders rather than a larger number of guilds. WvW should not be a numbers arms race.
Sabull said it best in his posts on this old thread: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/pvp/Food-for-thought-for-ArenaNet/page/2#post5011003
“Essentially our dream (and I’m sure many of you hold the same) was and is that lets say with a zone cap of “100” we have 4 guilds of 20 guys from each server in the zone, with 20 left for roaming/camp parties and afkers (20/20/20/20/20). Instead what we have had (50/30/0/0/20).”
This is what “guild-centric” WvW looks like, with protections from a blob being created for roamers, scouts, and small havoc guilds to play WvW their way.
Guilds running separate not only allow for more fight options in WvW, they also help equalize numbers in fights so that population imbalances don’t seem so outsized. It also reduces skill lag because fights remain at a size the servers are capable of processing.
“GvG was born because WvW should be more like “GvG” (equal numbers, 20man guild centered).” “GvG (or large-scale TDM) did not born for e-sports, it was never about e-sports, ques, instanced arenas, pricepools, money. It was born to make WvWvW BETTER!”
Many ideas have been floated in the past to help steer WvW towards more guild-centric play. My post isn’t to summarize those ideas, only to shout out once again to Anet that guild-centric play is what really makes WvW tick and that’s what you need to focus on encouraging. You only have to examine the server transfer trends into other tiers/servers where there are actual guilds to fight against, not casual militia blobs.
According to the patch notes, killing a member of Yak’s Bend should grant progression towards the Yakslapper title. This appears to be bugged because I got no progression.
Finally a Day Without Siege! Let’s fight!
I’m confused. Is this thread about the Regeneration boon or other healing traits and skills?
Large scale open sandbox PvP with gw2 combat and no p2w gear treadmill. What more should I ask for?
Suggest me another game like this and I’m ready to jump ship.
Seconding.
Oh. My. God.
Who the heck cares?
When I started to joke in TS about this thread I said, “People complaining…” and a guildie said, “You can stop right there.” The sky is blue too, you know.
I used to play on a “gaming” laptop. I don’t recommend it. On paper they may have the horsepower, but heat really is a big issue if you want performance from it.
You can see this also from the Achievement Points leaderboard. Filter by guild.
Beware those gentle slopes….
it seems reasonable to expect that a FULL server should no longer be linked, much less have two links, as in the current case with one of the NA servers (whose name will not be mentioned as this is NOT a matchup thread).
Has ANET any intention of – on a current basis – reassigning links when a server has enough population to be locked down as FULL?
Or is it the plan to leave this out-of-balance situation to continue for the two month linking period?
I ask because one of the stated purposes behind the linking system was to create a ‘competitive’ matchup, and clearly a FULL server with two links is not in keeping with this design purpose, as can be seen by recent history (by the NA server that will not be mentioned because this is NOT a matchup thread.)
I can’t see Anet making changes to single servers just because they go Full since the server linking process has to consider population totals on all servers.
If you recall, the original design of server linking was that the host server was to remain marked artificially Full to prevent exactly this sort of situation. Players complained about it.
3pm Monday and still down.
:feelsbadman:
I think its time for Anet to really try and make Tier 1 fun for other servers than just BG. The other two servers should each have a much larger alliance server. For example, SoS should have say, YB and FA should have JQ or something like that.
And ruin the fun for all the other tiers? No thank you.
How would that ruin the other tiers? The alliance would only last as long as these conditions are met:
1) in Tier 1
2) The end score for the week isn’t completely lopsidedAs the other servers drop back down to Tier 2 or 3, they go back to the smaller server alliance or none like we have right now.
Creating something like SoS+YB and FA+JQ would essentially remove a large chunk of the playing population from the rest of the tiers. Not only would that not work due to the nightmare queues it would produce, especially during NA, but also server link changes do not happen on-the-fly just because a team rolled a specific tier match. Other servers would be crushed, which would lead to large disparities in Glicko between the tiers again and “dead” servers. No thank you.
The real issue is that BG’s past login blackouts to get around the old Full status produced a server today that is stuck with a large number of casual players that don’t normally transfer to other servers with a guild so it has a really difficult time of shedding population to bring it more in line with the population on the rest of the servers.
(edited by Chaba.5410)
I think its time for Anet to really try and make Tier 1 fun for other servers than just BG. The other two servers should each have a much larger alliance server. For example, SoS should have say, YB and FA should have JQ or something like that.
And ruin the fun for all the other tiers? No thank you.
Not affiliated with ArenaNet or NCSOFT. No support is provided.
All assets, page layout, visual style belong to ArenaNet and are used solely to replicate the original design and preserve the original look and feel.
Contact /u/e-scrape-artist on reddit if you encounter a bug.