Guild Wars 2

Natto.5819:

Chinchilla.1785:

Natto.5819:

Chinchilla.1785:

Natto.5819:

Chinchilla.1785:

Save it from what?

From low population and empty borderlands.

Continuing on, now why do you think that happens? Before we even propose a solution.

Because everyone transfered to BlackGate.

Let’s assume that’s true. Why do you think so many transferred to BlackGate?

Because it somehow opened when it was already full?

What do you think the motivation was for those people that transferred to Blackgate? How does that motivation relate to your observation of low population?

Natto.5819:

Chinchilla.1785:

Natto.5819:

Chinchilla.1785:

Save it from what?

From low population and empty borderlands.

Continuing on, now why do you think that happens? Before we even propose a solution.

Because everyone transfered to BlackGate.

Let’s assume that’s true. Why do you think so many transferred to BlackGate?

Natto.5819:

Chinchilla.1785:

Save it from what?

From low population and empty borderlands.

Continuing on, now why do you think that happens? Before we even propose a solution.

Save it from what?

It’s done: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/How-to-Give-Good-Feedback

That one actually.*

:D

Swagger.1459:

Then you should have asked Gaile to repost that in the “sticky” section here, because it clearly lays out what the devs are looking for from players when posting feedback.

I did send her a PM (for what it is worth).

Swagger.1459:

We already have a thread about posting feedback

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/How-to-Give-Good-Feedback-1

“[the link itself]”

Yep. I am already aware of that. Problem is this section of the forums lacks a sticky of that subject. We only have a don’t do this list. Yes, people could venture into that section. Topics in this section suggest that people ignore that post, or haven’t ventured into that part of the forums. Perhaps having something similar to that notion in this section might help.

While this topic on Etiquette was derailed all over the place, I had already suggested putting that topic into the WvW forums :

Chinchilla.1785:

Gaile Gray.6029:

I think some of you made a good point. The title of that thread about undesired forum topics didn’t have a very clear title. I just swapped it out to “Inappropriate Forum Topics.” Think that works?

Dwayna bless you.

Gaile Gray.6029:

If you believe we need a completely separate thread to call out what defines a match-up thread, I can make one. I rather admire Chinchilla’s one-liner on that topic as a definition. I’m hoping to not have a lot of “housekeeping” threads, so am hopeful the one will work.

Another post shouldn’t be necessary now that ‘bad’ things have an identifiable place. This probably concludes this whole thread, but there is another side of the coin that could be addressed. What is considered a good or engaging topic? While there is a past post that discusses it in detail back in the general forums, but I find that I usually don’t visit there (this might be true with other people in specific sections). So again, people are potentially unaware of something that could benefit.

You could copy pasta that into the WvW forums (and presumably other sections) or recreate one in the style of “Inappropriate Forum Topics” with provided forum examples.

….

Since the suggestion wasn’t taken yet, I did this myself in order to help. Cheers love!

msalakka.4653:

I personally mostly enjoy dropping in sarcastic remarks, for which the MLA format is fairly useless.

I mainly use sarcasm to compensate for my lack of wit.

But yes. This isn’t no mla!

No, but wait there’s more! I am merely suggesting posting topics in the above formats is going to net fewer discussions. I am not saying they all lead to a toxic environment.

Again, my opinion, I have classified some posts that I do pay attention to:

Pretend Commenter Voice: Super! So gimmie the knowledge to attract attention to my idea.

What? This isn’t about click bait…fine, understand this first.

Short hand for communication is like this: Your Idea -> Your Execution of that Idea -> Their Interpretation of Your Idea. When they respond, then they follow that same chain back to you. Your goal is to make those three things match up initially to reduce miscommunication.

Here is an EZmode check list to help with that:

Sorry, I don’t have an acronym. I hope this helped you to help WvW that will help players to play…the helping chain! Now here is where I ask you guys. Was this useful? Most importantly. Why or why not?

If you think so, then great! Me too. This topic is about presentation. This is not about manners, or some interpretation of professional writing. The goal is to help you to clarify your idea. So, hear me out. Having seen countless posts over the 4 odd years in this section I can safely say a majority of posts can be skipped over.

This is where my opinion starts, and here are classified post for ones I’d avoid, or that I couldn’t take seriously:

Pretend Commenter Voice: Well gee, this is sounding an awfully like that “Inappropriate Forum Topics” post!

Nah. The idea puts forward exclusion. WvW needs to be inclusive (even if that means omni blobs…) mainly because it’s bleeding out new players. You may get people calling out others for being low level, and doing minimal damage. That lowbee’s presence essentially blocks out damage. After all, GW2 was founded on people joining up and helping each other.

At best they should copy GW1 in regards to hard CC (Gw1 only had Knockdown). Meaning while you have a specific CC you are immune to that specific CC for the duration (to prevent perma lockdowns).

I understand that people wish to hamper the omni blob behavior. The best, but costly, would usually come down to map design. Most other ideas have been artificial number changes. I also suspect incoming damage cap increases server load because it adds that additional step of denial (sort of like DDOS).

It’s okay for the guardian roll on heal trait in zerg fights (paired with energy sigil). Even if you only get one kill per push.

It’s okay for staff/staff daredevil dodge spam thief too. Something you can do in Eotm zergs for luls as your vault, and dodges do 10,000 to 5,000 damage respectively.

Mutalisk swarm personally. Anything else is a pointless zerg unit.

Nah. ANET lacks coverage. No lie.

Gaile Gray.6029:

I think some of you made a good point. The title of that thread about undesired forum topics didn’t have a very clear title. I just swapped it out to “Inappropriate Forum Topics.” Think that works?

Dwayna bless you.

Gaile Gray.6029:

If you believe we need a completely separate thread to call out what defines a match-up thread, I can make one. I rather admire Chinchilla’s one-liner on that topic as a definition. I’m hoping to not have a lot of “housekeeping” threads, so am hopeful the one will work.

Another post shouldn’t be necessary now that ‘bad’ things have an identifiable place. This probably concludes this whole thread, but there is another side of the coin that could be addressed. What is considered a good or engaging topic? While there is a past post that discusses it in detail back in the general forums, but I find that I usually don’t visit there (this might be true with other people in specific sections). So again, people are potentially unaware of something that could benefit.

You could copy pasta that into the WvW forums (and presumably other sections) or recreate one in the style of “Inappropriate Forum Topics” with provided forum examples.

SpellOfIniquity.1780:

…
EDIT: LOL, the amount of people that are complaining about blobbing… Really, guys. This is why cups of coffee have to say “CAUTION: HOT” on them.

And if we raise the map cap to 100 they’d need to add “CAUTION: LAGGY.”

Idk if the OP actually promotes much discussion outside of speculation. At best, ANET spent about 6 months on the map. There, that’s all.

I don’t think it took 3 years. If it did, then that might only be because multiple projects were happening, and it was chipped away during those 3 years.

ArchonWing.9480:

Chinchilla.1785:

…

They do technically attempt to ‘define’ things in this: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Reopen-and-Glicko-Adjustment-Requests-Updated

However, given your own issues with the usage of “matchup discussion,” ANET might want to clarify/redefine that phrase.

…

Oh, I didn’t even realize that post even existed! Well, they could start [by] splitting those 2 posts.

Yes, it wouldn’t hurt considering the average user might not go to a topic titled “Reopen-and-Glicko-Adjustment-Requests-Updated” with the intent of looking for bad etiquette in “matchup discussions.”

Okay.

So, this is probably more clear. OP wants to introduce more strategy beyond single pin (militia or guilded) map zergs by throwing in “guild centric” stuff. The “guild centric” being more like a spvp queue but for larger groups of 20. Even if that is wrong, the common goal is trying to resolve the zerg-only playstyle/tactic, yes?

I am going to say this again. If you want to directly change that behavior I believe it will come down to map design. Which this topic doesn’t engage in, and why I disagree with the OP.

OP’s idea makes it optional, sure. It would mean everyone plays on the same map either fighting equally in different places or taking turns.

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?

Sure, I guess. Even though the current OS leads to interruptions in regards to GvGs. That or it’s just this guild, idk. I would prefer the current guild halls use WvW game mode rules and their arena size increased, or create a new spvp map for GvG’s specifically. I can’t say those suggestions are more or less work than the OP.

The only technical limitation I am aware of is that it takes ANET about 3 months to switch maps or something. Search function doesn’t work great so I can’t find it.

Sviel.7493:

I’m not totally sure what the thread is actually about as the OP is rather vague. I’ll ask for clarification where I see it’s needed, but I apologize if I inadvertently make some false assumption.

TBH. The OP comes off as just a request, with a quote that inspired it. Essentially: ANET, please have more guild centric stuff in WvW because [OP’s link thing].

Regardless if this is the wrong interpretation or not. That’s how I saw it. The [OP’s link thing] is what I disagreed with (namely going to 100 player cap). Given current servers barely handling a three way…it’d be mess. This is especially true since guilds voltron up anyway. I don’t see much difference in a public 100 man blob, and a 100 man voltron guilded blob.

If you wanted to resolve blobs that’d come down to map design. Which this topic doesn’t address. He also doesn’t say he wanted only GvG. Idk why that gets brought up. The easy fix to GvGs is another spvp map...especially true because that format gets some resemblance of balance.

ArchonWing.9480:

…

Well ,I agree that the motives and timing feel strange. It does seem they need do work harder at anticipating reactions. It actually is kinda funny.

For example, I think we really need to find out what consists “matchup discussion” since this seems to be the crux of the problem. And I am confused, honestly.

They do technically attempt to ‘define’ things in this: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Reopen-and-Glicko-Adjustment-Requests-Updated

However, given your own issues with the usage of “matchup discussion,” ANET might want to clarify/redefine that phrase. It appears in their example under “Thread about Worlds.” They show one that demonstrates “matchup discussion” but then explains it’s the bad etiquette is what ANET is after. This probably lends to your confusion on where, and when mods do this. According to that link the “matchup discussion” gets lumped with bad etiquette.

It’s not my job to make up definitions for these conditions ANET perceives as unacceptable. Gaile can reopen an announcement, edit that link, or open up a discussion topic in regards defining “matchup discussion.” I think the link mostly covers things, but it feels like “matchup discussion” isn’t an ideal label.

Personally. I’d try to keep it to one sentence (which is really hard to do).

P.S. Considering the limitations of Gaile’s OP, again, this reply is derailment.

ArchonWing.9480:

The thread isn’t avout the stances towards anet. It is about pvf/player bashing/server bashing

Taking the OP at face value, yes. It would have actually been better to sticky then lock the post since the topic is presented more as an announcement. This would have prevented derailment. I mainly say this due to the fact no questions were really raised by Gaile’s OP besides it being a PSA (metaphorically speaking) to play nice with fellow players. Which means the topic is really limited in regards to discussion anyway.

Despite this, it’s somewhat useful as a temperature gauge. To me anyway.

Yeah, more guild attention would be great. I want to decorate our objectives more please. My guilds are heavily into RPing inside towers.

Raising map caps pass 60? Nah. Still going to be blobby, and not to mention laggy (as it already is).

Idk how EOTM was brought up. EOTM’s issues are map design, and lack of match making (e.g. you can’t queue up as a squad against other potential squads). Its lack of persistence solves coverage problem by removing them at least…

No thanks. My leaders die on inc regardless. Public pin saves commanders’ lives by providing more meat.

The work around is to go tagless, and target leader. Roll all frontline as Charr, and the rest Asura. Nobody should be lost on where to be. Asura can be their own group for secondary targeting without needing a lieutenant.

I have never found lieutenants useful outside of GvGs, but that’s my personal opinion. Usually it’s just used to pin snipe anyway or invite people in (although you could turn on public invites…)

AquaBR.9250:

No, i playing GW2 for 4 years now, the lack of resources is the reason of this post, resources suggestion, nothing is out of scope everyone is waiting for a big WvW patch with things like that, is very dumb to stay silent waiting for them to do something you want but they don’t know you want, we have to let them know what we want, if we dont ask for, is this way they are really not doing it

Understood. Let me clarify. I am okay with you suggesting this regardless of ANET’s desire to implement it (or not or partially).

My issue of scope is in regards to power creep. You suggest to bring in more stats into the game mode. This means more numbers must be thrown in for the balance team (assuming they take part in this feature). Sadly it is hard for me to dig up posts about developers’ concerns when it comes to balancing power creep, whereby adding more power creep. It’s a valid concern here regardless.

Your ideas of stat improvements to different play styles has/does work in other games. And it is interesting. Am I allowed to mention other games?

As far as progression. I dislike the current WvW ranks since the massive wall can be a large barrier to entry for the new players (this game mode needs new players). I would prefer it replaced entirely, or all its effects defaulted. If WvW Ranks was replaced by a play style based system with similar ideas you described that would be super. I recall the initial idea of WvW ranks was so players had roles. Irony is it’s just another thing to max out, and be omni-useful to anyone.

TibbsDeTelTel.1690:

I wanna make it clear im not here to complain or anything.. im just curious if the thought ever crossed your minds of making the Desert Borderland maps borderland maps for eotm.. they jus seem to fit more so with that map as gravity is such a large part of eotm :P..
ive pretty much only wvw’d for past 3 years and i couldnt care less as i spend 90% of my time solo roaming in ebg..

Desert BL doesn’t have radial symmetry (loosely) like Eotm or EBG. So probably not, unless they wanted to waste time on making another map essentially.

TibbsDeTelTel.1690:

also is there any chance of getting the ability of farming ascended gear in wvw like u can in pvp? i would pvp for it but i cant stand waiting in queue for 5 minutes sometimes to have a 10 minute fight when i could be roaming in ebg

build variation in wvw is important to fill different roles in certain situations / groups and i think it would make more sense in wvw than in pvp as in pvp u have all gear types and runes unlocked for the most part..

anyway thanks for the game i have had a lot of fun :P
Peace
A random WvW Scrub o7

Idk about rewards. Personally I would have preferred the Gw1 system of choosing the stats per slot like in the old PvP game modes.

Or at the very least introduce a token economy for acquisition (like most of PvE).

It could possibly reduce the amount of toxicity present on the forums I suppose…by keeping it in game (bearing in mind that it can be turned it off).

No, this is out of scope given the perceived lack of resources on WvW’s development team. If I am wrong about that, then the issue is more for the balance team which already has problems in WvW.

Looking at your post history you are probably a new player to WvW, correct? Welcome to WvW, and I apologize for cynicism. Your suggestion feels hopeful, and I appreciate it. It’s just out of scope.

Yes, no, and maybe? I have engaged in bad etiquette, and I have done good etiquette (if that is a thing).

It is correct to not shout out commitments for things that are not done already.

I would say that developers (the ones doing the coding, art, and production) shouldn’t spend every single day browsing forums. It’s a waste of their time, and ANET’s money consequently. I say this only because a majority of topics have too much ‘feeling’ (not necessarily bad etiquette), or are out of scope ideas due to the small budget WvW is perceived to have by the play-base. Or at least my perception.

While Gaile gave examples of match-up…this would be my example of posts with just ‘feeling’:

My example of posts out of ‘scope’ :

So yes, etiquette is an issue. The real issue I perceive is budget, simply by the lack of deliverables, and thus the lack of communication because they can’t talk about their accomplishments (those deliverables in this chain!)

And no, I am not asking you to reveal your budget. That’d be unholy to Dwayna.

PR nightmare from ANET playing their game? Sadly I doubt that is hardly true considering the low population that engages in WvW nowadays. Then factoring in the even lower amount of people that complain about it in the first place (WvW forum posts are not 100% of the population…I dare say not even 50%).

It would be a PR nightmare if ANET didn’t play their own game at all.

In the words of the best RP commander on Maguuma in regards to the ANET guild, “Do wut u wunt.” If you truly take issue with ANET claiming things, then blob them down or move on.

Or you can always pm Gaile for 15v15s in guild hall….

Baldrick.8967:

I’d prefer to move the other way and have 4 or even five servers on a map, 2-3 maps total.

Also, some form of penalty applied to the team with the most structures, so the more you hold the harder it is to hold onto it.

However, this would involve dev time, so not going to happen in my lifetime.

1v1 would be a step backwards- one side would over blob the other, and without a third team added in, would be very boring very quickly. More teams gives more tactics and more possibilities.

I can understand why something other than 1v1 would appear alluring initially. Let’s assume servers are magical and can handle our current 3 way situation.

I would advise widening your perspective by going out and trying to understand why countless other games do 1v1. And why they didn’t do 1v1v1 (Or more…). What ‘tactics’ and ‘strategies’ does 1v1v1 (or more) introduce or take away from 1v1?

At the end of the day, it’s the map design itself that determines the behavior in regards to ‘tactics’ not the addition of teams. 1v1v1 (or more) tends to lead to a ring style map that lends itself to the dreaded ktrain that I believe most would rather avoid.

This was already evident in map variation even within an old game as Star Craft (the first one). Compare the number of varied maps of a 1v1 setup to a 1v1v1 setup: http://classic.battle.net/scc/lp/2.shtml

Caliburn.1845:

All the arguments for getting rid of DBL can just as easily be used to justify getting rid of Alpine BL as well.

Much less active than EBG? Check. Much more PVD? Check. Much more running around to get anywhere? Check.

We should clearly get rid of all the BLs, get rid of EotM, and just have EBG by this argument. Which would just be silly. We need maps that are different, even maps that are less popular. Nothing would be more boring than having four identical maps to play on.

I’d argue removing all maps because map design for a 1v1v1 is generally bad, and lacks significant variation to begin with. On the other side, I don’t expect WvW’s current budget to change it to a 1v1 setup. Although…doing so would remove the elephant in the room (three way lag issue), and be easier to balance in the long run.

It’s not a bug if ANET decided to let siege take on condi damage.

Fire aura, and even frost aura with necro’s Deathly Chill allow the arrow cart to take damage as well. As well as any silly rune with on hit condition procs like perplexity.

By all means, let the siege go back to what it used to be with half the hp and immune to conditions. On this note I don’t really care either way.

Ruru.1302:

It’s quite the contrary here on Maguuma. The typemanders don’t get more than 10 people and the commanders that throw around racial slurs in teamspeak get 50 on tag.

The Maguuma I’m on it doesn’t appear to matter either way. Players hive mind and wipe the other groups with or without TS.

Although I’d rather not be in the same TS as a certain commander saying ‘dude’ every other word, dude.

P.S. even Jarvan performs better by not even speaking. Hue hue hue.

Assuming I am even allowed to mention skill balance in games like League of Legends(LoL).

You wont see too many CCs last longer than 3 seconds in games that care about balancing in a mode that is quickly paced (Like LoL). Most are often only 1 second.

To be frank, reduce its duration to 3 seconds if it’s going to ignore stability anyway. Reduce its recharge to compensate so it’s still usable.

Guestimation I made a while ago: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Is-WvW-too-big/first

Chinchilla.1785:

….
Each map holds about 75 people per team, so 225 people per map. There are 4 maps, so potentially there could be 900 people playing non-EOTM wvw per each match up. There are 12 matchups per region, right(lost track with linking)? So that’s 10800 for US, and 10800 for EU (I think they have 12 match ups?).

Meaning, at any given time only 21600 players can be in WvW (not counting EOTM overflows). That’s assuming people even choose to play it. The active population is probably less than that.
…

So it’s probably even less than 1/20th of 7 million.

I understand the purpose of health resets in this game to increase its pace by allowing people to enter combat once more after a fight.

As for WvW, at best, I’d consider increasing the range for reset. So even if said mobility class has all their cooldowns, they must burn more off for that magical reset healing effect. This would affect disengagement more than engagement in my opinion.

Furthermore, I’d add on having a condi on an opponent leaves you in combat until it is removed. This way resetting on condi builds (knowing your duration is off the charts) will keep you more mindful of applying condis vs. seeking to recover.

In general though, HoT killed roaming for me.

Let me rephrase for the OP. Regardless of the DirectX12 talk, you can try to find settings to cull the most jobs/queries from your machine if you want to diminish the effects of tonic spam

OR just wait for the fix, and not change your settings at all.

Regardless of CPU slowing down the GPU in DX9, I am referring to jobs/querries being removed from processing in the first place. And when I say “cull” I am mainly referring to the game engine’s side of optimization to remove jobs, like here: https://docs.unrealengine.com/udk/Three/VisibilityCulling.html

Example optimizations that remove “jobs” in Guild Wars 2 that I can think of:

hayabusafmw.9370:

As if being outnumbered wasn’t enough. I Feel like there is a serious abuse on mesmer portal bombs.

Be specific. What is the abuse? Furthermore, being outnumbered has nothing to do with portal bombs.

hayabusafmw.9370:

I think the list of correction i have brought out would help it getting balanced.

It was really already balanced when only 20 people can go through at a time, which required people to stay behind or play more mesmers.

hayabusafmw.9370:

1. Portals not allowed in wvw = only pve skill

Why? It’s one skill that requires more team coordination over their other skills. Otherwise you are going to end up with clone spamming condi mesmers.

2. Cool downs faster to cast the second portal in wvw limiting the range

What would be the point of portals if the range is so limited? At that rate you’d need to remove it.

hayabusafmw.9370:

3. Portals not working when this isn’t your keep

Why? It gives attacking team a chance to by pass a rather boring time gate in the game mode. Defense has been given so much already with all the feature creep of guild upgrades…

4. When the other side is outnumbered portals aren’t working

You being outnumbered has nothing to do with the portal skill.

hayabusafmw.9370:

Simple but effective way to balance the entire bombing situation that is beyond trolling at this point.

I hope this is a troll post. I get it. It sucks when you are outnumbered. Nerfing Portals IS NOT the solution to that. That’s a population problem, and skill balance will never resolve it.

stephanie wise.7841:

Chinchilla.1785:

I suspect this has to do with running the game not on the lowest settings. (Like maybe it is high post processing effects causing FPS drops)

For my potato machine, I run everything on super low for WvW, and never have any noticeable effects from Kodan Tonic spam.

While it would be nice ANET to fix this abuse, but, for now, you can try setting everything low, or diagnosing which setting(s) is(are) related to the lightning effect.

Useful stuff about directX 12 clipped for brevity.

you can read more at this link:

http://www.pcgamer.com/what-directx-12-means-for-gamers-and-developers/2/

I am not claiming that post-processing effect setting is the sole cause. I am suggesting to the OP to lower the settings to the minimal and see if that culls out issues. Or to systematically single out the most consuming graphical setting in regards to Kodan Tonic Spam.

While your text is nice about having Directx 12, but Guild Wars 2 isn’t nor will it be in the near future in my opinion.

And as I already stated:

Chinchilla.1785:

For my potato machine, I run everything on super low for WvW, and never have any noticeable effects from Kodan Tonic spam.

Keeping in mind, that this would mean you may only see 25ish players render at a time (because they were culled), and the rest are tag names running around.

I suspect this has to do with running the game not on the lowest settings. (Like maybe it is high post processing effects causing FPS drops)

For my potato machine, I run everything on super low for WvW, and never have any noticeable effects from Kodan Tonic spam.

While it would be nice ANET to fix this abuse, but, for now, you can try setting everything low, or diagnosing which setting(s) is(are) related to the lightning effect.

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

One issue with every BL map that we have is that they’re all mechanically broken. Alpine was designed around the orb and since the removal I feel like the map meta has degraded and became very stale. The Desert map has an entire center that takes up a large portion of the map that’s simply useless.

This guy understands. Ignoring the concerns of “siege gameplay” being a timegate in regards to the defensive feature creep like guild upgrades, the major flaw of the current maps is this: they’re all about sitting in circles over and over again to a fault. Once they removed the unique features of BL’s, they lost an different mechanic to fight over.

As far as the map design itself, overall I hate BL’s asymmetrical design for it leads to the need to copy it 3 times in order to maintain matchup balance in a 1v1v1 scenario. I described these Map design issues already…:

Chinchilla.1785:

…
If you did not care about balance, and a consistent matchup, then yes you could have whatever team arrangements you wanted.

Once you break out of the 1v1 you start to lose flexibility in map design. 1v1 can be a line (or more) that bend to the designers whims as if it were a path to travel upon. You can achieve far more distinct combinations in this match up.

Beyond 1v1:

When you add in 3 teams, it forms a triangle, 4 would be a rectangle (assuming square is a type of rectangle), 5 would be a pentagon.

Show Spoiler

hide spoiler

As you add pass 2 teams, you start restricting yourself to a ring. Often this ring lends itself to k-training as we see now on current maps.

Ultimately, you end up with two options by a symmetrical map design for 1v1v+More. As demonstrated in these Starcraft 1 maps: http://classic.battle.net/images/battle/scc/lp/3/xm.jpg and http://classic.battle.net/images/battle/scc/lp/3/xtk.jpg

First where teams are evenly spread outside, and the second where teams are clustered into the center with long obstructions to separate them. Both still create a ring.

Attempting to Introduce Asymmetry:

These are shapes, they’re rigid, and cannot bend unless you’re willing to introduce asymmetry. The caveats of an asymmetrical map design mean you disrupt balance. However…

Show Spoiler

hide spoiler

In our case, WvWvW, the asymmetrical borderland maps had to be repeated/copied 3 times as we know them now. This would mean with 4 teams, there would be a fourth copy to fulfill the need of a balanced match up. 5 would be 5 copies. All of this promotes staleness fast…regardless of where you are positioned on your team you are still playing 1 of N copied maps.

Research:

If you define W in WvW as a number, you can widen your perspective, and simulate this scenario in strategy games. In this case, I looked at Starcraft I maps here: http://classic.battle.net/scc/lp/3.shtml

Show Spoiler

hide spoiler

What you are looking for is the amount of significant variety in 2 teams compared to 3 teams compared to 4 teams, and so on. If you analyze it, 4 team scenarios end up always having the teams in the corners over, and over again. Keep in mind, you could have locked Alliances in that game that would then become effectively 1v1 (if you cared about balance).

TLDR: spoilers added for this reason. Read at your will!

Gudradain.3892:

Would 4 vs 4 work better or worse than 3 vs 3 for WvW?

I’m asking just to get your opinion and it’s not a feature request. Please exclude from your answers the fact that the maps are not designed for 4v4.

While, indeed, the current maps are not designed for 4v4 but this issue has everything to do with map design.

If you did not care about balance, and a consistent matchup, then yes you could have whatever team arrangements you wanted.

Once you break out of the 1v1 you start to lose flexibility in map design. 1v1 can be a line (or more) that bend to the designers whims as if it were a path to travel upon. You can achieve far more distinct combinations in this match up.

Beyond 1v1:

When you add in 3 teams, it forms a triangle, 4 would be a rectangle (assuming square is a type of rectangle), 5 would be a pentagon.

Attempting to Introduce Asymmetry:

These are shapes, they’re rigid, and cannot bend unless you’re willing to introduction asymmetry. The caveats of an asymmetrical map design mean you disrupt balance. However…

Research:

If you define W in WvW as a number, you can widen your perspective, and simulate this scenario in strategy games. In this case, I looked at Starcraft I maps here: http://classic.battle.net/scc/lp/3.shtml

TLDR: spoilers added for this reason. Read at your will!

Deli.1302:

Farzo.8410:

I haven’t played Guild Wars 2 in a longer while, though I was still around for a little bit with the server linking.

Is this what they are going with now? The server linking? The whole idea seems to kill servers apart.

I played on SFR and apparently they fell right on their face for some reason I don’t know what it is. The server was extremely well in WvW in the past, and now it’s barely holding up.

Your entire post makes no sense. Server identity has nothing to do with server population/rank. SFR fell because people left the server. Simple as that. Nothing to do with links. Everything to do with SFR not being fun to be on anymore.

This. People simply stop playing after 2 or so years (like you did), and thus servers “died.” Server linking was merely ANET’s response to that reality, not the reason it occurred. Whether or not it helped with player retention is something else.

However, trying to explain the new scoring, and server linking to a new player (or returning player) is going to be off putting. They won’t even understand the purpose of a hidden stat like glicko…

Aesthetics/graphics is on the player’s end. Otherwise known as a combination of your graphics and whatever processor.

Servers have nothing to do with that. However, really low FPS can clog up your input. Meaning if you run on 1 fps you won’t be able to react as fast against someone with 60 fps.

Jim Hunter.6821:

sigils of hydromancy, cleansing,and energy are always pretty useful

This, and infusions will depend on your condi/power build or whatever. You can always go precision if you really don’t like switching out infusions. +10 of whatever doesn’t totally matter…

No to the OP, for it promotes exclusion, and transferring issues are merely a symptom to the tier system in a 24/7 game mode that is the real issue. If you wanted population balance you would have to abandon persistence. Simply put, not everyone can put in the same time into Gw2 as everyone else.

Doctor.1905:

mordran.4750:

Yep, you can´t stop greed, it´s human nature.

I’m not saying it’s a problem. I’m rather saying that wvw players are keeping gw2 afloat. Gw2 is difficult to financially manage without it having a monthly fee.

The source? I highly doubt it’s true given how few actually play WvW. Furthermore with money increases from badge/notary conversions alongside reward track the need to pay real money for transfers has decreased in my opinion.

Another “This is what is wrong/right with WvW, so do this” thread. On the whole, I do think getting to the action bit is correct. Combat is Guild Wars 2’s greatest triumph after all. Some of the others ehhh. I already gave my opinion on what I felt was needed for WvW here: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/What-do-WvWers-want/first

I put in spoilers as to not scare people away, even though I literally covered everything I could possibly think of:

Chinchilla.1785:

…

My long answer to OP:

1. Matchups/Servers:

Show Spoiler

hide spoiler

A. The big issue is going with a 1v1v1 matchup that takes all the cons of a 1v1 and gives only “the illusion of variety” as a pro. Snowballing still occurs, and as is seen now, we end up with a squabble for 2nd place with two middling (or less) servers matched to a giant. The elephant is that the servers themselves could never handle a full three way fight.

B. People’s concerns with server identity. I will get hate for this, but merging should have occurred over this linking concept that requires upkeep from ANET. The idea of community would actually shift to the Guilds themselves. See Guild Wars 1.

C. Coverage/population balance, that comes with people’s initial interest in persistent pvp modes. I see this more in NA servers, but this idea of persistent doesn’t take into account peoples’ actual playing time. A huge chunk of NA will play for a 4-6 hour time-slot, and end up losing everything outside of that prime-time (the current score system only masked it up better). Lastly, there is a chunk of players in off hours who are not even matched up together, but inadvertently caused this disruption in coverage.

2. Maps

Show Spoiler

hide spoiler

A. The only variety you will get from this game-mode is through maps. It is what directly affects player behavior. Making new maps is always an option. Because of the 1v1v1 we are limited in options for maps that are balanced on their own. The current three copies of the somewhat asymmetrical Home Borderlands systems fails since it relies on a balanced population 24/7 across all of them. This relates to coverage, and the 1v1v1 matchup so you know how systemic these issues are.

B. Circular-ish map design lends itself to Ktraining. With a 1v1v1 you will almost always get some form this. It is clearly apparent in Eotm. In the past it was performed in the Home Borderlands on Friday, and during the initial release of notaries it was seen on Eternal Battlegrounds. Even in non-full ktrains the third lowest server’s common option is to attack unoccupied objectives of the two larger teams (the basic Ktrain).

C. Switching to 1v1 maps offers more flexibility, and allows for a better scenario in case balance is necessary. If you were not here before, the initial Alpine-Borderlands underwent revisions (about 3-4 times), in addition to Desert Borderlands. To put it bluntly, the center of the asymmetrical 1v1v1 is cursed. So cease it, and transition towards 1v1.

3. Game play Loop

Show Spoiler

hide spoiler

A. WvW has not aged well. One way is the siege playstyle, and how it is heavily inconsistent. Firstly, is the balanced battle over an objective that takes up most of a guild’s raid. Secondly, the ktrain where the objective is unoccupied. Finally, the off hour nothing where no side has much of any presence. Another systemic link is because had there been population balance the players once stuck in off hour would be fighting others. In addition time to siege increased by feature creep and progression: tactivators, passive guild upgrades, shield gens, cannons, and still trebs.

B. Separate balance for WvW. This is in hopes of facilitating future balance while making the fighting experience more valuable. With this long term decision it should in theory let balance be made by the potential WvW team.

C. Progression is a concern that is going to sound counter intuitive. The way it was handled in WvW could be considered feature creep since it was to appease people. There is also the gear itself where optimization requires even more time spent outside of WvW. Taking a step back, I think it is better to say people want recognition for their in-game achievements not necessarily statistical advantage. Too much statistical progression is a barrier to entry for new players, who will go to Eotm and probably stay.

….

In the Name of Dwayna *