Guild Wars 2

coglin.1867:

Reverence.6915:

You also know that your server is the only server that produces those queues? Jade Quarry’s coverage so overwhelming right now that no one can even compare with those numbers. Your experience is not indicative of what’s going on in WvW. Neither is any server in T1. Perhaps get an alt down into T4 or T5 and see how the average WvW server plays without queues.

No my experience is not indicative of everyone, I agree. The difference is, I am not suggesting they make changes to WvW based on my personal needs for my server. The person I quoted previously is.

You mean if WvW is working on 1 of 51 server this is a good reason to leave it as it is?

coglin.1867:

With 20-50 player queues on four maps regularly on weekends on my server

I am in EU, now in silver but long enought in Gold, no idea how it is in NA. But if you are outside NA-T1 I can hardly believe that you have queue on any map between 1am to 9am (we have 10-30 hopping over 4 maps). I can also hardly believe that you have queue on any map over the week between 1am and 6pm (we have 10-80 hopping over 4 maps).

And should you be NA-T1 and have queue in this time, these 3 servers aren’t representative for the other 48.

ASP.8093:

I’d rather lose the week because of coverage issues than spend more time sitting in a queue to “balance” coverage.

EotM has a queue you were in?

Server reduction (I would not merge, but delete all current and set up a lower number of new teams) may help a bit, but they aren’t the solution to the different demand over the 24h of the day. Even if you merge all 27/24 into 3 you will not use the available capacity at every hour, you will only generate horrible queue during 2-3hours.

EotM has the potential (if ANet stops to put all strongest teams together vs all weakest tems) to do better, map-capacity can be added on demand. E.g. just 1 map in the offest off-time, 20 in prime-time.
Here is a proposal based on that potential: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Proposal-for-a-new-competive-WvW

The problem today in WvW is that even the so called “overstacked” server aren’t really overstacked (they still have a lot unused capacity) and it is an advantage to be on an “overstacked” server not a disadvantage. The solution in current WvW, would be to make them overstacked, e.g. as proposed here: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/2-12-2015-WvW-report-on-Unbalanced-Match-ups/4855676

Isn’t the Reason for outnumbering obvious?

The match capacity is to high.
4 maps a 100 people a 24 hours a 7 days is 67200 play hours per team and match.

No server is even close to use that, in mean the capacity is probably used to less than 10%.

You can only have balance at times where the capacity is used. And as it is never used you have never balance.

• An account wide shared bag slot for account bound items only for 1000 gems. (One char puts something in, any other can take it out, e.g. To transfer the asc armor/weapons to another char)

• More max bank slots.

• A character instantiated bank slot (each char sees it’s own content) where only soul bound items can be stored (e.g. the exo armor/weapons of my now asc wearing chars)

• More weapon slots where you can store additional weapon pairs. you can declare your main slot(s) – for usage in combat – out of them only while out of combat. ( I hate that the 2nd dagger of my dd Ele goes into the loot bag when I switch to staff, would be nice to buy a special storage place for the pairs I like to play in specific situations.)

• A nice animation for humans holding great-swords.

Bad idea to put money in your guild bank anyway.
Gold in the account is restored by ANet if you are hacked. gold in guilds is not.

Calcanius.5048:

This feels hopeless, but i will try again

It is, as you are wrong
No idea why you try to defend RMT by denying their negative influence on the gem-gold-rate, but you aren’t doing well. Don’t let your interest in gold-mailing cloud your judgment about their negative impact on GW2s economics..

Calcanius.5048:

Gem price:
If i purchase 100 gems for lets say 100 gold, then the gem price will go sligtly up, so the next buyer will have to pay 100 gold and 50 silver.
If i convert gems to gold then the gem price goes slightly down, might even drop a bit over time when there are no demand, (simpel supply and demand issue)

ANet does NOT sell Gold, ANet sells Gems.

Whenever someone want to buy Gold via ANet, he has to buy Gems and then buy gold from the community of all players, which makes gems CHEAPER.

RMT sell Gold. They have to generate the Gold they sell somehow, every Gold sold by RMT is an addition to the amount of available gold held by the player community. As they increase the amount of Gold available to the community, gems become more EXPENSIVE.

Every player buying from a RMT instead of ANet has therefore a DOUBLE negative effect on Gem price: less gems are available (as he did not bought gems) and more gold is in player hand (as the RMT has to generate it somehow).

Of course game mechanics that allow all of us to generate more gold has an influence as well. But this is also available to all of us for time-spend-ingame-to-get-it and not for $ so it’s ok.

I do not think that any of us has the numbers to caculate how much gem price is influenced by RMT and how much it is influenced by missing gold-sinks and increased earnings. But if I look at the effort all these Gold seller do in the real world they must have a quite large volume of both missing gems on the market and added gold on the market..

Calcanius.5048:

Here are some things that influence gem price:
1: number of desired items for sale
2: amount of gold in the game

RMT increase the amount of active Gold in the game by either farming/botting Gold themselves or by activating inactive Gold lying on inacive accounts by hacking and robbering them.

You forgot the
3: How many people want to trade gems into gold.
And this is where RMT have massive influence: Every $ buying Gold at a RMT is lost as a $ buying Gems for the Gold-Gem exchange.

Calcanius.5048:

People can buy gems 3 ways:
1: legal real life money to anet for gems
2: gold to gems
3: illegal gold sellers

I don’t see a way for 3. Gems are accountbound. How do you get Gems from a RMT?

Instead people that bought Gold for $ buy Gems for Gold.

You see, RMT influence the Gem-Gold rate massively in 2 of the 3 aspects:

• amount of active gold in the game
• less gems available to be bought by player

Calcanius.5048:

In short: Play how you like, but dont tell others how they should play, if you like the challange of not having any savings then it is you choice, but some does have a fair amount saved, that they can use to help others.

In short: Play as you like, but do not make requests that beside your own egoistic goals also help RMT-goldbuyer, that push especially gem, but also item prices up to the disadvantage of many people and that finance criminal hacker-networks, that are a thread to any players account.

Calcanius.5048:

Dayra.7405:

Calcanius.5048:

Back to topic: 500 is to low

I think it is to high, 50 per week would be better. Maybe you have to much Gold, but this is an MMORPG not a banking simulation. The game would be beter if all the things you listed woukd not be possible at all.

Concerning dungeon selling: If the tokens should be buyable for gold, then ANet could make the token tradable on the TP. Done, all this bad mud of dungeon selling gone.

Concerning Gold transfers between own accounts: Having many accounts mean login in with each once a day gives you 40 laurels ( around 50g if you buy T6 mats for laurels) per month per account. I don’t think such money farming should be possible, Collecting 500 per week on your main from you satelites is already far behind everything you can earn by actually playing the game.

Concerning the 50 gold limit: There are lots of people who make 50-100 gold a day and even more, this is common when farming for legendary, it realy does not take much luck to earn 500 gold a week if selling everything.

Concerning gold transfer between accounts: Seems like i may not have made myself clear enough to understand:

1: I suffer from mood swings and for that reason i have 50 level 80 toons on more than 1 account, so if i play on other (not main) for a week i will accumelate a large sum of money that will be hard to transfer back to my main.

2: Couples, we are many couples who play guild wars together, and couples often have a HUGE desire to help each other, instance, my wife have a gem addiction so she can get all the outfit and whatever there is in gem store so i transfer large sums of money to her so she can buy gems.

3: It seems that yu forget that there are some friendly player sin the game who sometimes get that silly idea to loan gold to friends so they can buy that big " Pink Fluffy Unicorn" in the shop window that they just saw. this causes problems with 1 and 2. Since when they pay you back, you get to limit even faster.

Hope this helps to understand why 500 is to low and causes problem for so many.

No, and I especially do not see the “many”.

Challenge and fun of gaming is to achieve something, if you throw tons of money in every direction (be it your wife, your friends or your toons) you take away everyone challenge and fun. Buying is just a boring button press, earning it, is the game.

Concerning your wife: gem-shop has a “buy a present”. Tried if your wife likes a nice dress mailed to her more than just another pile of gold?

Calcanius.5048:

Back to topic: 500 is to low

I think it is to high, 50 per week would be better. Maybe you have to much Gold, but this is an MMORPG not a banking simulation. The game would be beter if all the things you listed woukd not be possible at all.

Concerning dungeon selling: If the tokens should be buyable for gold, then ANet could make the token tradable on the TP. Done, all this bad mud of dungeon selling gone.

Concerning Gold transfers between own accounts: Having many accounts mean login in with each once a day gives you 40 laurels ( around 50g if you buy T6 mats for laurels) per month per account. I don’t think such money farming should be possible, Collecting 500 per week on your main from you satelites is already far behind everything you can earn by actually playing the game.

“Rifle” is shown in the english version, just put Rifle in search and order by price.

Would you put a green item in for 40g? I would not pay 2g to put such an item in for such a ridiculous price. But maybe I miss something.

Was a bit surprised to see these prices today, but as “manipulated TP for gold transfer” they would make sense.

Dawdler.8521:

You cant balance it because its not WvW. There is nothing to balance. Its just PvE with upscaled pug zergs rolling around. You want to see some fun? Put a 30 man WvW guild in EoTM and hilarity ensue. They will roll over everything. Keep bosses that take a while to kill and can take out 10+ pug zergers? Dead in 10 seconds. 60+ man zone blobs? 30 of them are in downed state in the first 5 seconds of battle.

I suggest just accepting your weekly fate of being the underdog. Anet cant balance this.

Manpower can of course be balanced. It’s absolutely avoidable that 1-2 side have permanent outmanned buff.

Ark Bladesteele.2943:

And fiscal evasion? Seriously?

Of course, TP-trades are taxes by 15%, avoiding this is tax evasion.

RoseofGilead.8907:

Dayra.7405:

lotteries (invented to steal from people with their consent),

How on earth is a person who is WILLINGLY paying gold to get a ticket in the lottery being stolen from “without their consent”?

If you cite me, cite me without adding words, I neither wrote nor mean.

PS: I wrote “with their consent” you cited it as “with out their consent”

PPS: Answering your question as well:
Lotteries are invented to trick people to pay for something they wouldn’t buy if asked directly. (And your guild example fits that perfectly) The money earned by the lottery for purpose XYZ is much more people would be willing to pay for purpose XYZ. They only pay because the chance of winning seduces them. Tricking the stupid to buy something they wouldn’t buy without the trick is judged stealing in many cases. Several states do (or did, e.g. US till WW II) forbid lotteries and other forms of gambling due to that. Others allow it only under strict government regulation and supervision because that way they get money from their people without having to raise taxes the people don’t like. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lottery)

There are several ways to turn the tides (e.g. a lfg-tool based taxi-service to concentrate all the distributed players of the minority on one or a few maps), but all would need organization, which in fact rules them out, as much to many EotM players are to egoistic and unorganized to read chat or follow a commander lamp.

How it works:

Every friday evening (20:00 CEST now for EU) color of WvW-servers is determined for the next week. There are many forum threads explaining how (e.g. https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Need-Anet-to-clarify-Matchup-Variance-Maths/3366401 is one).

This also determines your EotM color for the next week.
This week in EU we have:
Green: Jade, Kodash, FSP, Piken, Aba, Aurora, Dzag, Vabbi, UW
Blue: Deso, BB, AR, Elona, Gunnar, Miller, RoF, Ranik, FoW
Red: SFR, RS, Gandara, Drakkar, Vizu, Arbor, RoS, WR, Blacktide

Assume at any point in time 950 red, 500 green and 200 blue like to play and that a map fits mostly 100 per team.

Then we will have 10 EotM running in parallel to fit the 950 red. On each map we will have approx.: 95 red, 50 green, 20 blue.

When you join EotM, your server determines your color, and then the instance is selected according to the following prio:

1. map not full
2. Party-member on the map
3. lowest Population of your team

Maybe how many of your guild are on a specific instance has an influence as well.

This has 3 “features” that are responsible for the current imbalance:

• In EU SFR has most EotM player, if you transfer to SFr you will always be on the winner side (red this week). At lot already did, more will follow.
• EotM-Team is unfortunately based on WvW-server, if this would be dropped the situation would be much better.
• You are always placed where your team is weakest, by that minimizing the fun of the minority sides (and maximize the fun of the strongest side, they outnumber everywhere and therefore: creating even more WTJ). Much better would be if you are placed on the instance where you are strongest. E.g. in the example above this would result in 2 instanes with 100:100:100, 3 more instances with 100:0:100 and 5 with 0:0:100.

thefinnster.7105:

this whole change seems idiotic and only benefits Anet all its gonna do is force players to trade in resources and resources means using the TP and that means listing fees etc and we all know whose agenda that works for and ill tell you it aint mine
relay expect by the end of the day this will all turn out to be an April fools day prank
lets be honest for a lot of players 500g is nothing in this economy

I agree that it makes off-TP selling and non-ANET Gold-Buying more difficult or even impossible.

I do not agree that this only benefits ANet, it benefits any player that doesn’t do it.

If no one can buy gold from other sources than gem-shop, then we would get a lot more gems for our in game gold. Any non-ANET gold-buyer harms all non gold-buyers.

The damage done by off-TP traders done to all other players results from the fact, that these players keep the gold that all others give to inflation-reduction by that increasing the prices all others have to pay. In the end off-TP traders are like tax defrauders, they maximize personal earnings on the cost of all others. And I think they should be handled like that: high financial penalties or in repeated cases even temporary ban.

Orochimaru.4730:

Dhemize.8649:

Orochimaru.4730:

Why is this thread in the WvW forums?!

Because EotM can be accessed from the same WvW tab.

But it’s PvE Karma land, has no place here until anet make it a real part of WvW.

Because ANet think it’s WvW and Mods would move it to here, if it would be created somewhere else.

If I would be a gold-seller I would use guild-bank now:

Let the buyer found a guild, and invite the seller in a rank where he can deposit gold. Done.

I guess a lot of off-TP trade are also done this way.

This will be the next think to limit for the system to have a real effect.

Lishtenbird.2814:

You might not have done level 50 fractals enough if you consider it a good change. Or solo exploring with the closest unlocked WP being miles away.

That said, group events that require coordination might indeed require changes like porting fully dead away after a time-out.

Who revives you if you are solo? Do you want to wait hours till someone passes by? Port on total dead makes it clear priority to get WP’s first, if you fail you have to walk a bit, but you will always have at least 1 WP on the map, and if you are far away from the closest WP: You will have a lot WP’s to explore while walking

And, hm yes, dungeons and fractals, where you cannot port on dead probably need a special handling.

As the title says it. In the meantime I think rezzing totally dead (but you can rezz downed people) people should be taken out of the game. It only causes problems everywhere.

• People are careless about dying as there is no penalty.
• People lie around boosting scaling without contributing, which disturbed mood of all, the dead that did not get rezzed, but crying for help and the living that have to do the work for the dead leacher.
• In WvW/EotM it supports the large blobs and the winner is always a total winner. Without rezzing, blobs would be smaller and attrition war of the side with less manpower would become possible.

Instead whenever you are totally dead you are immediately ported to the next WP.

TexZero.7910:

Dayra.7405:

TexZero.7910:

They can start by adjusting rewards. Removing WExp, Reducing exp gain by 33%, Reducing karma gain by 33% and by making it so you cannot join EoTM if you do not have Queues on all 4 maps so that the map is used as the overflow it’s supposed to be.

So all have to transfer to SFR to play EotM?
Already to many do that, why do you want to increase it?
People are in EotM because they want to be in EotM and not in WvW, closing EotM will not bring any player to WvW.

Why should they be in an overflow map when the normal maps are right there for playing ?

Why should they be rewarded more for playing said mode which does less than nothing for their server than those actually playing WvW.

The entire design of EoTM is absurd. Personally i cannot wait until they gut it.

It’s no longer an overflow, it’s a superior game mode, where you always find people to play with and against.

Why do you want rewards for collecting meaningless-score points for a concept that stop to exist over a year ago with the introduction of mega-server? Servers are gone!
They only still exist in WvW as Anet failed, was to uninterested or to busy to get rid of them. Collecting meaningless score-point for a superfluous world-concept is definitely not the game mode I will ever play again, especially as only off-time PvD of a handful people is decisive for winning.

TexZero.7910:

They can start by adjusting rewards. Removing WExp, Reducing exp gain by 33%, Reducing karma gain by 33% and by making it so you cannot join EoTM if you do not have Queues on all 4 maps so that the map is used as the overflow it’s supposed to be.

So all have to transfer to SFR to play EotM?
Already to many do that, why do you want to increase it?
People are in EotM because they want to be in EotM and not in WvW, closing EotM will not bring any player to WvW.

laokoko.7403:

I dont’ know why people care so much about custom arena.

Those are basically rooms people set up themself with the rules they want.

If you care so much you should play unranked or ranked arena.

No was not a custom arena.

Hotjoin, yes.

I think it is easy to stop: The ration between kills (low towards zero) and conquests (high) in such a match is a very good indicator.

After a long PvP-Break I went back to watch into PvP.

But the 2nd “Match” I entered was manipulated. Red and Blue stand both left and right of clock-tower circle and stepped in and out to trade the objective.

Is this how PvP is nowadays? Match-Manipulation for reward maximization?

Not much to teach. As most people never listen to you, you cannot command much more than selecting the targets.

Have enough rams in your inv. switch on the lamp and run to a target and people will follow you.
You should know the map and ways (incl all tunnels). Don’t forget to resupply your zerg, e.g. at spawn when you do not own your keep, at keep if it’s WP is not contested.
And if you aren’t green: try to know where green is and how busy it currently is and attack things that you can realistically take before they can overrun you.

ilmau.9781:

Tseikk.9032:

Oh whoops, i forgot. Transfers are the only way anet makes money through wvw.

Yep. if servers will ever get balanced somehow Anet will find the way to destabilize them, beacouse as said, no transfers no earnings.

a) compared to the gems earned by e.g. the wings transfer-earning are probably quite irrelevant. I guess more player stop playing WvW due to them than actually pay transfer.
b) transfer-costs weren’t something ANet urgently wanted, it was something players urgently wanted. They were useful to reduce transfer while server where more balanced, but today they only cement imbalance. And the game would be better currently without them.
c) they could be replaced by something that helps more for balance, e.g. instead of the todays servers you could have Open-Team which correspond to todays teams, but you can always choose for free, if you haven’t during this match, and closed teams, that pay a registration fee for every week (like privat pvp arena), that have a leader and function like a large guild.

coglin.1867:

I am more then willing to read your very detailed explanation of how you could reasonably design large scale combat on an individual bases in a way that every player agrees is balanced. Please, bless us with this wisdom.

Isn’t this trivial? It just needs the same mechanics as in random PvP:
Whenever you join an EotM-match for the first time you are assigned to the at this moment smallest team. This assignment is kept till the match (4h) is over, afterwards you are again assigned to the then smallest team.

No server, no guild, no party binding, simply: if not assigned, then assign to smallest team.

If you prefer to make it more complicated: Use mega-server technology in team assignment, i.e. try to respect server, language, guild, party, but still nearly balanced (say +/-5 difference in size) has highest priority.

Tseikk.9032:

coglin.1867:

Did they suggest somewhere at some time that EotM was supposed to be balanced?

I’m so tired of that excuse. “hurr durr it’s not meant to be balanced” is an extremely lazy way of saying “I didn’t have the time/motivation to make it balanced”. How about instead of just ignoring everyone who thinks eotm is unbalanced maybe put a few work hours to it and make eotm fun for the other two colours too.

Oh whoops, i forgot. Transfers are the only way anet makes money through wvw. And sfr definitely needs more people!

If a transfer would make it more interesting I would even consider it. But the week on the same side as SFR we had was the most boring one. Ok more baggies, but even worser player, even worser discipline, no attention at all for the surounding.

This “we win without any care” made it even more boring to play on the same side as SFR than to play against them, which at least leave you the challenge: “Are we able to take this before getting overrun?”

The Hot Pre Beta looks like the melee-train get its track or at least a good road back in HoT.
However, I do not believe that 6s stabie with 5s cool down will stay like that.

dancingmonkey.4902:

Dayra.7405:

Bubi.5237:

I believe even with an “easy” change like splitting the Matchup into 8h little-matches, and the server who won more of these “little-matches” will win the MU would Nightcap less important.
With the system we have now you can get 10-30k lead during the night.
With the little-matches, you can get only 1/3 of the “points”, so if a server has only nightcap, they’ll lose.
Dunno who wrote this idea first, but I like it

The problem of this is still:

The handfull of people in the match during two of the mini-matches are twice as important for the match outcome as the majority of people that in worst case even have to queue in their single mini-match.

How do you justify changes that punishing those who do not have the same schedule as you?

Exactly, how do justify the punishment of the majority of prime-time players by a minority pf off-time players since nearly 3 years?

Bubi.5237:

I believe even with an “easy” change like splitting the Matchup into 8h little-matches, and the server who won more of these “little-matches” will win the MU would Nightcap less important.
With the system we have now you can get 10-30k lead during the night.
With the little-matches, you can get only 1/3 of the “points”, so if a server has only nightcap, they’ll lose.
Dunno who wrote this idea first, but I like it

The problem of this is still:

The handfull of people in the match during two of the mini-matches are twice as important for the match outcome as the majority of people that in worst case even have to queue in their single mini-match.

Seems to be back to normal with last patch.

I made a new level 5 necro equipped it with lvl 5 power equipment (helm only the lvl 0 mask without stats and no shoulder, no jewelry beside the +2 to all ring) and placed her at the same place as my lvl 80 full ascended (wup wup armor/jewelry and coal forge spire). Tried a screenshoot, but that is broken as well (full black), so here are the stats manually:

lvl 80 vs 5
77 vs 81 power
71 vs 56 though
63 vs 56 vita
69 vs 56 prec
9 vs 2 fero
14 vs 2 cond
12 vs 2 heal
————-
0 vs 0 life force
167 vs 141 armor
770 vs 700 health
12% vs 5% crit chance (in a lvl 80 area the lvl 80 has 40%)
158% vs 151% crit dam
40% vs 0% cond dura
45% vs 0% boon dura

Damage on a river drake is
20 vs 20 direct dam
17 vs 13 cond dam per sec
crits did not happen

700g for ascended stuff instead of 10s for blue stuff and leveling to 80 vs be at 5 really paid off, same direct damage, but 4 more condi damage per second, yeah. I wonder how a lvl 80 in exo or even only rare would perform

I think it is a bug. I made https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/support/bugs/Huge-change-in-downscaling here in this forum section and a moderator moved it to bug reports.

Kodiak.3281:

Dayra.7405:

I like (and find it fair) that you now feel like my necro with it’s very limited stability

If it leads to the dead of the hammer train it’s a very nice change!

It’s 2015 who the hell is still running a Hammer train!?!

I meet some (hammer cores) in EU and wasn’t always able to evade them

I like (and find it fair) that you now feel like my necro with it’s very limited stability

If it leads to the dead of the hammer train it’s a very nice change!

No idea, beside likely just another bug

I’ve incompatible stacks of lvl 20 birthday scrolls …

Would be nice if it get fixed before even more items cannot stack, but currently I see a lot of more urgent matters added Monday

maddoctor.2738:

Why can’t we use Geodes outside Dry Top? Bandit Crests outside Silverwastes? I doubt we will use those in Heart of Thorns, HoT will use their own new Currencies. Why?

I would be already happy if they would become real currencies in the wallet like dungeon tokens. Then I wouldn’t care if they would add new currencies for every area.

But as long as I have to stack them in my bank I hate them, and I hate them more, the more of them get introduced. 10 stacks Bandit Crests (and with prices up to 1200 crests, 2500 saved ones isn’t that much), 5 stacks Geodes, … Reminds me of the times where I had 30 stacks of BoH’s in my bank. Luckily they are in the wallet now that I have 30k of them

I mainly noted that my necro signs do nearly no damage in queens-dale anymore, then I found https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2/Stats-nerf-after-update-3-16
and the dungeon thread cited above. Also my Engie seem to do much less damage after patch than it did before patch in mount maelstrom.

After moderator moved the thread to bugs I guess this isn’t an undocumented intended feature

Bug or undocumented feature?

Nice (more challenge) or not?

You have to be responsible for the actions you do/propose. If you think someone should be kicked, do it but be responsible for it and defend it if needed, or be kicked for it, if the others disagree. Anonymous kicking is to abusive as it harms others without own risk.
Its therefore a good change to lift the anonymity and it may lead to overthink if it is really the correct response to a mistake.

Guild chat is cleared on map-change.

“You aren’t in a guild” message when trying to type inbto guild-channel, can be fixed by turning online status to “invisible” and back to “online”

Now everyone sees what was visible to multi-screen and window-mode users all the time. https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/archive/suggestions/WvW-Suggestion-Restrict-view-angle-in-WvW

At least chances are now even, we will see what the result will be.

I don’t know if there will be a spring season 2015. If yes, probably soon. Seasons were of course a way to bridge large rating gaps. However, mostly seasons confirmed most of the rating gaps.

I understood it as 1 map with 3 different corners as EotM.

I haven’t seen the most important tip:

Watch out the mobs level!!

1-3 level higher mobs become hard
More than 5 level higher mobs are deadly.

There are in fact 5 start areas, 1 for each race, but you can reach them all by using the portal to lion arch in your start city.

If you run out of area with mobs of adequate level switch the area.

And do not worry that doing quests and fighting lvl 1 mobs as lvl 10 doesn’t level you. It does as well as fighting lvl 9 mobs in a level 9 area as most rewards (item level of drops, exp, karma, …) are mostly based on your level, not on mob/quest level.

(If you fight mobs at higher level than you you get a small bonus, but not really important.)