Guild Wars 2

Arantheal.7396:

could maybe a moderator or dev tell us if this issue is at least getting looked at?

Look at NA-T1 and you have your answer. The Glicko-Matchup TC-BG-JQ now last since Feb 2014 (with short swiss-system season interrupts)

In NA gold the last season has aproved the separation of T1 and T2.

If the servers are that far away in population, any variance in matchup lead only to very imbalanced matches.. Be happy that you aren’t in NA-T3. They have a stale imbalance.

I still hope that HoT also gets rid of the servers for WvW. A never well working concept, but since a year it’s a badly failed concept.

Juba.8406:

Just add the new HoT map like another EB (Eternal Battlegrounds) for a total of 5 maps.

What do you want with 5 maps most server aren’t able to fill 2 in primetime and no server is able to fill 1 map in off time.

The asymmetrical nature of the current border lands that always required 3 or none made dynamic adaption impossible. A new map that replaces them is a big improvement.

Having said that for WvW, I don’t care if the old borderlanfds are put under EotM matchmaking as an addition to the current EotM map.

Joshhh.2076:

Quick question on this, as I missed the stream. Someone said to be that they’ll be replacing the three existing borderlands with one version of this new map, leaving two maps (this + EB) instead of four. Has this actually been said?

I haven’t heard it, but this would be a real gain, given that 75% of all teams have problem filling two maps.

Your Horde of Charr and the Asura must have been really drunk or they would have called for the Ruins of Fort Ranik instead of the T8 dominating Vabbi.

Nothing should score, before you haven’t upgraded it at least once.

Yeah since a while we are living in the United Nations of the mega server and left worldismn behind us.

In a 4 hour match the scoring can be made very simple as well:

5 points for every objective and 5 points for every objective upgrade held at the end of the match.

You may ask, uh isn’t a fortress not much more worthy than a camp. In fact it is, as it is much easier to defend and therefore easier to have it highly upgraded at the end.
Also PPT is partially covered in this: The longer you keep something the more upgrades it will have.

Defense and offense will be very balanced, a raid to destroy enemie upgrades is very valuable, but is it worth losing the own upgrades?

retsuya.4708:

Most people want is an easy win. Join the biggest server/blob/zerg, press 1 and get lootbags. Pretty much the same on world bosses in PvE.

Are most people like that? I mean: I don’t know most people and their interest.
But this doesn’t seem to be very strong position on my server.

From participation and TS/Chat-mud I would see the following fun-ranking:

1. Close/unexpected win
2. Overwhelming/expected win and Close loss
3. Overwhelming/expected loss

All in all: close matches clearly outperform overwhelming ones in fun.

First of all it’s not necessary to stay up till 4am. It’s much better to get up at 5am. On Elona we can flipp anything at 5am with 10 people and we are T5. In T9 you can probably flip everything at that time with 2-5 people.

On 30 Jan – 06 February 2015 you were green that’s just 5 weeks ago. To bad you missed it. You still have chances to get green you just have to wait some weeks. And whats a few weeks waiting for green compared to the 132 weeks I am waiting now for a precursor drop (I did 8 world completions and wvwv-completion on 2 more chars so far)?

I am sure FoW will be green before I get a precursor drop.

TyPin.9860:

The idea behind the proposal is nice. But unless server transfers are free (for a limited time for instance) not so many people might transfer to not stacked servers.

Instead of a general free transfer, you can also say: whoever is currently in that queue can freely transfer to the servers that have the lowest capacity for that period (immediately increasing it by one for such a transfer)

TyPin.9860:

If now for some reason (cuz scores could be all much closer then) a top server is matched with a low ranking server, it could mean that sometimes the maps are almost empty, while hundreds of players are stuck in queue.

If all the scores come closer the natural answer is to reduce the random-variation of match-making, as e.g. done after season 1.

But lets assume such a match happen (e.g. NA-T3 since a while) and at some hours the manpower is 100:10.
Today we have 110 unhappy people, 100 that are bored to spawncamp, 10 totally frustated. In my proposal we have 20 happy people in a balanced fight (10 from each side) and only 90 unhappy people that sit in queue, but that can easily resolve their unhappyness by transferring for free to a world where they are needed or by playing EotM (Yes, EotM is mostly only Karma-train and no real fight, but 100:10 isn’t a fight as well, and no one can force you to karma train in eotm, but you can enforce anyone to fight in EotM if you want fights.)

Manpower and manpower distribution over time are the most decisive factor for scoring and for having fun in a match. A large manpower imbalance is boring for the superior side and hopeless for the inferior side.

Still ANet seems to be unable for now nearly 3 years to integrate any balancing mechanics into the game. And I’ve really a problem to understand why, they are destroying a lot of fun potential with that.

So here is another balance proposal:

For every server the systems records the number of player in the match (and in queue) for every hour. This is maxed for the 7 days of a match, giving an resulting in an max amount of players for every hour of every server.

When a new match is made on Friday these numbers known for each server from the last match. The minimum at every hour over the three server in the match determine the maximal amount of players that are allowed in the match for every side at every hour. Everyone above this limit sits in queue.

In a balanced match this has nearly no effect, in an imbalanced match however the server with superior manpower only has more people in queue (giving them an incentive to move to servers without queue).

This is immune to manipulation, as you don’t know whom you will have to fight at the moment the numbers are determined.

It not only balances total manpower, but also coverage imbalances.

A thread with with that topic exist and you can even lookup the likelyhood of your wishes there every Wednesday or thuersday.

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Matchup-wishlist

JoshuaRAWR.4653:

Not everyone plays with their game looking like a title from the early 90s.

Exactly that’s why I post here. Nice graphics and crash at boss-events and zerg-fights or ugly graphic and no crash.

And all this to have wings and mini’s on the ugly default models?

fireflyry.7023:

People use such items to show off. Period.

Haha, showing off with lower char-deatil settings looks like that
(real show off in 2nd screen)

fireflyry.7023:

Ever consider it’s more your computer at fault?

Not really an explanation why ON THE SAME computer, the MacOS version of GW2 crashes showing them and the windows 7 version does not.

fireflyry.7023:

Sure there’s a minority that would argue it fits there characters theme in a role-playing sense but for the majority such items exist for pure vanity, the value of which would be be completely neutered if you had the option to not see them or ignore them completely.

That’s why I did NOT asked for a simple option to turn them off.

I asked for an improvement to let GW2 crash less often. It’s not a mater of like or unlike them, it’s a matter of crash or not crash (i.e. I will not see them, currently because the game crashes, but I would be in favor of only seeming them if the amount of people allows it). Yeah if Anet would find another method to let the game crash less often on boss events and zerg-fights, ok.

Topic title says it.

Why does the game waste my (obviously limited, or I would use higher settings) graphics and Internet-bandwith to show me something totally irrelevant for the game like the backpack and the mini’s of other people on the quite “ugly” default model?

I would propose that irrelevant parts like backpack and mini are only shown on highest settings, such that I can view slightly more relevant information before GW2 crashes on bosses or wvw-zerg-fights.

A related point: I use my computer under both Mac OS 10.9 and Windows 7. So it’s nice to have GW2 on both OS, however even if is the same hardware, I have to use the Mac-Version 2 Char-Model detail lowest settings (while I can use the windows version on middle settings) or GW2 crashes on every larger event.

azizul.8469:

collision detection….

Rofl. Did you ever watched how your client estimates positions in case of laags?
I do not want to collide with wrongly estimated people. And who should detect that? The server, such that you are noticed that you unfortunately collide with someone some secs ago and are ported back or the clients based on wrong positions and open to cheating?

Collision detection in MMO is far beyond playability.

What may work is a stat-reduction based on the number of people in your surroundings.

I was talking about last season:
http://mos.millenium.org/na/matchups/history/213
no idea, if that changed in the meantime, but I would doubt it.

Ha ha, a prize with the current imbalance is the last we should get.

If you put out a prize for that, even I will transfer to SFR and the current
100:30 is turned finally into a 100:0, i.e. a prize for everyone just paided by a one time transfer fee.

coglin.1867:

There is nothing wrong with EOTM. The problem is what the players do with it. You really shouldn’t blame players way of warping something on Anet. That is very short sigjted.

This is shortsighted! It’s of course ANet that implemented a team assignment that leads to permanent ubuf for 2 of the 3 sides.

And of course it is ANet programm that allow that all people of a side can stack together in a very small area.

If these two points would be fixed I am sure there would be more fights, but currently it’s simply pointless to fight.

it wouldn’t work, just to make an example: SoS and BP togther will have not even half as many player as JQ.

When watching the matches of the last league, I had the impression that more or less WvW-population halves per tier.
So T2 has half of T1, and T3 has a quarter of T1, and T4 has 1/8 of T1, and T5 has 1/16 of T1, and T6 has 1/32 of T1, and T7 has 1/64 of T1 and T8 has 1/128 of T1.

You have to merge all of T2-T8 into 3 servers to produce merged servers that are able to compete with T1.

The only thing to be fixed in eotm is balance. It is completely unneccesary that one of the teams always outnumbers the other two by 3:1. Just drop the server and their color from eotm and assign any new joiner to the actually smallest team.

OP and others seem to believe that EotM takes people away from WvW that would go to WvW, if EotM would be switched off. I can hardly believe that, I at least would not be more often in WvW as I am now, if EotM get nerved. Probably less as I would be in GW2 anymore.

Reasons to be in EotM instead of WvW are not only rewards, there is also:

• no need to listen to commies you don’t like in voice-com
• no hate for twinking
• no cries for scouts
• no cries for more people to stack at commie
• no map-hopping
• no fixed map-capacity, that produces empty maps at one time and queue at the other
• no senseless 24/7 matches that let matches be decided at times with fewest players
• no player that believe in the stupid WvW-Score and play for it
• not the arrogance of people like OP that believe to be in the only real game mode.

Coming to the points of the OP.

1. You can drop exp from the whole game and I think this would be an improvement. Currently you get around 40 Tomes of Knowledge per month. i.e. by doing nothing else than login in and doing some dailies you get a new lvl 80 char every 2 month (and no I will not buy 6 char slots per year, I already get 10 Birthday lvlup books per year). I will never ever again have to play a char below 80, if I don’t want to. When I finished the tutorial I go to the bank and be 80. Should I ever need more skillpoints I go to bank and read a few of the 1000+ scrolls of knowledge. In fact I would like if nothing gives exp, as it would allow me to control lvling, e.g. I could keep a char at lvl 50 to collect linen, and it will not lvlup while doing so.
2. There is very little you can do with karma, it’s a dead currentcy, now that new currencies are added with every release. If you aren’t in legendary mass-production, there is zero need to farm karma, you will always have more than you ever need.
3. Increase rewards, lol.

Summary: I do not prefer EotM over WvW due to Exp/Karma, I prefer EotM because it is the better designed game-mode. In fact it has only one problem, and not surprisingly this is it’s connection to the bad-designed WvW-server. If EotM could get rid of that last conection to WvW it would be perfect.

pepper.6179:

someone once asked me, “ppt equals skill?”

The time where we believed that was a better time, wasn’t_it?

https://leaderboards.guildwars2.com/en/na/wvw
https://leaderboards.guildwars2.com/en/eu/wvw
shows you only the ranking of last friday-reset.

If you want to see all current matches and the predicted ranking (based on last weeks ranking and current performance in the running match) for next friday look at
http://mos.millenium.org/na/matchups
http://mos.millenium.org/eu/matchups

The problem is that the larger the group the better.

Assume 20:10 where all people are equal and equally good.

1. The 20 do twice as much damage per second,
2. they are able to apply twice as many conditions,
3. they have twice as much total life to be taken down to defeat the total group,
4. they have double heal,
5. they take in mean half the damage (as AoE hits only 5, i.e. a quarter of the 20-group vs half of the 10-group).

As such with double people you have 2^5= 32 times as effective as the smaller group.

This is why people are forced to stack. And this has to be broken to allow people to not stack.

Kaiser.9873:

I’m still struggling to see the problem. People play the way they want to play. Most players want to run in largish groups. Majority still rules does it not?

Maybe some player play in large zergs because they want to be in a large group, but I think most are driven by the meta-goal: play as effective as possible, I.e. they do not run in large groups because they like large groups, but because a large group can reach things and that even if neither commander nor player are very competent.

I heard commander crying for more people to often to believe that the people really want to be a large blob.
So I think people are only enforced to blob by commanders and game mechanics, otherwise we would not have these large blobs.

So the question of this (and many other) threads is: how to change the game mechanics in a way that allows us to be successful, even if we do not blob or the other way around how to prevent that blobing is the one and only winning strategy that can beat anything if only the blob is large enough.

PPT is irrelevant given the current scoring method and the fact that most maps are underpopulated most of the time. May the better Speed-PvDler accumulate more points.

GvG is irrelevant for everyone not directly involved.

WvW is irrelevant for farming anything (not even WEXP and BoH anymore).

If there is nothing relevant you can do in WvW, why do we go there?

Right, less and less people go there.

Especially in EotM you feel much to often as supervising a Kindergarten
But usually I tell them why I leave, giving them a (unused) chance to learn.

Dunecoon.5134:

S
I was looking to make one of them my main for WvW,

That’s probably the problem! If you have both, why should one be the WvW-main?
Everything earned with one is available for both. Another reason against using one char for both roaming and zerging is: The optimal builds even on the same char are different. In roaming condi is king, in zerging condi is rather useless due to mass cleaning and condi stack cap. So having 2 chars with optimized builds is preferable (even if both are the same class, e.g. warrior)

Engie for roaming. Necro for Zerging. Very good combo!

If you want more gold:

• I do not see the reason why WEXP-lvlup boxes are worser than PvP-Boss Boxes. Earning a WEXP lvl usually require more than looking up a timer, porting to the map, press 1, wait till the box appears, and this gives a guaranteed rare per account/boss/day. Why not a guaranteed rare in every WEXp-lvlup box, maybe limited to 10 per day/account and for lvlups in WvW (not EotM where WEXP is earned much much faster) only, maybe only for every even lvlup.
• WEXP-Lvlups above can be invested in points on the PvP-reward track (or something equivalent) instead of WEXP-skills, especially interesting for those above 1390.
• achievements, I still like this achievement proposal best: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/WvW-achievements-without-Season/4077952
• Earnings from holding/scouting an objective after spending money for it’s improvement: Only guilds that claimed an objective can upgrade it. If they do not have an upgrade running for more than 5 min (without defense event or 5min without buf, if fully upgraded) it’s automatically unclaimed and the next guild can claim it. Upgrades are payed from guild bank money.
  - taking 10 sups out cost 1 copper credited to the guild bank
  - a port to it’s WP cost 1 copper credited to the guild bank
  - repairing with an NPC inside cost 1 copper credited to the guild bank
  - trading with an NPC inside cost 0.1% (1 copper per 10silver) extra (at least 1 copper per visit with at least 1 trade)
  would make the claiming guild be interested in defending or at least scouting the claimed objective as they would loose their investment, if they don’t.

Bristingr.5034:

joneirikb.7506:

I keep asking myself: “Why do upgrades even cost silver/gold?”

Gold Sinks.

To let trolls think about the costs of trolling or do you want merchants in every wood-keep or hired in the middle of a siege as someone needs to repair his armor?

No costs are bad. Only costs isn’t very good. Costs as investment for possible later rewards would be best.

Victory.2879:

More NPC’s to kill…EOTM is that way ^^^^^

I proposed something around the OP post awhile ago (https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Scoring-Discussion/4483469), and the reason was not to give you more NPCs to fight, but to devalue PvD and enforce you to garrison your possessions or to disable a 695 score of 10 PvDler.

The problem I see here is: The optimal meta is discovered, a lot perform it well, more and more train it, it will be followed till the end of GW2, now. Boring!

So change it. Not because I think it’s bad, unfair or what ever, but simply because it’s known, and the phase where different meta’s compete to be the best meta is much more interesting, than the phase where everyone is following the winning meta.

Here a possibility (but there are likely many, many others) to do so: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/How-can-we-changed-WvW-to-prevent-the-blob/4821283

Warning: If you put soul bound items into the bank and delete the char, the only thing you can do with these items is delete them, e.g. you cannot take them out to salvage (extract runes/sigils) or NPC-sell them.

There is another alternative to transfer: Buy a new account. (Best when there is a special price offer) For 10-20€ special price, you not only get a transfer, but also 5 char-slots, 1 bank-slot, double daily/monthly rewards (e.g. double amount of T6 mats bought from laurel-rewards per month), with 2 accounts you can email items to yourself, you can share a bank-guild (no idea which restrictions of email and guild-bank access exist for NA-EU distribution) … at the price of no access to account bound stuff (ascended equip, karma, BoHs, …) and the need to buy any extension twice.

How about a weaker form of friendly fire (which has to many negative side-effects)

Every Friend in your AoE Area count against your AoE-Limit

So if you put AoE onto an area with 5 friends you do no damage. I guess this will take out all teeth of the Blob-Stacking Meta.

This will make single-target skills more valuable as single target skills will be the only way to hit enemies in your blob.

It will make small groups valuable that can “hide” in the enemy blob.

Both could need an upgrade for large-scale fights.

Generally I would propose the following priority in AoE target selection:
Invisible Friends > Invisible Enemies > Visible Friends > Visible Enemies
I.e. you only hit a visible enemy with AoE, if there there are less than 3/5 friends or invisible enemies in your target area, you only hit invisible enemies if there are less than 3/5 invisible friends in your target area. The higher priority for invisibles is needed as you cannot target them with directed skills.

I guess you are talking about two kinds of balance.

TyPin about skill balance in fights, Ragnar about Match-balance.

While I agree that ANet cannot really balance skills in wvw, I think they should care about match balance.

And if they cannot balance skills in wow, it would probably nice to have them varied more often, such that skills change before the optimal meta becomes widespread and there is something to discover and improve all the time.

Ranking isn’t really Important, glicko +/- ~80 (random) is used to determine the Match-Rank, which is them used to make the Matches 1 vs 2 vs 3 in this random modified Match-Rank.

Johje Holan.4607:

+1 to OP.

Delete it as it is.
Rework it slightly.
Insert it into WvW Proper.
Profit.

No better delete WvW mode, put EB and BL under EotM match making, change it a bit such that you can have fixed teams and competition between them. (e.g. as in https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Proposal-for-a-new-competive-WvW)

EotM mode has clear advantages over WvW:

• 4hours matches allow you to play a match from start to end.
• the amount of parallel matches is determined by player demand and not inflexible as in WVW.
• Therefore in EotM you always find enemies, whereas most maps in WvW in most matches (outside T1) are empty (no friend, no enemies, just a map-hopping PvD zerg with a handful people) most of the time (20 of 24 hours during the week).

The main advantage of EotM over WvW is it’s automatic adaptation to demand.
If 100 want to play, fine there is one instance, if 100’000 want to play fine there are 1000 instances. No queue and no empty maps. If we leave the balance problems aside (that could be easily fixed):
You always find friends and enemies in EotM.

Now that I replace my (souldbound) exo with ascended, I’ve more and more souldbound items (armor, jewelery, weapons sum up to 15+ per char) in bank. Still I do not want to delete them as I like to have a dress, in case I want to give the ascended to another char. The more chars you have the more tabs this needs currently.

2 tabs are filled with living story items, some of these mawdrey parts do not stack, even if identical, I simply do not have the space to play LS with another char and get even more of them.

Bandit sand, coins, keys, towels, …. from Dry Top and SW fill-up another tab.
Having some of these new areas currencies moved into the wallet (bandit crests, etc) like the dungeon tokens would of course help a bit as well.

And so on ….

In any case, it’s a business oportunity for ANet, why not sell as many bank tabs as possible

With each LS episode and map-area there are new items to be stored in the bank till usage (much) later. Another problem is soulbound items in the bank, it’s always hard to track which of my chars owns them.

How about

• Increase the max number of bank areas from 12 to 15
• ading soulbound area(s), where each char sees a different instance of the area and where only soulbound items (e.g. the exo equipment) can be stored.

What it needs is very simple. And in that there are 2 possibilities.

1) The binding between server and eotm-color is cut-down. Whenever you join a match for the first time, your color is assigned to be that of the smallest team. (and if you rejoin within this match you get the same color again)

or a bit more subtable, but probably with positive effect on WvW-population balance as well:

2) Change the instance assignment for the minority team, such that they are no longer spread equally between all instances created by the majority team, but instead concentrated on a few instances as well. Result: instead of the minority teams being outnumbered and overrun on all maps, the majority team sits on mostly empty maps. E.g. with the current usual eotm balance 2/3 of SFR sit on an empty map without any change over ever seeing an enemy, without transfer AWAY from SFR.

So the result is: the people overstacking are harmed, no longer the once that play on minority servers, which in fact should help to increase balance, and not as currently increase imbalance.

X T D.6458:

if you dont have the tomes

With the new daily monthly you get around 40 per month.
Thats a new lvl 80 twink every 2 month (in fact 1.5 with birthday lvlup scrolls) without any leveling.
Do you relly need more of them?

Coyote.7031:

aspirine.6852:

/laugh is perfectly fine in wvw, provocation is just another strategy used in warfare

No it’s not, go back to DayZ.

If that would be the only problem of WvW especially compared to the problem which is topic of this thread, we would be all happy

Chris.3290:

Someday someone will open a thread about a situation or an opinion about coverage disparities; and Dayra will not post in it…..then the world will end.

Probably Tyria will not have ended. But maybe World vs World has ended
At least it is on a good way to do so.

Smooth Penguin.5294:

And of course, Anet can’t fix when players go to sleep, or wake up, or come home from work/school.

But of course ANet is responsible for the importance of each timeslice.
So far it always was, the fewer play the more important is it for the outcome, which is a bit … , hm, gave up to word it.

Zackie.8923:

i ever saw one anet dude in eotm and when i asked him to put auto balance, he said : no, he/she likes the imbalance.

so there you have it folks

That would be at least a clear statement. We should get something like that officially, then I can delete GW2 from my disk without problem.

Any news about
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Solution-to-fix-the-population-imbalance
and
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Scoring-Discussion
will we ever see some consequences of that Brainstorming with John Corpening?
Maybe parallel to HoT?

If not, we don’t need a WvW-Forum specialist, but some WvW-Developers!

Chaba.5410:

Exciton.8942:

I would say the gap between T1 and T2 is much closer atm compared to T2 and T3.

It is much closer yet still quite far.

We will not find out till a possible next league. T1/2 are unbridgeable separated by Glicko distance.