Guild Wars 2

I fear even the 4) and 5) and 6) win factor is coverage

And that is boring, especially as we have this boring thing now for nearly 2 years.

Please change it ANet

Look at all the proposals we worked out for you and make something better out of it!
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/Nerf-the-domination-of-Coverage

Skeletor.9360:

Just buy another copy of the game and 2 box.

And currently only 20 not 30€ . Spy’s are cheaper than transfer

Didn’t I read somewhere that both plan to play it out in round 9 with SoS as referee?
So no this doesn’t seem to be tournament fixing, just preparatory work that must be done to be able to play it out.

Scrambles.2604:

I think they should restructure the WvW servers. The only purpose of servers now is for WvW server identity. They should dissolve the current servers and restructure them in an effort to balance out WvW populations/coverage

Maybe keep the t1 servers and merge lower tier servers into them and rename them. Or rename servers and allow players/guilds to move to new ones.

That’s the only real solution i’ve come up with. Feel free to poke holes in it, i aint scurred.

Replace WvW-Server with something along the line of this proposal:
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/Collaborative-Development-Edge-of-the-Mists/3695388

phaeris.7604:

Every blob is the same Darya, but different servers have different soloers and small mans to fight which are more fun.

Ever tried to meet them in EotM? 2/3 of all servers are available there as possible opponents! Does the map-transfer work if EotM-opponents are in party?

phaeris.7604:

It would nice to not be vs the same servers almost every week….

Server aren’t that different, they are just either much stronger or much weaker than your current opponents So with the current state of server balance there is nothing to gain from variation.

Ken DeBoer.9268:

…
They tried a different type of scoring
…

Unfortunately they did not touched the scoring. It’s the same bad coverage PPT that decides matches since day 1, and it’s the same bad 5-3-1 as in tournament 1.

They only automated match-making, i.e. swiss-tournament instead of manual matching.

After nearly 2 years of consecutive war, most people are dead and most areas devastated

Then we have another EotM where people start to cry loud if they see an AC

After 7 victories, the winners are determined.
After 7 loss the losers are determined.

Funnily for all other places the opposite is true: only the last 2 rounds decide about place 2-8.

This seems to me like a very bad tournament construction.

For sake of diversity I would like
- tournament 2-sided matches
- normal ranking play 3-sided matches

Concerning your “destruction of servers”: no alliance last very long without good reason.
If a server isn’t able to stand such a unexpected hard period it doesn’t deserve it better.
And if one or the other overstacked wtj servers would be destroyed that way such that the people would spread out it would be a nice side-effect

PS: no I am not an NA-player, just a fan of what happen in NA-t1, I wish more of the other leagues would do the same.

Maybe that’s because of the color-strength balance?

Hyleks are between strongest and middle server
Dredge are between strongest and weakest server
Ogres are between middle and weakest server

The stronger a server the more he is bothered by stronger mercs.

Skady.5916:

1 AC will never hold off a zerg if they have half a brain cell.

5 sup ACs can. But 5 people sitting in one place for 4 hr without AFK just to fire AC should be considered complete inbreds

2 well-placed sAc with WEXP AC skill are sufficient.

Concerning 1) even if the commander may have more, most followers on EotM do behave like less than 1/2 a neuron

nekretaal.6485:

Covergae/Nightcapping.

If one server goes to sleep for 8 hours of the day, they get zero points for 33% of the time.

If not all sleep, but the awake ones are badly outnumbered, the result is the same.

titanlectro.5029:

Community

Coverage is only temporary if the community collapses. A good community attracts more coverage.

Clearly a good night-coverage attracts more player playing at night. Simply because you do not feel that alone and outnumbered anymore. I don’t think that quality of the community matters much, it just needs to be good enough to not disturb

Both together leads of course to a concentration of night-coverage on a few server.

Darius.1430:

It depends on your definition of “Good”
…

But it would be nicer if both definitions of “good” for fall together, i.e.
you would win if you play good, and
you would loose if PvD coverage is the only thing you have

Unfortunately it does not matter for winning how you play and to win you need nothing else then some hours of PvD-domination when most of the opponents are sleeping. As we have 3-way matches you need not even go to the match when the other 2 servers are fighting, some hours of undisputed PvD is enough.

No idea how it is in NA, but in EU it is sufficient to win, if you have 150 people from 0:00-8:00 CET and NOT ONE at any other time.

Shiren.9532:

EotM epitomises the design flaws in WvW in general.
…

Unfortunately this analysis is true.

Kellth.2146:

What makes for a good WvW server? Is it because of numbers? A good community? Skilled players? Tons of guilds on a server? What makes a server a good WvW competitor?

Eredon Terrace!

Twice as many player in the night as your opponents is all you need to win a match.
Doesn’t even matter if there anyone playing at other times.

Here is how it works: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/Nerf-the-domination-of-Coverage/3898667

Eviscera.9703:

You want to make Casual wars 2 even more casual? Suprising…

Whats more casual, buying strength (via money or via time spend so far) or fighting better on equal strength-level?

PvP mechanics in WvW would probably be a gain, I.e. I don’t play WvW to be able to use superior equipment, but because WvW is the more interesting game mode.

If you wana scout and defend towers/keeps the whole WvW-team will love you, being lvl 80 or lvl 2, it will not matter. But ANet unfortunately forgot to make this a rewarding/lvling job. (But if there is an attack an you sit on a superior arrow-cart and someone else does as well, you sit in a pile of bags very fast)

Problematic is only, zerg fights with bad equiped low-level, as their death in zergs is fast and a death rallies all downed opponents that hit him.

Rofl!

1) there are 20+ PvE JPS and 2 PvP ones, if you are afraid of PvP take a PvE one, some of them are even more challenging with respect to pure jumping

2) I can only imagine that you want the box content without PvP. But do you really think you would get BoH and siege out of it if it would move to PvE?

Proposal
Give the players options to express their intend in mega-server assignement (MSA).
The following list is not complete, just some matters that are in my mind:

option: Guild-mission: yes/no
If set to yes, the MSA only puts members of this guild to a map that has enough free slots to fit all the members of that guild that have this option on and it reserves all these slots for that guild members. If there is no such map a new one is started and enough slots are reserved for that guild.

option: preferred capacity: low, medium, high (normal)
I really hate, that whenever I attend a world boss from https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/the-megaserver-system-world-bosses-and-events/ I end up in a crowd of 100+ people. Before mega-server I was able to time that, early in the morning a boss was doable with 5 people, in prime-time you could attend the 100+ crowd.
With this option you can express your will to play a map with fewer people, the number of slots should be maybe 25 for low, 50 for medium, the current size for high.

option: chat language: english, german, french, spanish, polish, russian, italian, … (more than the interface languages!!)
option: strenght of language preference: strong, medium, weak
If you put that to strong you end up on a map with only other people that selected exactly this language, none, if there is none. If you put it to weak it’s like today, other options are stronger.

….

generalkreator.4687:

MagnusLL.8473:

Saddest thing is to note how in NA they gang up on the leader to bring him down and make the league more interesting, while in EU all the other servers line up to be SFR’s little b+++++s in the hope of scrounging a second place which they know they’d have no chance of reaching otherwise.

Oh well, it will simply make us stronger

I understand you correctly? The doubel teaming in NA is OK and legit for you, double teaming vs SFR would be OK too but any double teaming against Deso is completly lame ?

Double teaming the strongest I would rate fine, but double-teaming the 2nd is the boring reality.

Elona has People all around the clock and only after reset queue on all maps. If you wanna learn German that’s the server for you

Prysin.8542:

Desolation. Enough said

Yes, the name clearly speaks for itself

We discussed that once here in the forum, looks like a good idea on first sight, but it could lead to a bunch of bad situations (e.g. green leads and owns whole red third, now blue captures all this red third from green, and red is not allowed to attack it’s own third to take it back from blue). And in close matches where the lead turns often (and thats the goal of this change) the resulting situations are even more worse.

Yes, this 5-3-1 is bad it leads to a Double-Focus on the 2nd. A 1-0-0 would have been a better incentive for a double-focus on the currently leading.

Unfortunately we don’t need a new match-making, we need more team balance to make matches interesting. If the teams are to imbalanced no match making can produce balanced matches

It does not need more league, it need better team balance!
And should there be a season again, it should be a season that
improve balance and not one that improve stacking on a few selected winners.

And there are ways to do that, e.g.
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/Proposal-Season-Rewards-for-better-balance/3947122 via league or during normal rank play
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/Proposal-Enforced-Player-Balance/3921574

Svarty.8019:

I was thinking more like maybe 4 servers/league, for now?

4 server per league? Quite bad number to make 3-way matches

In fact any season that need more than 1 league per NA / EU is a bad season.

There are already much to many bufs in WvW. I bet WvW would be a much better game if
- food & drinks,
- all kind of game bufs (incl the WvW-rank bufs)
would be turned of.
And buf from friendly player would be limited to a total of 5 stacks (sum of all different effects)

Vizu and Augury seem to be quit coordinated since monday on EB, on other maps they fight each other as well, quite funny.

In general: Normal ranking matches 3-way,
a league with 2-way matches would be good in it’s own to have some variance.

If you look at https://leaderboards.guildwars2.com/ then it look like ties get the same reward. There are a lot of tied 2nd and 4th in the table.

Where is the gain in breaking ties, instead of giving both the higher reward?

CrimsonNeonite.1048:

No one has answered my question about Vizunah’s comeback in their current Match-up, do they have a new alliance?

2/3 of France have holidays, Germany has none.

Not only that there was no balance before the tournament, both tournament even increased imbalance.

Lol I remember their over-commitment from last league. After the league they will be all exhausted and stay home such that they will drop down to 15 again.

swiss tournament in chess is not the danish variant, i.e. you always play an oponent mostly once.

And with 5 rounds for 50 participants in chess its not so repetive as ANet version of 9 round for 6 or 9 participants. (2 rounds for 9 would be enough.)

Because ANet sets the rewards such that stacking is rewarded and avoids to make anything that helps to increase balance or that makes coverage less decisive.

I mostly play WvW, still I’ve more than a dozen PvE and even some PvP titles, but not one WvW-title, a bit longer may be ok, but in relation to the effort of other parts of the game, please.

And titles like doylak slayer are not reachable, GW2 will be shutdown and replaced by GW4 before someone ever reaches that.

It was supposed to be the new WvW-Map a lot of people asked for

And it’s played the way the majority of player like to play it

Even if ANet agreed on the unrealism of reaching current WvW-titles
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/WvW-Achievements-are-unrealistic/2461671
9 month ago nothing has happend. I weakly remember them saying they did not found a good way to handle the update with the current achievements.

So here a proposal that makes this very easy:

Keep the current WvW-achievements as they are, BUT do not put the title at the (unrealistic) last rank, but 2 ranks earlier, e.g. for Dolyaks:
rank 1: 1 dolyak
rank 2: 1000 doylak
rank 3: 10’000 dolyak
rank 4: 100’000 doylak
rank 5: 1’000’000 doylak
put the title on reaching rank 3.
A few that already killed more than 10’000 dollies get the title immediately, others like me (I am at 2’500 but did not really focused that) have a realistic expectation to reach it.

Additionally add repeatable achievements that give 5 achievement pts each time you reach rank 2 amount from now on for every existing WvW-achievement.

There is no 3rd as there are two shared 2nd
There is no 5th and 6th as there are three shared 4th

@Aggrostemma: If you always win T2 and always loose T1 you always flip between, as the tournament ends on a odd (9) round you will be shared 4th this way.

Aggrostemma.1703:

Can somebody explain me what happens if the Deso keep falling out of tier1 but always wins the tier2, the Kodash does the same and BB stays as now?

Exactly this was the base of my projection:
SFR and it’s lapdog keep the T1 clean of intruders.
AR and Vizu keep loosing the T3
Deso and Jade switch T1/T2
Elona and Kodash switch T2/T3
RS stays T2.

But at the end of round 7 SFR has won uncatchable, maybe they stop protecting their lapdog at that time

As ANet is doing the tournaments it’s always a disaster for WvW-balance, so I would say:

Please, no more tournaments done by ANet anymore

But of course they could be done better by:
1) Fix the dominance of off-time PvD https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/Nerf-the-domination-of-Coverage
2a) Replace server by real teams: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/Collaborative-Development-Edge-of-the-Mists
2b) Or enforce balance of servers: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/Proposal-Enforced-Player-Balance/first#post3921574
3) Make a tournament that increase balance and not one that increase imbalance https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/Proposal-Season-Rewards-for-better-balance

For a real tournament I would prefer 2-sided matches (no problem in NA, no problem with AvA, only a problem with the uneven number of EU-server) and for the maps:
remove red borderland, give blue both spawns on green BL and green both spawns on blue BL and either keep EB unchanged or remove lord and doors of red EB keep.

End of round 5 is coming, time for a projection:

1) SFR
2) SL & Jade
4) Deso, Riverside & Elona
7) Kodash
8) Vizu
9) AR

Isaac.6041:

Dayra.7405:

@Isaac: It’s hard to believe you anything, if you build your opinion as you are arguing:
Say something again (that was already refuted above) about one of the many things that speak against your opinion, ignore the rest, and conclude your right, isn’t a serious argumentation

You didn’t refute anything. I showed you ArenaNet posted in their news section that they will be awarding prizes for 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th.

Of course they had to publish a price for every possible rank, because it can happen that there is a single 5th, e.g. in NA-Gold.

But this is no argument that ties will be broken.

Isaac.6041:

Did they say they were going to award two 4th place prizes in the case of a tie? No.

Did they said the opposite?? No!

Isaac.6041:

You were basing your info on WvW season 1 which did not award prizes in this manner. They already have the mechanisms in place to break ties and whether or not they want to use them to break ties or instead hand out same # tickets to servers that are tied is up to them.

Yes, they have that mechanism, as they make matches. But even if they have that mechanism, they do not use it in their leaderboard.

You can hardly show a server that he is 4th (and thats is what they are doing) and then say: No no, we only show you are 4th, but you only get the price for being 6th.

Isaac.6041:

I still expect the servers I listed to fall below 300 tickets but of course they still have the opportunity to score big wins in the next 4 weeks and a half.

You also ignored the even/odd-mechanics of the swiss-tournament. Your list is based on the outcome of an even round, you better use the one of an odd round, as the tournament will end with an odd round

@Isaac: It’s hard to believe you anything, if you build your opinion as you are arguing:
Say something again (that was already refuted above) about one of the many things that speak against your opinion, ignore the rest, and conclude your right, isn’t a serious argumentation

Who knows what they will do, but I think there are 3 strong indicators that they will not break ties:
- They did not break ties in league 1
- The reference to Glicko is only in the match-making section not in the reward section. (and for matchmaking breaking the ties is unavoidable.)
- Their leader board lists two on place 2) and three on place 4), why should they break ties in the end, if they do not in their league-info page?

Beside these indicators there is even a strong argument for not breaking ties:
It does not cost them a penny to give out more due to ties, but it will generate a kitten-storm on the forum (including rage-quits), if they do break ties.

Isaac.6041:

They listed prizes for 1st through 9th places

There will be leagues with someone on place 9. (after 3 on place 4, the next will be on place 7 not on 5). I think they did not though enough about swiss-tournament in leagues with only 9 servers to notice, that 4-6 will most likely be tied

Isaac.6041:

No, the list is not non-sense, because we can predict Final rankings based on current point totals and ELO rating or overall performance. ELO rating will break ties so having three 4ths is non-sense.

Look yourself: https://leaderboards.guildwars2.com/ ANet did not break ties in their leaderbord. Glicko (Glicko-2 to be precise, not ELO) is only used to break ties in Match/Color assignment.
https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/get-ready-for-wvw-spring-tournament-2014/

This list is non-sense

1) Most leagues will not have an 5th nor a 6th at the end.
There will be a single 1st
There will be two 2nd
There will be three 4th
There will be one to two 7th
There will be one 9th or two 8th.

2) There is an up and down in T2, and you have to consider if a week is even or odd.
(The ones that win the odd weaks get more tickets, than the ones that win the even weeks.), Beside NA-Gold (only 6 teams), all leagues are like:
One of the two 2nd of this week will be 4th next week.
One of the three 4th of this week will be 2nd next week.
One of the three 4th this week will be 7th next week.
If you are 7th this week you will be 4th next week.

3) For most leagues only the 8th and 9th round decide who will be 2nd and who will be 8th.

4) Last but no least: It’s to late to change your ticket-giving world, if you played and haven’t transfered already in the league: 4 weeks have passed, if you transfer NOW you will be blocked 5th and 6th round, leaving only 7-9 i.e. 3 round in WvW on your new world.

A ticket-hunter trying to understand WvW?

Have a Look at http://mos.millenium.org
there you can find state of all current matches and prediction of next matches based on the current state of the matches.

So yes, if t8 & t9 finish as they started, Vabbi will be green in t9 next week.