Guild Wars 2

atticus.5284:

Dayra.7405:

The root cause of bandwaggoning is man-power rules everything in WvW.

This is WvW – the intent is massive groups fighting other massive groups. It’s not roaming, it’s not havoc – it’s large group versus large group.

That’s fine and that’s not what I was talking about. I like 50vs50, if ANet-servers would be able to do it without laag, I would like 100vs100 even more

BUT I do not like 60vs30 and that more people guarantees you the victory, completely irrelevant how good or bad they are, it just need to be more than the others.

And this more people than the others rules is the cause of bandwaggoning and has nothing to do with massive group fights vs small scale.

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Proposal-Transfer-Costs-by-Rank

The root cause of bandwaggoning is man-power rules everything in WvW.

There is only one way to stop bandwaggoning: Make quality more important than quantity, e.g.:

• at every tick, divide the ppt of a server by the man-minutes people of that server spend in WvW
• at every fight: count the number of people in the area, kill-score is no longer just enemies killed, but enemies killed/friends there.
• anti-blobbing: e.g. everyone in the area of a squad, but not in the squad largely reduces his stats and that of everyone else by a small amount or every friend counts against AoE limit (if you AoE an area with 5 friends, the enemy cannot be hit by it), …
• …

Then bandwaggoning will have the following effect: The more come the worser will be the result and the calls for closed alliances will increase.

Even if voting resulted in1 month relinks, ANet decided to make 2 month out of it.

So mostly (maybe you keep the link) 500gems every 2 month to be linked to the top.

The short answer: BG and TC were full, while a transfer to IoJ cost 500 gems and a lot of people seem to have left YB.

The long answer: BG, TC, and JQ aren’t as dominating they were since a while. And the strenght of linking is not the few people that got originally linked to DB, the strength of linking is the backdoor to join the winner for just 500gems and that it adds up on top of the full-status all T1 server have.

The problem with NA-T4 is that the main server it is populated with are in reality T5 server (rank 13-15) and not the T4 server (rank 10-12). https://leaderboards.guildwars2.com/de/na/wvw

This produced an impassable border, not glicko itself.

Illconceived Was Na.9781:

The continued existence of same-name|different-stat amulets, rings, and accessories seems to be an oversight, that will eventually be fixed (probably).

For amulets it is, for rings and accessories it is not as they are still unique ( ), i.e. you cannot wear the same ring and accessory twice!

The problem of winner up looser down is that it is very stale if the ranking is correct:

1 week: 1-2-3 & 4-5-6 & 7-8-9
2 week: 1-2-4 & 3-5-7 & 6-8-9
3 week like 1st
4 week like 2nd
and so on.

Other problems are:

• 3 never plays against 4, (6 never against 7) they always only switch places.
• whenever the 7th is in T2, the 3rd is in T2 as well, which give a very bad match

Jim Hunter.6821:

That thread is over 3 years old when their were twice as many tiers and a much larger population difference between the tiers.
Players on both of my servers are having a blast this week because the match ups are fresh. Neither server stands a chance of winning the coverage wars but everyone is out their playing and having fun.

Glicko is quite good in predicting the outcome of matches (except after re-links and massive transfers).

If you want more volatility spread out population more equal, than volatility makes sense and it will happen.

But if you all want to stack on the most overstacked server, than it does not make sense and it will not happen / happen less likely.

Thanks to national servers EU is better balanced and we have the volatility you ask for. But if you would get this now in NA, it would only lead to more frustration, producing even more overstacking.

And do not forget to infuse your back pack.

Ah on EB I was able to set this option, in EOTM it was dimmed.

My Twink-Account just learned WvW-Auto-Loot (Povision Master Lvl 4) , but it doesn’t work! I looked into the options just to see, I cannot check the auto-loot option without having the PvE-Pact Mastery.

So: Can I really only use WvW-Autoloot, after I enabled PvE-Autoloot?

This should be changed!

Boris Losdindawoods.3098:

Raolin Soulherder.3195:

1. Build Saver
2. Build Saver
3. Build Saver
& last but not least,
4. Build Restore

but Raolin is right.

Small correction to make the saves useful

Xenesis.6389:

• Squad only commander tags, visible on the map to only those in the squad.

and other commanders!

Other things I would like:

• Increase visibility of commanders to all WvW-Maps. E.g. Such that you can see the (public visible) commander is currently on Homelands while your on EB.
• You can buy 1 Tournament Ticket for 1 WEXP Rank Point, such that You can buy a Mist-forget hero weapon for 300 WEXp-Ranks.
• Add a (PvE) title <current WEXP-rank> that shows your WEXP-title instand of the PvE-titles.
• All gliding for movement only (if You come close to an enemy wall You Crash or the the Archer Guards 1-hit you.
• replace the red Commander Tag with something better visible for a red/green color-blind on the mostly green/brown Maps.
• put the Name of the sie Controlling an objective into the tooltip, After Reset I often mix up colors (and some ownership colors in EotM sems to be wrong)
• add an Option to the Cooper-salvage-o-mat to automatically scrap all white, blue and green items
• add an option to auto-destroy green and yellow runes/sigils for 50% NPC-sellprice

CrimsonNeonite.1048:

They lose numbers past 3-4am GMT and run less numbers than they usually did a couple of months ago, they don’t even have much going during the day and are nowhere near T1 anymore, so all is well.

Just look at last week: http://mos.millenium.org/servers/view/15/404

Haha the problem is no longer that they make points in the night, they can have all the points they want, if it helps to push them up and away

The problem is that there is no one to fight in prime-time, which makes it very boring to have them as opponent.

If you just want to leave your current Community to find something different you find (as today) a Server for 500 Gems to go. In fact more than one, currently 4 in EU-T6 (a French, a German, 2 English) and 9 Server in NA-T4.

Only if your primary goal is wtj, you have to pay more.

But the main goal of this proposal is not to etablish higher costs (prices are for Illustration only), but to close the much to cheap back-door into the top-ranked server via linked server that encouraged more wtj-transfers.

SkyShroud.2865:

ranking dont make sense with world linking.
how the hell u gonna rank the guest server

Both equally at the rank at which both are playing of course,
e.g. Desolation +Ruins of Surmia play rank 1 and Dragonbrand +Isle of Janthir play rank 3 so any of those servers cost 3k gems.

That’s the essence of this proposal. It doesn’t make any sense to me that transfer to Desolation directly cost 1.8k while its only 500 to join Desolation inderectly via Ruins of Surmia

Problem: The linked worlds have to low transfer costs, such that now a hord of bandwaggoners move around between them based on the rank they are linked to..

Solution: Base Transfer-Costs on the rank a world/set of linked worlds currently have, e.g.

Tier 1 (rank 1-3): 3000gems
Tier 2 (rank 4-6): 2500gems
Tier 3 (rank 7-9): 2000gems
Tier 4 (rank 10-12): 1500gems
Tier 1 (rank 13-15): 1000gems
Tier 1 (rank 16-18): 500gems

You know that this would limit each account to maximally 2 legendaries?

Jeknar.6184:

Well, that means we’ll still have at least 2 more weeks of CD/SF/DH…
Oh well, at least there still hope.

That’s that big question should you hope for SI+ or SoS+ instead of CD+ or fear it …

penelopehannibal.8947:

Dayra.7405:

only

That is a pretty big “only”

Yes, thats why I put some restrictions on its usage

I do not see your point.

If I have e.g. a sunrise, it’s unbound after crafting: I can freely mail it to anyone.
And I mailed items between my two account, they appeared faster than I was able to switch accounts.

When I wear the sunrise, it get an account-tag and I can no longer mail it.
The only thing I asked for is to lift this restriction.

Anyway, it’s technical simplicity or complicatedness is completely irrelevant here in the forum.

What is relevant here is only: How many would be interested to buy it

If that number is large ANet could make complicated things possible.
If this is just me, even easy things do not worth their effort.

Aidan Savage.2078:

Will not work. It’s a technical impossibility.

You can mail items and gold between NA and EU.

TP is shared between NA and EU.

So it is possible already, just that account-bound things cannot be exchanged.

Introduction: A little Assura went to America

A while ago I got a bit bored on my main account in EU and I thought. let’s find out how play (especially EotM and WvW) in NA is. So I made a f2p-account in NA. It was fun to start really from scratch, I reached 80 now, I always managed to earn gold, such that I’ve a bit more than twice the amount of gold than lvl (so 160+g at lvl 80), I did not supported my twink-acount very much, just bought some runes for it (as f2p cannot buy very much in the TP), and now an lvl 80 Exo weapon set.

I hate that I cannot fly so I thought about buying an upgrade to HoT for it.
But I decided: No, it doesn’t worth, as I do not have the time to do everything again
So I started thinking: Under which condition I would be interested in having 2 HoT accounts?. Here is the result.

Proposal

I would be interested to have two HoT-accounts (1 in NA and 1 in EU), if

• I could freely exchange (e.g. via mail or a special bank-slot) account bound items between them (This is the most important request, I don’t want to learn crafting again, but still would like ascended stuff on the 2nd account, and I’ve several copper-salvage-o-mats on my main account from pre-shared item slot while my twink-account missed one urgently, and …)
• I could freely exchange currencies between them
• (optional:) The wardrobe is shared
• (optional) The colors are shared

Of course such a account-link should not be unlimited, it would be abused by gold-seller, account-leveler amd likely even by player to trade acccount-bound items.

I can easily live with the following restrictions:

• such a link is permanent
• both accounts to be linked must be HoT (for future extensions: maybe they must buy a special link-extension, that upgraddes all of them)
• only a limited number of accounts can be linked together (2?, 3?, ??), if only 2, then even : the account must be in different realms, i.e. EU and NA
• a link cost 1000gems, especially if this provides a linked-account-shared bank slot of say 10 places (where you can exchange account bound items)

What do you think?

Do you have a need for such a link?

Under which restrictions would you be interested?

NixNutz.5309:

Why ANET remove the crafting stations ?
Cause the want to sell the new “Home Portal Stone” for 900 Diamonts what else?

I would immediately buy that stone and a shared inv slot for it, if it would offer what the crafting stations in wvw offer, but it does NOT.

• no crafting in home instances
• automatic fall-back to the place where I enternd WVW on Logout (this saves me a load-Screen, and without SDD every load-Screen of a City Or normal map take several minutes …)

I’ve no idea how ANet implemented the population count.

But I think one of the easiest to implement count would be:
Whenever someone enter a WvW-map the Counter is increasd by 1

If they really did something like that, then
Imagine the effect of crafters and other PvE-travelers to wvw-pop ….

So I guess instead of implementing a better population-function (e.g. The same, but only counting the people without the spawn-buf), they dropped the crafting to fix this Problem.

The problem will reoccur on every server-re-link, as the new links will have a quite different strengt than the old links.

And yes, complete separation of tier must not be possible and should be fixed.

Maybe a fix can be to have 2-3 rounds of Swiss System matchmaking after re-link, As this allows faster repositioning of servers.

Bytestorm.8021:

You can link as followed:

• World 1 95%
• World 2 82%
• World 3+6 91%
• World 4+5 90%

Not a valid solution 4 worlds neither fit 1 match nor fill 2 matches.

Generally I see the point, many small worlds are easier linked together in a balanced way than a few larger worlds.

BUT

Why does it need to be worlds created by ANet, why not teams created by guilds?

Here a sketch how such a hybrid approach could look likel:

We have a fixed number of worlds, such that each match consist of 3 worlds.
That would mean 12 worlds in NA, and 15 or 18 in EU. (or just 3/6 worlds each, but a dynamic number of maps?)

Each guild (or group of up to 3 small guilds) can declare itself to be a WvW-team,
Each team can declare a language and its top 3 worlds it want to be linked with.

All player that do not belong to a WvW-team belong to a world, if a guild declare itself as a wvw-team its players do no longer belong to the world.

Linking will respect language and it will try to respect priorities, but for better balance it may ignore them.

As a motivation for guilds to become wvw-teams, wvw-teams get an own scoreboared, where their contribution to the world match determines their rank.

Advantages:

• Guilds that declare themself as WvW-teams are guranteed to play together.
• The do not need to transfer to be linked to different worlds (just change their priorities)
• They can no longer distrub balance by transfering around

Needed 9min to finish my daily now, seems still rather casual to me, of course you should not be afraid to look into WvW to do some PvE there like kill a dolly/sentry/veteran mob or stay in a ruin.

No as they aren’t on a regular schedule.
It depends on the statu of events on the map when exactly they happen.

As far as I know everything (up to 5) including downed is affected by a triggered mark, BUT not everything (including downed) triggers marks.

Sounds good, I am waiting for something like that for 3 years

Concerning the controversial additional change:

I would weight it such that night (8-10h) – day (10-12h) – evening (Prime! 4-6h) have the same weight, even if they consist of unequal number of skirmishes. (or alternatively make the skirmishes differently long, like the tickon last day)

When the expansion was anounced it was clear that it splits population into 2 classes, and yes without it you are a 2nd class citizen no longer a first class one. (3 classes in fact, HoT – first class; Old GW2 – 2nd Class and F2Ps – tourist class). For me it was clear that it meant buy it or leave the game, I bought it.

Are you aware that you can only unequip EMPTY bags?

For filled bags I would see a point, but thats not possible anyway.

Uh it was a close vote I think (48 – 44) but scoring adaptation won the vote at https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/polling-all-world-vs-world-players/ didn’kitten

So some improvements to night-capping incoming “soon”

FogLeg.9354:

Quite a lot of German servers are losing ranking heavily atm. Not sure why exactly.

Due to linking of course:
German Server are now 6 of 7 i.e. mean Manpower is now 116% of former 100% before linking
Spanish-Server 1 from 1, i.e. mean Manpower remains at 100%
French-Server are now 3 of 5, i.e. mean Manpower is now 166%
English-Server 8 of 14, i.e. mean Manpower is now 166%

So while Enlish and French server got a mean-boost of 50% by linking, Spanish and German more or less remained the same.

SkyShroud.2865:

Substance E.4852:

morrolan.9608:

Weli.4568:

Reducing off time mattering in mu’s is obviously more logical answer.

Players contribution being worth less solely due to where they live is logical?

When you are on a server not located in your personal time zone. Yes, yes it is.

Base on the logic, the server is located in PST, so EST is considered night capping hours.

For the 999’999 time:

It should be irrelevant when you play, but currently it isn’t.

Every player should fight for excatly 1 PPT each player can fight for, be it in prime-time where 700 people fight for 695 PPTor be in at some other time where X player should fight for X PPT.

The problem is the current situation where sometimes it goes up to 20 PPT per player instead of the admissble 1.

DeWolfe.2174:

How off and antisocial does that idea of “prime time” sound?

Hm Jade Quary, you have coverage, and you want to keep your advantage based on this coverage, how antisocial is this?

Concerning shut-down of maps: I think play would be more fun, if people that fit one map are forced to play on one map and aren’t allowed to spread out on 4 or even worser jump around on 4 to play hide-and-seek. They have to fight people instead of fighting doors and playing hide-and-seek.

And if you would read proposals carefully and not only would make propaganda to defend your advantage, you would notice, that most people do not propose to shutdown all maps in off-time, but to scale map-capacity/objective-amounts to the number of players that do play at that time.

kiwituatara.6053:

I don’t get why this is even on the list.
There is no such thing as “nightcapping”. It is always night time somewhere around the world.

True, but GW2-player aren’t distributed equally around the world.
Especially not due to the division into EU/NA.

Unfortunately this leads to times with full maps and times with empty maps.

To make it equally fair in all cases, the number of objective points per player to be captured for PPT needs to be equal at all times.

DemonSeed.3528:

hmsgoddess.3869:

WvW = War. War is a 24 hour thing. It doesn’t stop just because you went to bed. I am so tired of hearing about nightcapping and scoring. work on ways to overcome those challenges. Your playtime isn’t more valuable than others.

^- This

If you want war volunteer for an army, but stay away from my game.

Zeghart.9841:

And when you mention night-time players being less valued than day-time players, the opposite is happening at the moment. A night-time player is worth way more than a day-time player, since they can accomplish more with way less resistance and numbers.

Exactly, the value of a player (for it’s WvW-Score) is simply
|No of Objectives| / |No of Player|

And thats is around 1 in Prime-time and around 10-20 in Off-time (EU-Night in EU, no idea for NA)

So yes, currently (since nearly 4 years) an off-time player is 10-20 times as valuable for the outcome of a match as a prime-time player. And this is a really bad discrimination and demotivation (to play for points) for prime-time player.

Depends on my mood, either tell my Blob in TS:

“Everyone only one hit to maximize our bag outcome”

or

“Ignore them, more baggies waiting at XYZ”

+1 for marksman

Every Server has a (community invented) 2-4 letter Tag, e.g. JQ, BG, SFR, Deso, ER, …

How about showing enemy player-names as follows:

[Color] [Rank Title] [Server – Guild Tag]

For example:

Blue Gold-Invador [ER – iN]

yeah the new server classification based on the wvw-population is a bit to slow to react transfers.
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Comments-on-new-WvW-Population

As a red-green colorblind I really hate the red tag, I always spend hour trying to find it on the mostly green maps.

In the release notes: “Since we’re significantly shaking up existing team membership, we’ll be resetting matchmaking data.”
I am not aware of any other source talking about it.

They don’t apply this reset, don’t we get the server pairs this reset?
They also said Glicko will be reseted to 1500 for every server/pair of server, so every match should be equally likely.

FogLeg.9354:

Nadha.6097:

I don’t get it.
EoTM is completly different from WvW.
It is used differently by the people who use it.

If EotM is completely different from WvW, then it should NOT have any WvW rewards either. I don’t care what sort of rewards it would give, but WvW rewards should stay only in WvW. If you want them, play WvW. If you want to play in EotM, you can do it but not gain any WvW rewards.

Lol, different rewards in EotM than WEXp and BoH would be cool, after rank 1500+ and 30k BoHs in my wallet, something else would be great But I don’t think you do WvW a favour if all people with much to many WEXp and BoH can do PvP for different rewards in EotM

Angel Heart.6739:

Well WvW has been reworked, it allows you do the things you did in EOTM without any stress. So come back to WvW.

It’s very simple:

• I like to go into TS, then I go into WvW
• I don’t like to be in TS, then I go EotM

In any case, its now less than 2h a week (WvW+EotM), while it was 20+ hours a week 3 years ago, so yes, 95% of me are gone for WvW

The only thing that could bring me back is a competition, that can be taken serious, not this 24/7 PvD-nonsense with open teams allowing troll/spy-accounts on every team.

But I don’t see any steps in that direction nor do I believe anylonger that ANet will ever do them.