Guild Wars 2

tym.3791:

Just like last week, this week for us on FA Wvw is pointless and unplayable. We are against TC and We are simply getting spanked like its our birthday’s. Rumor has it next week we face a server that can take TC in WvW fights. So if thats true, That will be the third week playing WvW will be impossible. Man I gotta find a different server if I wanna play WvW anymore.

fairweather spotted

Best of luck reviving the T2 gvg scene. Trying to put it in any other tier will just cause it to migrate to T2 anyway (due to population rise) so may as well go straight there.

Why are so many people suggesting an alliance system? The current servers function exactly like alliances. All the problems we have now will still remain unless the score system is changed first.

Gaile Gray.6029:

If you’re considering how the GW2 Team can best hear your input about the game — such as what you’d like to see in the future, how things are working now, etc. — I personally don’t think a survey is necessary. Honestly and truly: These forums are a huge and very effective medium for communication. They are read daily by members of the team — probably more people than you think! — and the forums, as a whole, give us a much better view of what’s important to Guild Wars 2 players than most surveys would do.

Too we have interaction here that’s incredibly effective. Yep, I’m thinking CDIs and I’m glad they’re back! (Even if I marvel how Chris is able to keep up the pace! )

Surveys are difficult to devise in a way that makes them unbiased and statistically accurate. That’s not to say it cannot be done, and the idea of surveys linked to an active game account certainly sounds better to me than those random Internet surveys, like “Who’s your favorite singer,” which get gamed through fan groups, artist management companies, publicists, agents, and the use of “ballot-box stuffing” methods, like vote, clear cache, vote again; vote, change computers, vote again; vote, set up 100 fake e-mail accounts, vote again.

Anyway, just wanted to add a couple of pennies about the subject, fwiw.

You can implement a survey ingame like you did during the betas with the feedback forms. Pretty much all of the cons of a survey are non-factor that way.

Dayra.7405:

Deli.1302:

Snorcha.7586:

- no side can have more then 20% players then the other side on the map

you can’t punish players just because they want to play but their side has more people.

You can offer them an immediate permanent transfer to any side without queue, if they refuse, you have to educate them that insisting to play on the predominate side is punished by queue.

I’d rather wait in queue to play with my friends and in a server with like minded people, than have no queue and be in a server which doesn’t share my mindset. I’m pretty sure most people will behave the same way.

Snorcha.7586:

Deli.1302:

Snorcha.7586:

- no side can have more then 20% players then the other side on the map

you can’t punish players just because they want to play but their side has more people.

- 3 × 8 hour matches per day for the timezones (double the current upgrade speed / half the cost) – matchmaking performed here against servers with similar populations online / in wvw.

Coverage will still be an issue. 8 hours is more than most people’s playtime.

- Each win / loss earns the battlegroup points, at the end of the week whoever has the most points wins.

See above.

Most of those are solved by proper match making as suggested, just throwing it out there.

at this stage proper match making cannot be achieved unless the scoring system is completely overhauled correctly.

Snorcha.7586:

- no side can have more then 20% players then the other side on the map

you can’t punish players just because they want to play but their side has more people.

- 3 × 8 hour matches per day for the timezones (double the current upgrade speed / half the cost) – matchmaking performed here against servers with similar populations online / in wvw.

Coverage will still be an issue. 8 hours is more than most people’s playtime.

- Each win / loss earns the battlegroup points, at the end of the week whoever has the most points wins.

See above.

Otokomae.9356:

Deli.1302:

John Corpening.9847:

There are a number of great ideas circulating attacking the problem from different angles and with varying levels of magnitude of change. One note though, I really feel that scoring is a separate issue that needs to be addressed on it’s own. We will discuss that one after we wrap this one up. Even if we were to overhaul the scoring system population imbalance will still be an issue.

Can you please elaborate further on this? Why do you think they are a separate issue? Population imbalance is a direct result of coverage issues which is a consequence of the scoring system. Honestly, if anet genuinely wants to fix this issue, then they need to hit it at it’s root. Right now we’re just trying to fix a symptom.

My guess would be that the “Conquest” system is also in place in sPvP, and causes a whole different set of problems there, and they’re likely looking at it as an enormous overhaul if they have to change that system anywhere. PPT is very different from the problems sPvP faces, but they’re somewhat related, and I feel like Anet is probably looking at this as one whole problem, rather than 2 very distinct ones. That might be the way to do it, even, I honestly don’t know. Just a guess.

We’re talking about WvW here, not spvp. Conquest doesn’t suffer from population imbalance, coverage problems, server related issues or a flawed scoring system.

John Corpening.9847:

There are a number of great ideas circulating attacking the problem from different angles and with varying levels of magnitude of change. One note though, I really feel that scoring is a separate issue that needs to be addressed on it’s own. We will discuss that one after we wrap this one up. Even if we were to overhaul the scoring system population imbalance will still be an issue.

Can you please elaborate further on this? Why do you think they are a separate issue? Population imbalance is a direct result of coverage issues which is a consequence of the scoring system. Honestly, if anet genuinely wants to fix this issue, then they need to hit it at it’s root. Right now we’re just trying to fix a symptom.

If you abandon the idea of ppt and score and just have WvW as a large battle ground where you get a reward for capturing/defending objectives and the match ends at the end of the week just so that a new set of servers can be matched with each other, you will solve a lot of problems.

The reward for capturing increases depending on the upgrade status of an objective.
The reward for defending decreases depending on the upgrade status of an objective.
So far my thinking has lead me to believe this may be a good idea but I’ll let you (anet) take over and tear into it. You would definitely need to change the way the assault/defend events work.

And to avoid karma training/keep trading, either increase the RI time or implement a system similar to how wxp from player deaths are handed out. Miniscule at first but slowly increases with time. The rewards will have to be much better than they are now.

I would also add some more perks/cool stuff for upgrading to encourage players to do so. One thing off the top of my head (and it should definitely not be the only thing) is to create a new process for superior siege creation, that would require upgrading a structure. People have been complaining about how tedious/boring it is to make superior siege for years now which gives you (anet) the perfect opportunity. You know, make it so that players will want to upgrade and they’d want their opponents to upgrade their stuff too. And if your server has just so many people (i.e. overstacked) that it unintentionally caps and upgrades everything, you get less rewards which will encourage destacking which is a good thing.

WvW will still function like it does now but without the whole ppt/coverage thing lingering over it all. Log on, go try and cap a keep for some cool rewards and get some awesome open field fights in the process. Log off. Log back on, opponent owns everything and has fully upgraded it? Cool! More rewards for us and less for them! They kept it all paper so we get less rewards and they get more? Well, let’s do some good ol’ fashioned server coordination and hit multiple objectives at the same time! Of course, they shouldn’t just be rewards for those who capped something, but to those that helped as well i.e. the server.

Also, some new maps won’t hurt. Just sayin’
If you stop this whole ppt/coverage thing and if you also go ahead with server mergers, there’s really nothing stopping you from adding more maps in order to reduce any potential queues.

Valik Shin.9027:

Jim Hunter.6821:

Valik Shin.9027:

U do realize that there r guild capable of fielding 40 by them self right? What r they suppose to do?

I do realize this. They could do what my guild does and split into smaller groups and hit multiple objectives while coordinating attacks on TS.

Or they could transfer to ET. They have the space.

So ur gonna force guild to change the way they enjoy playing? They are the life blood of gw2. If they cripple them then gw2 will collapse

This. Also, there are guilds that field 70+ on their own

I don’t think you understand how wvw even works.

I Am Dansker.7105:

Deli.1302:

Fluffball.8307:

Deli.1302:

All you say is that anet has to make a strong action yet don’t say what that action actually is.

I said they need to encourage or force people to disperse. Encouragement; I could think of thousands of ways. Rate WvW population by each server and award a certain amount of gold/gems/minis whatever for transferring and staying on various servers. For example transferring to BG gets you nothing, transferring to ET gets you 150000 gold. The actual mechanics are not relevant for this discussion, if Anet wanted to implement it they would have a lot more metrics to come up with something rational. Also I’m sure you can think of 15 other ways off the top of your head to reward people for not overstacking. Taking away queue times and giving them unique rewards for overstacking probably isn’t the correct answer.

As far as forcing people to not overstack, it wouldn’t be popular but by god would it fix the problem.

… Remember free transfers to low tier servers? Where are those servers now? Still low tier. …

Not true, look at Gandara, who also happened to win silver league

Gandara was never a low tier server.

Fluffball.8307:

Deli.1302:

All you say is that anet has to make a strong action yet don’t say what that action actually is.

I said they need to encourage or force people to disperse. Encouragement; I could think of thousands of ways. Rate WvW population by each server and award a certain amount of gold/gems/minis whatever for transferring and staying on various servers. For example transferring to BG gets you nothing, transferring to ET gets you 150000 gold. The actual mechanics are not relevant for this discussion, if Anet wanted to implement it they would have a lot more metrics to come up with something rational. Also I’m sure you can think of 15 other ways off the top of your head to reward people for not overstacking. Taking away queue times and giving them unique rewards for overstacking probably isn’t the correct answer.

As far as forcing people to not overstack, it wouldn’t be popular but by god would it fix the problem.

And here I was thinking people transferred so that they got the most fun out of the game. Remember free transfers to low tier servers? Where are those servers now? Still low tier. Bronze winner gets the same reward as gold winner and yet no one transfers to bronze servers.

It seems like people are too short sighted to realize that server stacking is a result of population attrition, not rewards or the matchup system, and therefore cannot be fixed.

Kigera.9584:

You must have forgotten TC’s T2 days when they got paired with T1?

He’s probably one of the bandwagon transfers.

Fluffball.8307:

Deli.1302:

ok pls tell me how

If you continue reading to two more sentences I tell you how. Good lord.

All you say is that anet has to make a strong action yet don’t say what that action actually is.

Fluffball.8307:

Deli.1302:

misterman.1530:

Anet knows this is broken and CAN’T do anything to fix it. They have no idea how to fix it.

That’s because it cannot be fixed.

No it definitely can

ok pls tell me how

misterman.1530:

Anet knows this is broken and CAN’T do anything to fix it. They have no idea how to fix it.

That’s because it cannot be fixed.

I heard destacking was a thing.

People complain when they get the same matchup over and over again against servers as close to their strength as possible. Now they complain when the variety they asked for gives them blowout matches.

Never ending cycle.

You don’t need to be on a server with a high australian population. The game uses a megaserver system where you can play with anyone on any server.

http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Introducing_the_Megaserver_System

Warriors just equip stances and you can rez the lord pretty quickly.
And yea the golems in the lord room to stall circle or rez lord is gonna be the new meta.

So did an Anet dev attend the RS vs Dius gvg?

Pretty much every league has already been decided and the server that will win are the only ones “feeling it” at this point. I’m not seeing anywhere near the amount of dedication and overtime as I saw in Season 1 or 2.

This is a very poorly thought out change.

Cons:
1)Let’s say I want to buy 50 Sharpening Stones. The TP has 2 available for 13s and 100 available for 13s1c. I want to buy now instead of putting an order.
Previously, I’d just type 50 in the buy now box and the TP will give me the 2 for 13s and 48 for 13s1c.
Now I have to buy the 2 first then restart and buy the other 48.
Unnecessary change is unnecessary.

2)Confirmation/ok popup. The trade has already happened and cannot be undone so there’s no need for this.

CheezeStix.1076:

Deli.1302:

Samis.1750:

I started another thread here titled “Wouldn’t pay another 5 cents for this game” due to experiencing this problem.

Please tell me how anet is going to tell the difference between:
-a person building useless siege with malicious intent
-a person building useless siege because they don’t know better

I’m going to assume you have no idea what we’re talking about or you’re trolling.

I’m going to assume you don’t have an answer to my question, which is just as I expected.

The maps are too small, actually.

JonPeters.5630:

Devata.6589:

Proposal Overview
Being able to send a recruit message in map chat but only show it to people on the same server however possible over multiple map instances.

Goal of Proposal
Better recruiting members for your guild.

Guilds are still very much server based because of WvW. Thats fine but because the PvE would is not so much server based anymore recruiting members for your guild has become extremely hard after the mega-server patch. (only option would be recruiting in WvW but for a PvX guild thats no option because they also want PvE players)

Proposal Functionality
An option to chat with your server basically. So map-server chat. That lets you chat with your server but over multiple instances of the same map.

Associated Risks
Not sure there are any risk.

I’d love to discuss this. How would you all expect a better recruiting system to work? This is a pretty rudimentary version. What other options are there? A guild recruiting board? I think one of the largest issues facing any guild or player looking for a guild is finding a guild that you want to join or finding members that you want to retain.

How do other social groups match people together? How do you meet like-minded people in real life. Some examples include:

• Clubs with special interests.
• Hangout areas that are themed

There are many steps here
1) Interacting with those people in a social setting
2) Remembering the contact info of the people you interact with.
3) Reasons to continue to interact
4) Eventually forming a formal social group.

There are probably steps in between as well but it would be good to brainstorm ways that GW2 can bridge these steps and what other steps there might be.

Jon

Before we discuss anything related to how people meet each other and get acquainted, can we discuss the lack of any location for people to meet in the first place? Unlike the real world, this game and it’s player base is separated into multiple servers.

As Devata said, guilds are still very much server based because of WvW however there is no where outside of WvW where the only people you meet are people/guilds from your own server. People playing WvW are generally already in guilds so other guilds looking to get recruits from their server look to meet people in the open world but because of the megaserver, it is impossible.

Let people play the way they want to. If you don’t like the situation on your server, transfer.

It’s TC so maybe he’s just role playing as a ballista manufacturer. Nothing wrong with RP. Don’t hate.

Also supply mastery =/= macro

Samis.1750:

I started another thread here titled “Wouldn’t pay another 5 cents for this game” due to experiencing this problem.

Please tell me how anet is going to tell the difference between:
-a person building useless siege with malicious intent
-a person building useless siege because they don’t know better

Gandara will definitely be your best bet. They are a lot more welcoming and nice to new players. You will be given hell on SFR. No upscales and rallybots allowed!

Emezzo.9648:

Well… I play for over a year. From the year I trying to do 100% of the map.
EVERY TIME WHEN I would enter the on WvW Black Tide, our territory is from 0-10%,
…

Well then you must be lying because: http://mos.millenium.org/servers/history/12
Blacktide has had plenty of matchups over the past year where they own almost everything.

You already are competing, just in a lower tier. What’s so bad about that?

So for NA we got:
6 Devs playing in in T1 and 2 in T2 for a total of 8 in gold league
2 across all silver league
1 in bronze league

Well now this says a lot
I sure hope there are more devs than there appears to be playing in the silver and bronze leagues. So much for spreading themselves out ^__^

atomitor.3562:

I always am Deli :-p what are queues like over your side of the barricades?

I don’t think a single guild ended up raiding today due to the queues.

You should be thankful you’re not in SFR

Chaba.5410:

Look at the EU match rolls this week. Looks RNG.

Nah they weren’t.

DeWolfe.2174:

Just looking at the server statuses and SoS is FULL. Then I remembered this thread and said “wtf?” to myself. Soo… if this whole thread was a political tactic, GJ Sos! You successfully pulled a BG

Server population has nothing to do with WvW population. You should know this by now.

Hoelbrak for melee
Strength for ranged

Chaba.5410:

Deli.1302:

So BEAR, TS, CB, PAIN, BMO, EPIC and FUG have left. What are the other guilds that are leaving?

NS and HOPE. Do those count?

Didn’t know HOPE left. I forgot about Lion too. They actually came over to EU. Had some good fights with some of them.

Mark Katzbach.9084:

Do you have any specific issues to report? It’s difficult to escalate bug reports, without details on the bug(s) you are experiencing and how it’s affecting your gameplay.

I don’t think it’s related to the patch but since the beginning of the week we’ve been getting random lag spikes in WvW. Has happened in EB as well as the borderlands. It seems to be affecting all servers in NA and EU.

So BEAR, TS, CB, PAIN, BMO, EPIC and FUG have left. What are the other guilds that are leaving?

1)YB
2)CD
3)DB
4)DR
5)SBI
6)IoJ
7)BP
8)NSP
9)HoD

morrolan.9608:

DaShi.1368:

Manual intervention will still hurt a server, and that server will have a much more valid complaint to Anet for manipulating the rankings. I’m not sure why another server needs to pay for Mag’s mistakes.

How is it a mag mistake?

Maybe because it is the guilds/players on Maguuma that chose to put their server in this situation.

Anet left SoR to wallow in silver league last tournament as well as UW in silver league during Season 1. They won’t do it now.

mango.9267:

Chaba.5410:

mango.9267:

Anet won’t do anything because they’re afraid of setting a precedent of manual intervention.

It is too late for that. There was a match one week months ago where Anet manually intervened for T8.

What happened? I’m completely in the dark about that.

SF, FC and ET were locked in T8 with SF winning every week constantly while not able to gain enough rating to leave the tier. After months of the three servers being matched together anet intervened and manually rolled SF up to T7 and brought GoM down to T8. This allowed the ratings between T7 and T8 to finally normalize.

Chris.3290:

I love people who are self-appointed experts on our off-hours coverage.

Don’t you make a living out of doing the exact same thing about other servers?

Nemis.6874:

Just check the spells :’D 100% WvW/GvG HC player. I think he is from Red Guard

He also said he got half his title from playing wvw. Nothing implies he used those skills when he did wvw, just in eotm (where your skills don’t matter anyway).

Apokriphos.7042:

but the reality is that World vs World is not balanced

WvW is not supposed to be balanced.
Server stacking is a result of attrition (people leaving the game). Every game goes through this. As population gradually decreases, people look to move to servers that have more people to play with/against during their timezone. It’s got very little to do with the matchup system and there is no solution.