Guild Wars 2

chuckles

This is like asking a retailer to double their price on an item if their customer bought it within a 2 month period.

Trying to imagine going to the food store & being told I have to pay double for the milk I’m buying because I bought it within 2 months.

I’m sure the retailer might consider your suggestion, but the buying customers won’t like your suggestion.

I understand why you’re asking & can empathize, but it doesn’t logically make sense in the context of a retail situation.

We need a different game mechanic…if not a new game mode…to address the issue that you’re really concerned about…imho

Norbe.7630:

Diku.2546:

I’m of the opinion that simpler is better

I wish that ANet would consider removing the Tier structure & all its complex match-up mechanics & just let All the Worlds Fight each other directly & Rank them for how well they fight in this big brawl.

Let the chips fall where they may weekly. Let the best NA & EU World be Ranked #1.

Then ANet just needs to Weekly update a Leaderboard to proudly proclaim who’s the #1 Ranked NA & EU World for everybody to see.

Let the Majority of Players that want to fight on & in the #1 Ranked WvW…do so…they’ll naturally gravitate to that World for the Epic Zerg fights…that should be happening there.

This way players can enjoy Epic Zerg Blobbing in the #1 Ranked WvW World & the Lower Ranked Worlds get to have a Slower paced & Smaller sized play style…because the majority of players would rather be else where. fighting in & on the #1 Ranked Worlds.

Anyway…I feel the same…I hated the fair weather players & their bandwagons …it disrupts & destroys the health of long term WvW communities.

a girl learns fast,
a girl should forfeit WvG WvW and forget her past to become strong
a girl now is ready to embrace the many faced god,

“Are you afraid? Good. You’re in the great game now. And the great game is terrifying,”
-Tyrion to Daenerys

24 NA and 27 EU face to face against each other all at the same time
(stack on one server if you want, you’ll have 23 enemies for NA or 26 enemies for EU to demolish you lol)
just don’t increase the server cap Anet……. lel

Agree…ANet…don’t increase the server cap. Let the map queue for enemies attacking to mushroom out of control…1,000+

For those who makes their Home on one of these Top Ranked Servers, let them easily enter up to a Home team’s map limit…then queue & get out of control…1,000+ to be fair.

Eventually players will learn to not wait in line by going to other servers to fight on because they can.

The higher Rank a World gets…the more important having a Higher Population that can consistently & constantly Zerg is required.

The lower Rank a World gets…the more important Community becomes & it’s less about needing a Higher Population that Zergs if at all.

Jeknar.6184:

Jana.6831:

joneirikb.7506:

Even if they did try to make DBL a bit more 3-way like than Alpine was, it was still nowhere near what EBG is/was. And there was still 1 map designated for each server, with a clear home advantage in north. It is still designed to be a “Borderland” not a “Battleground”.

No, it wasn’t, it was just like EBG, the server it was assigned to had no advantage. In your mind 4 EBGs might work out – I don’t think it will and there are a lot of people who only play on their BL /BLs in general. So I guess you’re pretty alone with your idea how wvw should be like.

I’m pretty sure there are far more people that play only in EBG than only in the BLs. Why you think EBG is always the first map to get queued?

Maps of a single color are maps without activity. Dead maps. Why bother going to a dead map? Everyone just hop unto EBG because it’s hardly of a single color, which mean there are enemies in there.

Personally I think ANet should just let All Worlds attack each other & assign 1 EBG Map to all Worlds, but assign any additional BLs to them as more people show up on their front door to fight them.

That way all Worlds will start with 1 EBG map and call it Home, but they can increase the number & variety of BL maps to accommodate the demand for more space as players from other Worlds show up to fight them.

Sylvyn.4750:

The situation has always been fluid, though. You can’t tell me that one server stayed about the same from game launch all the way through HoT until server linkings. There may have been a point in time where a server felt “just right”, but then things changed and it either got bigger due to bandwagons or got smaller due to people bailing for various reasons, or a mass exodus.

Right before server linkings, though, T6, T7 and T8 servers were dead, really dead, where a commander might rustle up 5 people to create the only zerg on the map. It seemed fine after HoT and the DBLs came out, but after a couple months, it slowly died off until the server linkings. The DBLs weren’t all to blame, though, because in the lower tiers, even EBG was dead…no queues at all.

You’re right. I always felt the same way too.

This is why I thought that Tournaments hurt the Core WvW Population because it caused so much drama & burn out to the “Veteran” Population that cared for their World Server.

Fair weathers could care less & would eagerly swarm like a locust to the next healthy World Server.

I also feel that WvW can’t really support & encourage a healthy competitive game mode because of this.

WvW current design has way too many obstacles and complex mechanics that work against it.

I’m of the opinion that simpler is better.

I wish that ANet would consider removing the Tier structure & all its complex match-up mechanics & just let All the Worlds Fight each other directly & Rank them for how well they fight in this big brawl.

Let the chips fall where they may weekly. Let the best NA & EU World be Ranked #1.

Then ANet just needs to Weekly update a Leaderboard to proudly proclaim who’s the #1 Ranked NA & EU World for everybody to see.

Let the Majority of Players that want to fight on & in the #1 Ranked WvW…do so…they’ll naturally gravitate to that World for the Epic Zerg fights…that should be happening there.

This way players can enjoy Epic Zerg Blobbing in the #1 Ranked WvW World & the Lower Ranked Worlds get to have a Slower paced & Smaller sized play style…because the majority of players would rather be else where.

Anyway…I feel the same…I hated the fair weather players & their bandwagons…it disrupts & destroys the health of long term WvW communities.

Jeknar.6184:

Diku.2546:

Can somebody tell me what we can discuss in this thread without it being deleted?

Not World versus Globes.

Norbe.7630:

i thought i was the one corrected you……

Hmm…folks here seem to lament & miss the Lower Tier’s non-blobbing play style that used to exist before World Linking became a permanent feature.

I also miss this aspect of WvW & hope that things can be changed to allow it to be nurtured & encouraged again…like it should be…imho

I still believe it’s possible.

Sorry, but I can’t figure out how to explain things without my posts being deleted at the moment…I can only make postings that share in the grief.

Jeknar.6184:

Diku.2546:

Can somebody tell me what we can discuss in this thread without it being deleted?

Not World versus Globes.

So is it ok to complain about the current state of things?

Can somebody tell me what we can discuss in this thread without it being deleted?

Norbe.7630:

Diku.2546:

It’s possible to have a “Realm vs Realm” with emptier maps.

If the Game Mode used a King of the Hill fight model…the Lower Ranked World Servers would have an ecosystem that allows Small Scale roaming, AND Epic Zerg battles would be found in the Top Ranked Worlds.

Using this Model…Players from the Lowest Ranked Servers would still be able to participate in attacking the #1 ranked, and the #1 ranked would earn less points attacking any Lower Ranked servers.

The #1 Ranked NA & EU Worlds would have to earn their Rank in this model.

ANet needs to re-design the Game Mode & use a better Match-Up mechanic that leverages Population In-Balances to create Match-Ups that are Player Driven…yet…ANet Controlled.

correct me if i am wrong, from what i have understood, you wanted to have a different mode on different tiers? (i know i am wrong)
T1 is normal WvW
T2 is karma train EoTM style
T3 is King of the Hill Battle
T4 is a PvP map as big as the entire Tyria heaven for roamers where all they would do is run around the map all day long and call themselves a low tier roamers

i like the idea lel

seriously, different tiers with different modes and different maps
i wonder how will people get one server stacked on that……

edit:
as people post here about tiers, populations, roaming, etc
why not push that button Anet, give people what they want, you can end their rant with three moves and then checkmate….. Stop, Look , Listen

Actually you have a lot of misunderstandings. I can’t correct you without the post being deleted.

SyIux.5794:

Before making any WvW tournaments, few things must be fixed/added:
- new scoring system
- alot of changes to the world linking system ( I hope we will get poll about this soon)
- issue with stacking the best servers/ changes to transfers.

Question to the people who are against tournaments. How you want to bring competition between worlds? Right now, most of the players dont care about winning, server ranking (ranking of servers is useless).
I think this is very important for the future of WvW, to bring competition and meaningful wins.

ROFL..

Seriously…ANet…don’t do tournaments. You’re absolutely 100% correct in your position Not to Host them for the reasons you publicly posted.

The current WvW design Does Not support & encourage healthy competition.

The current WvW design can only support & encourage fun play by Epic Zerg fights.

I do agree, however, it’s very important for the future of WvW, to bring competition and meaningful wins to this game mode.

Jeknar.6184:

You in the other hand just spam your stuff over and over with attachments that add less to the discussion than your post itself.

Lenka Utsugi’s Compass from Anime – God Eaters – Given to Lenka by Lindow Amamiya, who told him to pass it on to someone who is lost.

My PoV is that ANet is lost in their design & that’s why WvW is in the current state of things. It’s not spamming…it’s remaining consistent in the direction on where this game mode needs to be going.

Given the current game mechanics…it’s almost impossible & downright messy to try & fix what’s wrong with WvW. Change the core game mechanics…using the right tool makes the job that much easier to do…imho

Swagger.1459:

The main point is that the devs are not going backwards, and not changing wvw to accommodate players who don’t want to run into zergs… Players can gvg and spvp for small scale pvp play.

Wow…you’re completely Wrong again.

Devs need to move forward & things CAN be fixed using “Servers” to do it.

The game mode needs a better core design that allows Player Driven Match-Ups that ultimately lead to a gradation of Ranked Servers that offer diferent play styles.

Why not give the players what they want by letting them pick which Server that accomodates their play style?

• Re-design it so Players can use Server Guesting to pick their Match-Ups while ANet Firmly Controls How Many & Which Servers they can pick on a Weekly basis

If you do this…Players gravitate to the Top for Epic Zerg action & the Bottom for Small Scale Roaming.

Devs need to re-design the game mode into one that readily allows population in-balances while creating an ecosystem that allows for Zerging to be at the Top of the predatory food chain of WvG.

There’s a better alternative…imho

Swagger.1459:

Actually I’m right.

Go to the ESO and CU boards and ask them to make small scale rvr accommodations for players… The developers and players would be laughing.

Arenanet is not changing wvw to accommodate small scale play so roamers don’t have to encounter blobs. Arenanet is not making “king of the hill” and reverting back to single server style either. Go gvg and spvp for all your small scale play.

It’s been 4 years… well past the time for all of you to finally adapt to blobs being around and stop trying to change wvw into something it’s not.

Nope. You’re completely Wrong again.

In a King of the Hill model…Small Scale is Totally possible.

The Top Rank Servers get all the Epic Zerg action for being the King, and the Lower Rank Servers get what’s left over…namely the people looking for the Small Scale fighting.

Majority of players usually want the Epic Zerg action & will go to fight on the Top 3 Ranked Worlds…aka…6 Kings to fight on. Currently WvW has 3 NA & 3 EU.

In this King of the Hill model…Low Ranked Servers are rewarded MORE for attacking Higher Ranked Servers…so they’re not left out in the cold…and provides incentive for them to climb the WvG Ranks.

Higher Ranked Server get LESS Points for attacking any Server that is below them.

King of the Hill model will make the current Kings of WvW have to WORK for their Rank.

In the end…this model will allow Players to have slow paced & Small Scale Match-Ups by choosing to stay in their Bottom Rank World Server, but give them the Freedom to join everybody else in visiting & taking a swing at any of the Kings if they so choose to…using a Weekly Server Guesting mechanic that’s controlled by ANet.

Currently everybody is Locked into Tiers separating them into Rooms that each have an 800 pound gorilla.

King of the Hill model coupled with a Player Driven Match-Up Design is a better Long Term alternative…imho

Swagger.1459:

This is an Realm versus Realm mode… Realm versus Realm only works with players on the map. Y’all can’t expect the devs to keep emptier maps just for your personal roaming preference. If you are having difficulty encountering zergs then the alternative is to join spvp for your small scale pvp fix.

Threads and requests like these are akin to someone jumping on the boards and saying “well, I like raids, but I don’t like encountering raid bosses”… Seriously, it’s been 4 years and the same personal roaming problems keep popping up. You can roam with any amount of players on the map, but WvW is not primarily designed for roamers and roaming gameplay. It’s supposed to be an “epic war with hundreds of players on the huge maps” so accept it for what it is because the devs are not going back to dead server mode.

You’re wrong & there are solutions that can use World Server Identity to improve the Long Term health & viability of this Game Mode.

It’s possible to have a “Realm vs Realm” with emptier maps.

If the Game Mode used a King of the Hill fight model…the Lower Ranked World Servers would have an ecosystem that allows Small Scale roaming, AND Epic Zerg battles would be found in the Top Ranked Worlds.

Using this Model…Players from the Lowest Ranked Servers would still be able to participate in attacking the #1 ranked, and the #1 ranked would earn less points attacking any Lower Ranked servers.

The #1 Ranked NA & EU Worlds would have to earn their Rank in this model.

ANet needs to re-design the Game Mode & use a better Match-Up mechanic that leverages Population In-Balances to create Match-Ups that are Player Driven…yet…ANet Controlled.

Skirmish & Victory Points are very good game mechanics, but people are expecting it to fix things that go beyond the scope of their function…imho

Hoping ANet is able to code this game mechanic so that it’s an independent module that can be easily connected or disconnected into the Match-Up and Scoring design.

Diku.2546:

Before you think it’s great to Vote Yes to Allow ANet to implement World Linking permanently.

Ask yourself if you’re ok with the following questions:

Does ANet need to Explain How World Link Pair Ups are done?

Should ANet be Allowed to Change World Link Pair Ups without a Poll?

The WvW Community will need to depend on ANet to weekly manipulate the World Link Pair Ups to create Balanced & Fair Match-Ups – Long Term.

Do you firmly believe ANet will excel at this task?

Can you wait till the problems get fixed…if ever?

Make the right choice & don’t encourage ANet to continue building something with Short Term benefits.

Let ANet know you prefer a more Long Term Solution.

It’s been about 4 months since the New Feature was permanently added to WvW.

Totally forgot about Glicko.

Guess adjusting Glicko can be a solution to fix Weekly Match-Ups using the current feedback from players.

Is it just me, or does it feel like the game mode is lost & kind of messed up?

It’s kind of like…Let’s make up stuff without a solid plan & hope for the best.

There’s really a better alternative solution..imho

Swagger.1459:

So you’re saying if we change wvw to your “world vs globes”, that has 96 US maps (24 EB, 48 ABL, 24 DBL) and 108 EU maps (27 EB, 54 ABL, 27 DBL) total, the devs will easily be able to adjust skills and combat mechanics between pve and spvp and wvw?

Actually it could be Less Maps.

WvG only needs 24 US & 27 EU Maps if Borderland maps aren’t used.

It’s really up to ANet to decide How Many Borderland Maps to implement for a Globe. It could be zero, or up to 3 Borderland Maps.

Changing the Core Design CAN make the whole Game Mode…Child’s Play to balance.

For a Better Long Term Solution for WvW – Try a Google Search of – wvg world vs globes

Tigers can’t easily change their stripes.

From a Dev’s viewpoint I’d be moronic if I changed the core design of my work to match the popular opinion of the month.

My intent is to provide a consistent message of hope that there is a better alternative to the current state of things.

My desire is to see this Game Mode thrive.

You can kick me all you want, but I’ll continue to urge ANet to change the core design of their WvW product.

You don’t just give up on something that’s precious…you continue to fight & survive in what you believe.

Passing on the “compass” to those that will hear it.

Anime is God Eater…btw

EremiteAngel.9765:

How do you balance a game mode that has so many facets to it?

Current Base Mechanic makes it impossible & downright messy to balance the many facets.

Replace the Base Mechanic & balancing the many facets is child’s play.

See below

For a Better Long Term Solution for WvW – Try a Google Search of – wvg world vs globes

misterman.1530:

They should always allow you to build siege in spawn points in EB. That way you can “try” to take your fully sieged keep back, and do away with spawn campers. There could be rules on the siege in the spawn points, but allow them to be built and used.

Hmm…

If ANet does this…I’d advise:

ANet should paint on the ground Exactly Where, How many, and What type of Siege can be setup in the Invulnerable area of the Spawn point. No supply used or needed when these Specific Siege is setup…or have them already available.

That way we don’t end up with Siege Trolls having a field day in the spawn point in addition to the normal stuff they already do, or Siege being abused to take objectives…aside from your Spawn point landing zone.

For a Better Long Term Solution for WvW – Try a Google Search of – wvg world vs globes

Rotteny.8743:

Why? It wasn’t the players who decided to bandwagon? It was Arena Net that transfered these players to the winning servers? Let’s face reality, people don’t want a balanced fight, people want a easy win, that’s why they bandwagon.

I totally agree with you.

Diku.2546:

A better alternative is a Pure King of the Hill fight model that Allows Population In-Balances to Reward the Weak & to Make the Strong Earn their rank.

See below

For a Better Long Term Solution for WvW – Try a Google Search of – wvg world vs globes

Stop blaming Players for creating Population In-Balances.

Encouraging or Discouraging Population In-Balance isn’t what WvW needs.

You CAN NOT Balance Populution in a “Competitive” game mode.

WvW needs a solution that outright USES Server Population In-Balances as part of it’s design.

The current 3 Way Fight model creates an 800 pound gorrilla in each Tier & Allows Population In-Balances to Punish the Weak & Reward the Strong.

A better alternative is a Pure King of the Hill fight model that Allows Population In-Balances to Reward the Weak & to Make the Strong Earn their rank.

Using Carrots on a Horse attached to the Wrong Cart/Wagon won’t work in the Long Term.

For a Better Long Term Solution for WvW – Try a Google Search of – wvg world vs globes

You watch for sentry movement on the map & then run to the nearest camp to stop it from being capped or to report on enemy troop numbers.

See this current post about World Linking.

This mechanic is relatively new to WvW.

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/World-Linking-8-26-2016/first#post6304920

For background history on this new mechanic:

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/WvW-Poll-21-May-World-Linking-Closed/first#post6166866

For a Better Long Term Solution for WvW – Try a Google Search of – wvg world vs globes

Nostradus.2187:

ok thanks for the informations,so if i would like to switch to the green or red team in eotm i would need to go to a server that is inside that color bracked or are all servers mixed inside a new bracket each week so that next week the red color consist of 5 new servers?

i not care so mutch about ranking i just want to have a lot of aktive players in my bracked/ wvw server so that i always can join a grp and not have to run around alone since as far as i can see there is nothing you can do alone ther besides finding another solo player and do a 1v1?

and how is it with the 3 WvW servers are they always the same,every week or is my server fighting against 2 other servers every week?

Yes, EotM teams are the combined players from their Mist War colored Worlds.

Worlds get weekly assigned their Color depending on their weekly performance.

The Green Worlds for the week tends to be the stronger World in the Match-Up, but this isn’t true all the time.

World Linking mechanic is actually changing this because a Green World might have to fight 4 Servers that are Red in their Match-Up.

Since you’re new here…stay with the WvW server that you’re on now…and just play to learn what you like & don’t like. Migrating to another World server costs gems…so take your time in deciding.

Good luck & welcome to WvW.

For a Better Long Term Solution for WvW – Try a Google Search of – wvg world vs globes

My honest advice would be to pick a Server that is a “Host” World 1st then by their WvW Rank based on the current state of this Game Mode.

Guest Worlds are ok, but their Players tends to migrate to their Linked Host Worlds.

Host Worlds have their name shown in the WvW Interface.

Press B – Look at the Interface side titled “Mist Wars”. You’ll see Host World Names.

Mouse hover over the Host World Names & you’ll see the Guest World Names appear.

You’ll have a very hard time to get into any #1 Ranked WvW World due to ANet trying to stop players from “stacking” of Active Players on them.

Also, keep in mind that Host Worlds have different “cultures” that emphasize different tactical offensive & defensive styles. Pick the Host that uses tactics that you enjoy.

For a Better Long Term Solution for WvW – Try a Google Search of – wvg world vs globes

Xenesis.6389:

Snip 8<
Keep your cucumber.
Snip 8<

Woops…sorry forgot to ask if you play for a Host or Guest World Server.

Sorry, but given current circumstances. I’m authorized to only give out the following:

Host Server get a rock & grape.
Guest Server get a rock & cucumber.
Off Peak Players get a rock only.

Cool signature btw:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdqyG3CcoLM

For a Better Long Term Solution for WvW – Try a Google Search of – wvg world vs globes

All of this kind of reminds me of this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdK6LVDI3kg

Gotta mix em up & keep em on their toes!

Is it really that complicated?

For a Better Long Term Solution for WvW – Try a Google Search of – wvg world vs globes

Xenesis.6389:

Snip 8<
Everyone keeps focusing on population balance, it’s something that will never be achieved, never, ever, ever. But you can do other things in order make population numbers matter less, aka the skirmish scoring changes.
Snip 8<

Can I offer you a cucumber?

https://youtu.be/meiU6TxysCg?t=1m18s

Manipulating Score Mechanics shouldn’t be the Primary fix to Population In-balance.

World Ranking becomes meaningless when you have to rely on Manipulating the Score for this purpose.

The #1 Rank should be reached using Score Mechanics that promotes fair & square rules.

If this mechanic reigns in run-away scores, but still allows the win to go properly to the side that deserves to win…then I’ll have to agree with it’s purpose & application.

Just hope this doesn’t punish players, or deal a serious disadvantage for playing during a time period that is Off Peak from Prime Time.

Gut feeling is that…Off Peak Players will get the shaft.

I agree with you btw…you can never ever balance population.

Use Over-Stacked Server Populations as a part of the solution.

Instead…let the Population of WvW Pick for themselves who they want to fight against.

Use a Pure King of the Hill model to let All Players Drive the Match-Ups, but have ANet Control Which & How many Servers Players can attack.

The Game Mechanic for this already exists…it’s called Server Guesting.

You’ll make the King of both EU & NA work for their #1 Rank while letting everybody find their place in the pecking order.

Work hard & fight hard to increase your Rank…then when you reach the top…everybody is trying to pull you down.

There can only be One!!!
Highlander

For a Better Long Term Solution for WvW – Try a Google Search of – wvg world vs globes

Xenesis.6389:

Snip 8<
One of the intentions of a three way battle is to keep moving the lines of pressure
Snip 8<

Since when has the Fixed 3 Way Fight Model consistently promoted Fights that are supposed to lead to “Balanced” Match-Ups?

Why do the Match-Ups end up the way it does now?

Population In-Balance.

More times that naught…it’s ended up like the proverbial 800 Pound Gorilla in the room with the 2 Smaller Chimps fighting over the scraps…imho

You’re above post is spot on…describing the 800 Pound Gorilla.

For a Better Long Term Solution for WvW – Try a Google Search of – wvg world vs globes

Tyrx.2471:

Snip 8<
OSX population dips after the changes after implemented.
Snip 8<

Whatever advantage given to the NA (Day time) Players should also be applied to the NA (Night time) aka OSX (Day time) Players.

Players should never be dealt with a dis-advantage due to when they play…that’s making up unfair rules…imho

Keep being told that in WvW:

1. Community no longer matters.
2. Fun Epic Fights are more important than Balanced Match-Ups.

I won’t be surprised when the OSX Community ends up throwing the rocks they’re given back at somebody…as you pointed out in your posted link:

https://youtu.be/meiU6TxysCg?t=1m18s

(Who would’ve thought that grapes have more value than cucumbers!)

This is on par with the complicated behavioral patterns that can be compared to Player patterns that often repeatedly & consistently cause them to Stack on a Server. Who knows why…right?

I guess WvW is not meant to be Community based. Many of the Long Term things that promoted Community have since burned to the ground with the release of HoT.

We lost:

1. Small to Medium sized Guilds when they changed (took away) Guild Upgrades.
2. Guest Server Communities with (forced recruitment) World Linking.

So this New Game “Feature” shouldn’t be too surprising. Because, “Community” is not in the Long Term Vision of WvW.

For a Better Long Term Solution for WvW – Try a Google Search of – wvg world vs globes

SkyShroud.2865:

The artificial balancing is finally here, anet will now successful get people to shut up about night capping and get people to forget about population balancing. However, people will now complain purely on coverage war and thus population balancing reborn again.

Seriously, I hope anet just focus on population balancing, is the root of all problems.

I totally agree with you that ANet should Seriously focus on fixing the problems with Population Balance.

Skirmishes only seems to upgrade Wack-a-Mole v1.0 by using Time Slices to encourage players to fight harder in the Time Slice they’re in.

Wack-a-Mole v1.0 – 2 Month Link Pairing – Weekly Resets
Wack-a-Mole v2.0 – 2 Month Link Pairing – Weekly Resets – Hourly Resets

(Currently WvW is all about the Quick Cap & Run by Zergs = Wack-a-Mole)

I could be wrong, and it might transform the Match-Ups.

Players may get a chance to feel a little better about their 2 hour Match-Up instead of Focusing too much on their Week long blow out.

However, I still feel that a Pure King of the Hill Fight Model would be a better choice in creating Match-Ups.

For a Better Long Term Solution for WvW – Try a Google Search of – wvg world vs globes

Forum Bug again?

You know what Empyreal Fragments are & you carry several stacks of Empyreal Stars because they take up less inventory space.

You get a lot of these Fragments when capping camps…in case you’re wondering.

Milea.6043:

You know what Giant Pearls are and you still carry a stack.
[One day the Quaggans will return! They are prepping in the Desert BL Kitten Room! ]

~Milly

Actually these make great Inventory Slot Holders to reserve space when managing your Inventory space.

Plus, ANet did say that the Quaggan event might return one day.

Veritas.6193:

Combined Servers will never be balanced.

True, but…the Game Mode should at least let ALL players (not just the top servers) feel good about their Match-Ups by allowing them to choose it themselves.

The Current Match-Up system doesn’t allow players to do that.

A better Match-Up system that does Allow ALL Players to pick their own Match-Ups would need to be based on a Pure King of the Hill model & not a Fixed 3 Way.

The Tier Structure was supposed to be the King of the Hill, but it’s been generally accepted as a complete & utter failure in this aspect…imho

It’s possible to let ALL Players to pick their own Match-Ups given the Current Game Mechanics…it’s called Server Guesting.

For a Better Long Term Solution for WvW – Try a Google Search of – wvg world vs globes

This also falls under my stupid things to implement for WvW.

But, if people continue to insist on a Fix to Off Peak Capping…aka…Night Capping & shutting down servers isn’t an option.

Then here’s my other suggested fix:

Change ALL Border Land Maps into PvE Maps that spawn Enemy NPCs. Remove Real Enemy Players.

Enemy NPC are pre-programmed to attack your stuff then stop if nobody is there to fight them.

Only Map that stays open 24/7 is the Eternal Battlegrounds Map.

However, if you’re not on the map to defend your stuff…then the System Auto-Spawns NPC to fight in your place & to Automatically Recapture it after a set amount of time has gone by.

ANet really needs to re-design the Game Mode to leverage the Match-Up system & Allow Players to Create Alliances that are Driven by International Communities to eliminate this Off Peak Capping…aka Night Capping problem that the current Fixed 3 Way Match-Up system is creating.

For a Better Long Term Solution for WvW – Try a Google Search of – wvg world vs globes

This falls under my stupid things to implement for WvW.

But, if people really really insist this has to be done.

Here’s my suggested fix:

Automatically Shut DOWN the NA Servers @12 am MT
Automatically Power UP the NA Servers @8 am MT

Automatically Shut DOWN the EU Servers @12 am GMT
Automatically Power UP the EU Servers @8 am GMT

There is no Night Capping because between 12 am – 8 am. Nobody is allowed to logon during the Night Time period for each Region…so Night Capping is completely eliminated.

ANet really needs to re-design the Game Mode to leverage the Match-Up system & Allow Players to Create Alliances that are Driven by International Communities to eliminate this Off Peak Capping…aka Night Capping problem that the current Fixed 3 Way Match-Up system is creating.

For a Better Long Term Solution for WvW – Try a Google Search of – wvg world vs globes

RodOfDeath.5247:

Snip 8<
…..that got off tangent.
Snip 8<

You’re wrong…that was not off tangent.

This is precisely the thing that is lacking from WvW.

Love…or a place we Love to hang out at.

The girl above says it hurts to see how messed up the game has become.

I believe…the Rich & “Deep Soul” of WvW is gone, or fading…while many of us…still linger…hoping that the joy it was before…will return…if ANet does something wonderful.

You remember…when once upon a time…Community meant something.

The HoT expansion “burned the game & killed her Guild”.

Many Small to Medium sized Guilds in Addition to many Lower Tiered Communities burned to the ground.

In a sense we lost the equivalent of an online pub, tavern, or bar.

We had a very grown-up place to go to socialize, fight, and share life.

Friday reset was a beer, shots, or favorite time to get drunk & scream with your best friends while attacking the new enemy for the week.

WvW is now a Host Lead Server Wack-a-Mole game.

Despite what many say…Server Identity did not lead to the demise of WvW…imho

The Fixed 3 Way Fight Model is what’s causing all our WvW Match-Ups to go stale based on basic player behavior…this is what is causing the demise of WvW.

ANet really needs to change this & take into account & design a Game Mode that allows Players to Drive the Match-Ups…yet…ANet to Control things.

Think about it…change the Fight Model mechanics & you can change the Match-Ups.

A better solution is to use a King of the Hill Fight Model…where…the stacking behavior of players won’t really matter…because everyone is stepping over each other to be the #1 Ranked World in EU or NA.

Make the FAT CAT Top Tier Servers earn their Rank in a King of the Hill Fight…and not allow them to straddle & hold hostage the whole WvW Universe…just because the World Servers in all the lower Tiers can’t attack them…while they Bully beat-down the two other Servers un-lucky to be stuck in the fighting ring with them.

WvW is evolving & loosing its “Deep Soul” to this Wack-a-Mole Game Mode that World Linking is encouraging…imho

For a Better Long Term Solution for WvW – Try a Google Search of – wvg world vs globes

You’re out tapping the gate of the Opposite Keep that’s on the other side of the map from where your Server’s Main Zerg is really attacking.

You have the Port to Button for Citadel or Spawn WP up for a quick evacuate while running around doing solo havoc & camp capping on outnumbered maps.

For a Better Long Term Solution for WvW – Try a Google Search of – wvg world vs globes

@RodOfDeath.5247

Picture is worth a 1000 words…then a Video can be considered a book.

Sometimes I feel like throwing a book at somebody…

ANet is sitting on a product that can truly become the next e-Sport similar in scope to the NFL & SuperBowl Franchise…and they’re blowing smoke up…a chimney…and squandering their huge lead on this lucrative venture…imho

For a Better Long Term Solution for WvW – Try a Google Search of – wvg world vs globes

This is what I read & saw in the below…

RodOfDeath.5247:

mordran.4750:

WvW are doomed to fail.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LhvuomaJaY

She’s a bit giggly…it made me sad that players like this are quitting the game.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQFhL5_DJ-Q

Freedom of speech and transparency anet?

I also share the pain & sheer frustration this girl talks about.

The Interview Parody below is incredibly funny…but seriously not far from the truth about how I feel on what HoT has done to GW2 & ANet’s botched handling of the WvW Game Mode Future Vision.

For a Better Long Term Solution for WvW – Try a Google Search of – wvg world vs globes

Hmm…

Force Transfer Players Off Over Populated Servers.

Actually this is a brilliant idea…

Let me try to build & expand on this idea.

ANet could design a Siege Weapon that Forcibly Transfers players Off Over Populated World Servers.

To prevent abuse the following conditions would of course need to be met before use:

1. Victim…otherwise referred to as Chosen Settler…needs to be on a Full World.
2. ANet decides which WvW Server the Chosen Settler will move to in balancing.
3. Siege becomes inoperable once the Full Status for a Server changes.

Hmm…

What happens when a very Popular Full Server opens up?

1. Players Rush in
2. Server Full Again

Guess we gotta try & do a lot of stupid things before…

For a Better Long Term Solution for WvW – Try a Google Search of – wvg world vs globes

One phrase comes to mind.

Mortal Kombat!!!

We really need to switch to a Pure King of the Hill Fight Model.

Make being WvW Rank #1 for EU & NA mean something.

Fixed 3 Way Fights in Tiers only support FAT CAT Servers that have large populations & Do Nothing to encourage them to Fight for their Rank!

For a Better Long Term Solution for WvW – Try a Google Search of – wvg world vs globes

Finish Him… | Flawless Victory… | Excellent!!!

@Jana.6831

Sorry…I’ll remove the bold from my signature.

I do hope that you tried doing a Google Search using those words.

The below was posted on May 23, 2016…which was about 3 months ago from today.

I think the below has become a reality from my perspective & hope that it adds a little credibility to my request for ANet to reconsider their vision & future direction of WvW.

Managing Match-Ups has…in my opinion…become the Most Cursed & Thankless Job for ANet to be doing.

There’s an easier way to provide Balanced & Fair Match-Ups that are Player Driven…yet…ANet Controlled.

For a Better Long Term Solution to WvW – Google Search – wvg world vs globes

Diku.2546:

ANet,

After Lower Tiered Players get a Free Transfer & Upper Tier Servers get Bodies for their Zerg…

Don’t be surprised later.

When these same players will help you decide on what to do next…when you get around to asking, or players end up demanding that the following question needs to be answered:

Should ANet change the World Link Pairings?

(Player’s response – No…wait…Yes, change it when it benefits our Tier)

Then

How often should ANet change the World Link Pairings?

(Player’s response – Only when it benefits our Tier)

Then you’ll have to micromanage the whole Match-Up process carefully & diligently to keep All Players happy by keeping Match-Ups Balanced & Fair.

---

You won’t be able to consistently keep Match-Ups Balanced & Fair…using the Fixed 3 Way Battle Model…because Players will naturally gravitate to the Strongest of the 3…to be PART OF the team that Wins more often.

You’re setting yourself up for failure with this Given Fixed Model & by asking the Majority of Players what they want.

---

If you read carefully…you’ll get A LOT of posts asking about:

How will ANet manage to keep Match-Ups Balanced & Fair?

What metrics & mechanics will ANet use?

Appreciate the effort, but I can only hope that you will use this feedback to find a better solution.

---

Still feel that the Core Base Map Mechanic needs to be replaced with one that provides a more simple and solid foundation…

A Core Base Map Mechanic that doesn’t need all this Complex World Linking & Score Balancing mechanics.

Yours truly,
Diku

---

Possible Full Solution – Google Search – Reboot Base Map Mechanic

McKenna Berdrow.2759:

Snip 8<
The issue is compounded in EU, due to the fact that we are avoiding linking worlds with different languages.
Snip 8<

Thank you for being transparent.

This suggestion is based on your comment about different languages:

Consider Implementing a Time Zone/Language Label Mechanic

Servers are Labeled after a Time Zone. This Time Zone mechanic is only a Label.

Allow Communities to Form around this Label.

Also, create a Language mechanic to help properly Label Communities that forms on each Server.

New Players before choosing a Server…are shown the Language preference distribution of its population…Primary & Secondary Languages of players for the Server.

Local & International Communities Form on Servers using these Labels.

Later Display the Time Zone & Language for each Server for players to see in the WvW player interface as Percentages in relation to the Server’s Total Population perhaps.

Just to re-emphasize…Time Zone & Languguage Mechanics are only Labels…They Do Not prevent players from doing anything in WvW…they’re only there to help guide players in finding the right World Server to call Home.

Swagger.1459:

Diku.2546:

Swagger.1459:

Diku.2546:

Diku.2546:

Snip 8<
All the Faction Solutions I’ve seen posted here…have no easy way…or simply…don’t give any solution…to reduce the problems related to population in-balances…imho
Snip 8<

Faction based Solutions are Long Winded, Offer Incomplete Advice, and Gives No Concrete How To Plan on reducing the problems related to population in-balances.

Failing to provide any Concrete How To Plan…they attack & deflect other proposed solutions that do have a very detailed Concrete How To Plan…imho

Server based Solution can use existing game mechanics with a Simple How To instructions…that can be built upon to create an Epic Skyscrapper of a Game Mode…imho

Simple Server Solution:

Show Spoiler

hide spoiler

You encourage Communities to form around World Servers. You let players stack as much as they want, but design a game mode that reduces the advantage of an over-stacked Server.

1. Use a Pure King of the Hill Fight Model to create Match-Ups.
2. Assign each World Server 1 Map to Own.
3. Let Players Guest Fight by visiting any World Server they choose.
4. ANet then Tightly Controls How Many & Which World Server(s) that a player can visit for the week.
5. Enable World Rank Scoring that ENCOURAGES the Lower Ranked that attack the Higher Ranked.
6. Enable World Rank Scoring that DISCOURAGES the Higher Ranked that attack the Lower Ranked.

---

Guesting is nothing new & is already being used. For those not familiar with this already built-in Game Mechanic:

Next time you logon – Click [ World Selection ] Button – Pick a Different Home World – Click [ Guest ] Button.

---

Players using the Guesting Mechanic are freed to visit any World Server to Guest Fight on for the whole week.

ANet using the Guesting Mechanic can Tightly Control How Many & Which World Server(s) a Player can visit for the whole week.

---

Full details

For a Better Long Term Solution to WvW – Google Search – wvg world vs globes

Yes, Diku, lets make balancing wvw 100x worse… Your “solution”, that you keep spamming, is poorly thought out and impractical…

---

Thanks…

You just totally validated my whole point about people who typically encourage a Faction Based Solution. You have no solution & end up attacking or deflecting.

Posted Server Solution +1 = See above Spoiler
Posted Faction Solution + 0 = See above Post

I don’t have to post “solutions” here on your behalf or request.

You seem to forget your post in my factions thread…

I still firmly stand behind my offered Server Based Solution.

While you continue to paint yourself into a Corner with a Faction Based Solution…imho

Simple Server Solution:

Swagger.1459:

Diku.2546:

Diku.2546:

Snip 8<
All the Faction Solutions I’ve seen posted here…have no easy way…or simply…don’t give any solution…to reduce the problems related to population in-balances…imho
Snip 8<

Faction based Solutions are Long Winded, Offer Incomplete Advice, and Gives No Concrete How To Plan on reducing the problems related to population in-balances.

Failing to provide any Concrete How To Plan…they attack & deflect other proposed solutions that do have a very detailed Concrete How To Plan…imho

Server based Solution can use existing game mechanics with a Simple How To instructions…that can be built upon to create an Epic Skyscrapper of a Game Mode…imho

Simple Server Solution:

Show Spoiler

hide spoiler

You encourage Communities to form around World Servers. You let players stack as much as they want, but design a game mode that reduces the advantage of an over-stacked Server.

1. Use a Pure King of the Hill Fight Model to create Match-Ups.
2. Assign each World Server 1 Map to Own.
3. Let Players Guest Fight by visiting any World Server they choose.
4. ANet then Tightly Controls How Many & Which World Server(s) that a player can visit for the week.
5. Enable World Rank Scoring that ENCOURAGES the Lower Ranked that attack the Higher Ranked.
6. Enable World Rank Scoring that DISCOURAGES the Higher Ranked that attack the Lower Ranked.

---

Guesting is nothing new & is already being used. For those not familiar with this already built-in Game Mechanic:

Next time you logon – Click [ World Selection ] Button – Pick a Different Home World – Click [ Guest ] Button.

---

Players using the Guesting Mechanic are freed to visit any World Server to Guest Fight on for the whole week.

ANet using the Guesting Mechanic can Tightly Control How Many & Which World Server(s) a Player can visit for the whole week.

---

Full details

For a Better Long Term Solution to WvW – Google Search – wvg world vs globes

Yes, Diku, lets make balancing wvw 100x worse… Your “solution”, that you keep spamming, is poorly thought out and impractical…

Thanks…

You just totally validated my whole point about people who typically encourage a Faction Based Solution. You have no solution & end up attacking or deflecting.

Posted Server How To Solution +1 = See above Spoiler
Posted Faction How To Solution + 0 = See above Post

My solution is very well thought out & very detailed.

Diku.2546:

Snip 8<
All the Faction Solutions I’ve seen posted here…have no easy way…or simply…don’t give any solution…to reduce the problems related to population in-balances…imho
Snip 8<

Faction based Solutions are Long Winded, Offer Incomplete Advice, and Gives No Concrete How To Plan on reducing the problems related to population in-balances.

Failing to provide any Concrete How To Plan…they attack & deflect other proposed solutions that do have a very detailed Concrete How To Plan…imho

Server based Solution can use existing game mechanics with a Simple How To instructions…that can be built upon to create an Epic Skyscrapper of a Game Mode…imho

Simple Server Solution:

Swagger.1459:

Nah, you create a 3 faction war like ESO and CU.

No thanks…you should go play ESO & CU.

All the Faction Solutions I’ve seen posted here…have no easy way…or simply…don’t give any solution…to reduce the problems related to population in-balances…imho

Xenesis.6389:

Snip 8<
The players are just as responsible for the imbalance
Snip 8<

ANet needs to re-design the WvW game mode into a WvG mode that reduces the advantage of an over-stacked Server.

A Pure King of the Hill Match-Up that is Player Driven…

Is better than a Fixed 3 Way Match-Up that is Manually or automatically done by ANet…imho