Guild Wars 2

After having finished world completion with all 9 classes, I never had much trouble in Orr. HoT maps, yes, specially before April update.

There are some map events that you want to avoid in Orr, or wait for larger group of players. Some of the Champs are not meant to be soloed so don’t. Then again, some areas have multiple paths to the poi or vista so take your time and explore around.

The Ranger is interesting class because it’s elite, Druid, is completely different from base Ranger. To understand how different, you should raise it slowly to level 80 and then see how much Druid changes the class.

Chrono does not change much for Mesmer.

I will start with simple one: yes, +10 Vitality adds 10 more points to your Vitality.

Sirendor.1394:

FogLeg.9354:

You can still defend, use siege, roam, use tactics, fight in smaller groups if you want. I can. Not sure if someone, or something is stopping you.

Yep. I went in solo the last days since World Linking and no problems at all for roaming (my favorite playstyle).

I don’t do PPT though, so don’t know if it’s any different. I bet you could go for a tower or something and defend it with your guild?

In our GH+FoW match against DZ and FSP there is room for all kind of playstyles. EB has been blobfest for sure (I am looking at you, FSP!) but BL maps are still pretty empty. Specially when you can play at morning or daytime.

I am having loads of fun on Desert maps atm. EB is overblobbed anyway, and has queues. It will be overblobbed even when Apline maps return and will have queues then too.

I would like to see these fixed too. Yet, if the Alpine maps are returning in few weeks, it is probably not worth the trouble to fix up these small details on the maps that may be never used again.

You can still defend, use siege, roam, use tactics, fight in smaller groups if you want. I can. Not sure if someone, or something is stopping you.

funghetto.1584:

we are linked with gandara – and at the moment, well, no kind of problems, except some trollers-ragers. but they are everywhere.

No we are not.

FoW is linked to Gunnars Hold.

As about constant blob vs blob fights… it happened on reset evening. I have also seen them on EB, but we also we defended our home BL with 5 people whole morning against 20+ FSP. And from those 5 players 4 were from FoW. So.. who is linked to who here?

Yuffi.2430:

In a previous post I suggested linking T1/T5, T2/T6, T3/T7 and T4/T8.
This does not even out population nearly as well. It was suggested in order to match play styles better.

I fail to see how that would create better balance between servers. That would only increase the gap between combined T1+T5 servers and T4+T8 servers. Meaning there would probably never any reason to go up a tier as you just get blobbed down again.

The purpose of changes is not simply reduce number of servers, or to create servers with very high population that will forever sit together in tier 1. In the end it should achieve that every server has fairly similar population and can fight any other server. We not there yet, only first steps toward it.

The FSP+UW blobs are pretty funny.

Well, you can do pretty much anything you like. New HoT maps are more difficult to explore so it may be better to finish up some older Tyria maps first. You can do personal story, you can do dungeons or fractals or go to WvW or PvP. It’s really about finding something you really LIKE to do.

I am getting slightly annoyed about all the people whining about queues. You do not HAVE to go EB every time, for god’s sake learn to play on BL maps too. And secondly, many servers still have lower population, transfer into these and make matches more balanced.

The large queue is created by players all gathering up into few top servers. It is not Anet fault and is not telling anything about world linking. If you, as a player, choose to go into most populated server, you have picked to play with queue. Accept it or pick smaller server.

There are just many more players playing WvW now. There will always be someone complaining, but what matters more is that players are back and enjoying the game instead of sitting in forum and writing up long comments about what is all wrong with it.

Yeah, I felt the lag too. Whenever enemy blob showed up, game just stopped for full second.

(I mostly play on BL maps since EB has queues)

Lets hope WvW continues to get same level of attention and good ideas continue to change it for the better.

sirjarros.4107:

From my perspective — and I’m not a huge server loyalist — both servers are being linked, thus both servers should “loose identity” on some level. I would much rather prefer the game reports that “Red Team captured Hardened Rampart” or “Green Team captured Habib’s Encampment” etc. Much more neutral. After all, server name is really irrelevant. Half the time I don’t even see it. I just see enemy nameplates.

That sounds good idea to me.

I thought it was weird too (my server is also linked to bigger server so we do not have home BL anymore). Actually, I would be happy if the home BL would be just called “Home”.

Desolation + Vabbi = Debbi

hm, my reply was mostly about your proposal to get rid of Glicko and scoring and points and base every match on server population. But if you just want to argue about something, fine by me

sniperman.1738:

You do understand that most people who move to low pop servers move there to avoid blobs and or que times on reset, the reason being for that is because they like to play wvw differently than others. Heaven forbid people and or the people who were on there servers wanted to be able to play the wvw experience without the blob or que times on reset.

Most people, unlike you, I guess, have never moved to different server. They picked one when they created first character, and then they were stuck with it. It was not really their fault for server-humpers to gather up into few bandwagons and abandon every other server. So many people in low population servers have quit the game because of WvW was completely boring and matches were dead. You make it sound like low population servers have people who specially picked those, it is completely not true. EVERYONE in there dream and hope for fights, for enemies to play against.

Heaven forbid people in last tier servers wanted to be able to play the WvW experience without spending 3 hours looking for single enemy.

sniperman.1738:

How would you feel if your guild had scheduled to run this reset, and lets say your server never qued up everything on a reset so you could run your ops no matter what. Well world linking has come along and now all the places are qued up on reset speaking for a guild that is not used to that and now because they weren’t on soon enough they do not get to do ops. Trust me i’ve seen a few complaints on here about not people not being able to get in on reset, and or people complaining about how they chose a lower server because they did not care for the blobs. Basically not every likes fights all the time, some people like to idk actually ppt rather than fight.

How would you feel if your guild had scheduled to run day after day, week after week, and not being able to find ANY enemy guilds anywhere? You would very soon find that this game is not really THAT interesting. You would perhaps post a comment or few on the forum. After hoping some time that things get better, you would quit.

Is that what you want? Less players? So you could PPT whole day, alone, in completely empty maps. Trust me, I’ve seen complaints about no enemies in low population server every day. It is not fun and it is surely not WvW.

There is no pure PPT in WvW, it’s all about enemies and fights. If you just want to fight NPCs, you can always go to many different PvE maps. There is no reason to do it in WvW.

sniperman.1738:

Also a purely based population system would work…

Not really, and I already posted why.

If you insist, I will post more – even in the large scale battles, the result is not always based on pure numbers. More people is helpful, sure, but there is also skill. The good commander can out-smart much larger enemy force. Well-trained guild groups easily wipe pug groups twice their size.

You want to ignore all that. Why exactly? Population is not everything.

sniperman.1738:

Lets say we keep glicko in, say the server is close to moving up a tier but the servers in the higher tier have a higher pop, so that server close to moving up would stand no chance, then when the population fail-safe matchup system in place, that server would not move up into that tier till there population was close or somewhat near those of the higher tier.

How do you know when the population difference becomes too big? There is no magic number to pop up and turn every stop sign on. In the end, you need 3 servers in every match. Some have more players, other have less. you still have to play together.

And you know, that is how Glicko creates matches too. Sometimes it gets stuck for very long time and same servers have to fight each other over and over and over again. Nobody likes that, and people start to complain. Sometimes it goes crazy and pushes one server too high or too low so they fight against much more or less populated servers. Nobody likes that either, and people start to complain. Again.

So, how is your system any different?

sniperman.1738:

But world linking is not the best idea in the world after time goes on people will mutually be tired of the blob fest that is now WvW, some guilds will even get tired of not being able to hold there ops on reset weekends like planned when there optimal numbers are on and pugs aka players will get tired as well of not being able to participate in wvw reset weekends because of ques.

It is not surely blob fest. There are more players in every map. There are much more players on prime time. There will probably be queues on reset night.

But on other times things are already much better. You do not have completely empty maps with no pplayers from any server, for hours and hours. Some players will find other guild groups and will fight those.

You based your feedback on trying the new system for how long? 1 hour? 2 hours? On reset night. And you are already sure it’s failed.

Eval.2371:

sniperman.1738:

I do suggest up the pop cap for maps to accommodate to the new world linking.

This is exactly what needs to be done. There is a lot people just saying “wait it out the ques and interest will die down and all will be fine” that’s exactly the problem we had before hand and what lead to certain servers being “dead”. Uping the limits will allow more people to have an enjoyable experience and for some they may actually get to play.

Map caps are not implemented to make players angry and leave. They are needed to avoid massive lags. Increasing the cap will just make more players lag = less enjoyment for eveyone.

Chris already posted on very similar thread:
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/World-linking-and-names/first#post6114044

Well, let’s see if we can have this idea posted without it being removed again. Basically, idea is to award points based on how many players from all servers are active.

We will first divide the 24 hour cycle into 4 timezones, each 6 hours:

• Prime Time – with every tick it gives 9 points for first place, 6 for second and 3 for third
• Not Completely Prime Time – this happens 6 hours before and after the PT. With every tick it gives 6 points for first place, 4 for second and 2 for third
• Mostly Off Time – with every tick it gives 3 points for first place, 2 for second and 1 for third

Now if there are more players from different servers playing for example MOT, it’s scoring level will be raised. It will also be set for each map separately so maps that are completely ruled by single server and no enemies trying to take objectives will be worth probably less then maps where all 3 servers fight constantly.

Next, we will provide a system where points awarded in the last 24 hours of every match, are tripled. This means that even when other servers have gained more points during the week, it would still be possible to win the match by trying hard on last day.

And third, changing the way points are awarded for objectives itself. You would first gain points for capturing it, and capturing higher tier objective gives more points.

Let’s say capturing keep with no tier gives your server 25 points, tier 1 keep 30, tier 2 gives 40 and taking fully upgraded keep gives 50 points. Same time, holding objectives with more tiers increases your points per tick too.

These 3 changes would be huge jump forward to make matches more interesting, more fair and reducing effects of nightcapping.

I can only talk about FoW+GH. Probably FoW had few more players then Vabbi and GH few less then Deso but basic idea remains same.

I have now tried WvW twice for couple hour sessions, at the Friday reset and Saturday morning. There were queues at reset, not long tho. No queues on Saturday morning session, just 1 pug group of 20+ people swapping maps when needed. From the looks of it, FSP and DZ are about equal population, at least nothing dramatically different.

Personally, I really like it now. The difference between tier 8 (where FoW used to sit) and this match are huge. So many enemies to fight, so many players everywhere. I have not seen many guild groups yet but I am sure they will also turn up eventually.

Nothing wrong with BL maps now that there are enemies to fight.

Yes, each account needs to be bought separately. But free account is perfectly playable, specially if you just want to try out different classes.

Check this thread:
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/World-Linking-Beta/first

Yak’s Bend & Anvil Rock
Blackgate & Eredon Terrace
Jade Quarry & Isle of Janthir
Tarnished Coast & Kaineng
Dragonbrand & Sanctum of Rall
Fort Aspenwood & Borlis Pass
Sea of Sorrows & Gate of Madness
Maguuma & Devona’s Rest
Stormluff Isle & Crystal Desert
Darkhaven & Ferguson’s Crossing
Henge of Denravi & Ehmry Bay
Northern Shiverpeaks & Sorrow’s Furnace

Not sure what you are after here. The low population server WERE fighting other low population servers for months. It was boring as hell and many players quit the game. You may not like Glicko but in the end, even with pure server population system, the matches would of been same.

Also, you do understand that different servers could have same population but play at different timezones? It has been common to win matches simply by having few players take every map when no enemy is around.

Finally, assuming there are no huge population movements, servers would NEVER have any chance to get into different match. There would basically be no reason to even win the match because winning or scoring or any number of points would have no effect on who you fight next week. You know who you fight – same guys you fought this week.

Chris Barrett.3280:

Plus, there actually just aren’t that many places in the UI where we show allied players’ world names, so this was an easy goal to keep for this side of things.

Could you add some short visitor server letters at least? It is not needed to always show full server names everywhere, just use the tags.

Example time!

Currently you see bunch of enemies from
“Host Server Name [HS] WvW Rank [Guild Tag]”
and if you select enemy it will show
“Host Server [HS] WvW Rank Full Guild Name”.

How about you show the short tag, like this
“[HS] WvW Rank [Guild Tag]”
and only once enemy is selected it will show the full server name
“Host Server [HS] WvW Rank Full Guild Name”

Now for the visiting server, enemy would see slightly different tag
“[HS+VS] WvW Rank [Guild Tag]”
and when selected it will show their real server
“Visiting Server [HS+VS] WvW Rank Full Guild Name”

Also, in the server chat channels, maybe can you add visiting server tag after their players? So instead of team/map chat showing stuff like this:

Player1: Hi
Player2: Who are you?

It would be like this (assuming Player1 is from HS and player 2 from VS):

Player1: Hi
Player2 [VS]: Who are you?

Warcry.1596:

WvW Forums pre-merge: WvW is dead! Our server has no players!

WvW Forums in merge-beta: Queues too long! Too many players!

Exactly.

If you do not like the queues, what should Anet do? Split servers again so many stay empty whole day? I have been in empty server for long time and people will quit if there are no enemies to fight. So I rather take the queue then dead match.

Could be that people from low-population server stick more to the BL maps. Specially when EB has long queues.

But sure, the last tier servers really are so empty, even the whole server from tier 8-9 has less players then 1 WvW guild in higher tier.

I never had problems with TS. Yeah, I know someone has to set it up first and maintain the server etc.

My main objection to GW2 in-game voice chat is this – same TS server can be used in many different games. Many players play more then GW2 but they still stay in same guild.

If the GW2 developers have nothing better to do, then maybe, but there is still lots of questions about in-game chat.

• will it include channels?
• can you join several channels?
• is it server-wide?
• how about guild channel?
• can you prevent other players joining your guild channel?
• what about guilds that have players from each server fighting each other in same match?

Dragon Lord.1026:

Is it possible to create more than 5 chars on one account without buying additional character slot? like maybe another realm with another 5 slots?

No, all your chars are attached to same server. You can of course create many different free accounts, you just can’t use same account-bound items then.

Necro is absolutely good class to play. They have several very good builds even without Reaper elite.

I got about 6 tomes within 2 hours while running around in BL map with pug group.

They all show host server names. I was fighting against UW players today and they all had FSP tags now. I knew them only from their guild tags so, nothing will show which smaller server they from. In every aspect, it IS merger, just it would be possible to relink servers in the future (looks very unlikely to me unless there will be massively more WvW players to create new tiers again).

Today queues were longer then usual. Give people some time to try this out before rushing with conclusions.

I got boosted from EU tier 8 into tier 5 and its whole different world. So many enemies. So many players everwhere. Some maps had queues, yes, but nothing major.

Anyway, we from FoW play for Gunnars now, so… (waves to all GH people). Anyway, I had great fun tonight, against FSP+UW and Dzagonur. There were queues below 10 on BL maps at the start, but I doubt this will be very common as everyone rushed to WvW.

While this basically means we got free transfer to GH, I honestly do not see how it could be solved any better.

Yes, careful with comments, their latest patch pretty much took stuff players suggested and just made those happen.

Thief… is not a class I would recommend. It has some nice mechanics and can do ton of single target damage but it has problems. For example does not survive against condi very well. Or has really weak ranged damage options. Very little AoE damage.

It’s best if you can jump on enemy and kill it very fast. If enemy survives your first spike, you either die or run away.

To me Rev is THE BEST, but it is kinda OP and pretty easy to play.

I always liked Guardian in PvE. Put some defensive stuff on and you never really can die. DH is just great addition but Guardian is very playable without it too. Players always complain about how their class is now unusable, it is very rarely true and even if it is, they mean at the very top PvP or WvW battles.

In massive zerg fight everything becomes difficult to see. Not sure if the commander tag is something that should always pop out of screen first. I can imagine much brighter tags will become very annoying very soon when you are not in massive zerg fight, which is about 95% of total time.

Don’t transfer anywhere atm. Lots of changes are planned to WvW – server linking, return of Alpine maps and much more.

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.

WvW map completion was removed because it was part of world completion. For some players in low tier servers it was near impossible to get all 4 maps completed since the matchups never changed and you simply do not take enemy keeps with 4 people left in your server. If you are purely PvE player, that is really unfair.

As about map completion in WvW without it being part of world completion, I am all for it. I mean it would be not required but it would give you small prize if you do it.

Queue… what is that? Never seen one so far.

I dunno, I usually expect worst but this April update has been great so far.

Welcome, hope you enjoy GW2 as much as I have

When you say, “got” GW2, you mean the payed expansion Heart of Thorns? Because base game is free.

The ranking is currently only needed to match servers with fairly equal power/population/coverage. The best scenario we all hope for would mean all servers end up with much closer to each other so they all could fight every other server. In such happy case the ranking becomes pointless and matches could be set up randomly.

Only other need for ranking would be WvW Tournament but I do not see that hapening very soon.

It was a bug that was not helping fights at all. Now that it got fixed, finally, you can argue about how effective different siege damage is against different types of enemies.

If you continue to demand player stats should affect siege, why stop at AC conditions only? Shouldn’t ALL siege be affected by ALL player stats then? The Golems should move based on player speed, the range of Ballista should be based on player Ferocity, the HP of gates should be based on player Vitality.

Well, to be honest, I am still surprised they bothered to fix Desert maps at all, knowing that Alpine maps are being restored within few week. As such, considering all the work they did on Desert maps is going to be forgotten shortly, they did very good job on making Desert maps better.

And no, as far I understand, this was NOT the big WvW update they have been working on. The leaked notes that can not be mentioned in these forums have been spot on so far, just look through those to see what to expect next.

MaximillianVonSchatten.6278:

These alliances will be flexible so I’m not sure how they’ll determine how much work each server is actually doing to reflect their “glicko”. (ie a T1 server will do 90% of the work when paired with a T8 server, how will this be split up to determine ranking for each server?)

The way I understand it, 2 linked servers will have shared rating. For example if Far Shiverpeaks is linked with Whiteside Ridge, they do not have ranks separately anymore, only one linked server FSP+WSR will be ranked.

If in the future there would be need to unlink those or link WSR to another server, they can go on easy route and just count number of players logged into WvW every month from both linked servers. It does not have to be exact, just close enough. Then split the rating based on players counted.

Anyway, thats how I imagine it. We will hear about actual system soon enough.