Guild Wars 2

Two weapons with a bloodlust on each weapon. 12 mob kills =24 stacks. I have done it that way since forever.

I wonder what will happen if you use two weapons with the sigil to get stacks twice as fast, then replace one of the weapons with something else….still leaving one weapon with the stack sigil?

Nike.2631:

The OP was complaining that Rangers were unfairly impacted by the reduction in Crit damage. REALITY compelled me to point out that A ) the reduction is absolutely proportional for EVERYONE, and B ) When you’re starting from a lower base (which Rangers do) the absolute magnitude of the loss is in fact smaller than other classes.

So, I am in fact against the “Ranger pity festival” this thread tried to throw.

Rangers have problems. The Ferocity change ISN’T ONE OF THEM.

See, I had it right !

First thing. He was saying the nerf to crit damage hurts other classes more than Rangers …he was directing that at someone that was saying the opposite.

I am generally a Ranger advocate, but yes, Ranger power builds are the bottom of the barrel compared to other classes ….especially if the 70/30 ratio is accurate. It’s basic math.

….but yes, I also think a power build can work as I use one myself in WvW at times. The 70% rule still applies though.

Ryoki Hokishami.2756:

Forzani.2584:

Ryoki Hokishami.2756:

Nike.2631:

Whoa. On a class with fundamentally garbage power-based damage you thought stacking crit damage did more for you than it does for other classes?

There was no amount of crit damage stacking you could do as a Ranger that other classes couldn’t do the same and multiply up from better base values.

The change hits ALL power-based damage dealers and it hits them proportionally.

Are you here just to pick fights? I swear this sub-forum is a toxic cesspool of both ranger hate and self ranger hate. I don’t get it.

I think you guys are making a mountain out of a molehill here.

Sorry, but Nike is correct.

So why does everything have to be a permanent DPS race? Rangers can still utilize critical damage well, why does it matter if it’s slightly weaker than other classes (Which no one has provided evidence towards, mind you.)

Seriously, who cares? If you enjoy the class, keep playing. It’s not like this game has dps checks built in or anything.

Also, as a previous poster mentioned, everyone seems to forget the pet in the equation, for whatever reason.

After reading your comment I think quite possibly you misunderstood what he is saying.

whiteflower.9425:

“Two-handed weapons can now be slotted with two sigils.” So you can have the +250 power and other not-on-kill sigil.

Whiff and a miss

Ryoki Hokishami.2756:

Nike.2631:

Whoa. On a class with fundamentally garbage power-based damage you thought stacking crit damage did more for you than it does for other classes?

There was no amount of crit damage stacking you could do as a Ranger that other classes couldn’t do the same and multiply up from better base values.

The change hits ALL power-based damage dealers and it hits them proportionally.

Are you here just to pick fights? I swear this sub-forum is a toxic cesspool of both ranger hate and self ranger hate. I don’t get it.

I think you guys are making a mountain out of a molehill here.

Sorry, but Nike is correct.

I like GW2, but many of the things in game seemed trollish in nature. All games have bugs or things that need fixing. Honest mistakes. I have never experienced a game that seems to troll the players like GW2 does at times.

Most will recall the old Beavis and Butthead and the constant snickering over things that they thought funny. After watching my first ever twitch feed today, many things became much more clear and made more sense. I can honestly see them doing the B+B snicker after implementing something new.

It is painfully obvious what classes they play…or don’t play. It seems like GW2 has been set up as their own little playground. The twitch feed displayed an obvious lack of professionalism that left me frankly a little surprised.

Terravos.4059:

I mean bloody hell, Simply look at the chat during the Event to see what we’re talking about..Every class was getting “Wow that’s op” spammed down it..Not a single person was like said anything remotely like that during the Ranger ones..Everyone was pretty much like “meh”

100% true. I watched the whole thing and when other traits were introduced..especially Ele it was like …“wth” ..“lol wow” etc etc

Rangers are really going to need some good boosts after seeing what other classes are getting. Some crazy stuff watching the twitch feed

Perma Blindness? Blinding Ashes
Can’t be hit by crits? Stone Heart

Can’t wait to see the rest of it

blud.8174:

blud.8174:

This feels like I’m getting hustled.

At least make the thing a major trait. It would only make sense if they really buffed longbow’s damage because as it is, my autoattack pales in comparison to other classes’ autoattacks.

The most frustrating thing is that they could have discussed this in the CDI and received feedback or something (because I really wonder if any of the balance team seriously plays ranger enough to have an idea of what the player who mains ranger experiences.)

Okay so I’ve done some critical thinking and looked at the other profession forums and this is what I’ve found:

It must be awful to be a dev reading reactions after a release like this. Nearly every forum feels that their new GM trait is lackluster, that it’s in the wrong trait line, and that no one at anet must play their class.

The notable exceptions are thieves and mesmers who are more satisfied than the others with their new GM trait. Also found that 4 of the classes had jokes about the ranger on the first page.

How I feel now : Shooting projectiles from long range gives you some defense against harsh melee attacks, but that should come with a cost. Correct me if I’m wrong, but similar projectile attacks on other classes are also vulnerable to strafing. I still feel that it is too little for a GM trait (combine it with Eagle eye please) but here’s the thing: like Allie said, our thing should be masters of sustained damage (burst is dodgeable, but persistent attacks can wreak havoc).

So one scenario I think this would be useful is when you have an opponent that you’ve almost downed when they start to run away. Normally they’d be able to dodge through your rapid fire for example, but this way the foe will be increasing damage to themselves by adding range to our autoattack and he’ll more likely take that damage too.

I am being a positive optimist. Besides, you wouldn’t show your best hand first and then reveal the lesser ones so maybe it’s worth waiting to see.

P. S. Go watch the anet zerg in EOTM from two ready ups ago. There’s only one ranger amongst them and he’s running hyena.

Good post. anet is far from perfect, but people wonder why they don’t make more appearances in the cesspool that are the forums?

Also agree that plunking from 1800 units shouldn’t do as much consistent damage as compared to being in melee range…especially an auto attack

Sube Dai.8496:

Forzani.2584:

Good points about switching traits before a fight.

I’m actually quite annoyed about that change. Having to change build immediately before a fight sounds like uneccessary micro management.

You don’t have to change anything if you don’t want to. It’s an option.

Nuzt.7894:

Bertrand.3057:

Good. Give the innovative players a chance to shine, rather than letting cookie-cutter masses have all the say. I’d rather this than have to wait for the end of the Tournament, which I couldn’t care all that much about anyways.

I don’t understand what you think is going to happen ? There will still be cookie cutter spec’s, they may use a different trait set but don’t fool yourself there will always be dominant spec’s.

Me thinks you don’t understand the timeline between an innovative spec and a cookie cutter spec

Thedenofsin.7340:

Shiny new traits are all flashy and attractive… BUT

Are you going to have a sit-down and talk about the current META and what you have done to correct it?

The last time we had a discussion about fixing the meta, you guys introduced all new heals to ‘shake up the meta’. It had no impact on the meta.

I’d rather see a discussion about what changes you have put in place the fix the meta. Specifically:

HS Warriors
Apex Thieves
decap Engies

Sanctioned for overuse of the word ‘meta’

Reikou.7068:

Neftex.7594:

This matters a lot in WvW, releasing something what is not tested in the middle of competitive event is going to be a disaster. Enjoy all the leaving players Anet.

>WvW
>Competitive event.

You serious now?

lol no kidding.

I harp on Anet at times, but it doesn’t matter what they do, these forums are going to complain about it.

Bombsaway.7198:

Wait and see. It wouldn’t be the first time that a blog description did not fully convey what a skill did. This might be a lot better than you think. Furthermore, it is 1 of 5.

Too sensible and logical. You’re type not welcome around here !

Good points about switching traits before a fight.

So much angst after 1 of 5 new traits is announced. We don’t know what the other traits are. We don’t know what the other classes are going to get. We haven’t tested this new trait so can’t know how effective it is or isn’t.

DS seemed to work ok in the video. I just can’t wrap my head around a 1300 hp cushion before the DS breaks. That isn’t a lot of damage.

I would think the over/under for any potential changes for the Ranger would be May.

Thanks for the help. I have been clearing all cookies. Had to do it yesterday and today. It seems to work.

bri.2359:

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

bri.2359:

Am I the only one here that thought the CDI was deliberately structured by Anet to fail??

Forzani.2584:

Agree 100%. I have said the same thing from the beginning….and I have been called a conspiracy theorist. I believe the CDI was created to let the Ranger population vent and hopefully placate them for awhile.

Welcome to the internet. I sort of share this but at the same time, if all they wanted was to do that, they could have gotten away with doing a lot less.

Please, go back to the CDI thread and count the number of ‘red’ posts.
I cannot imagine any less Anet involvement in a 60+ page CDI thread that Anet created/owned, and I am convinced this was by design.

This was the staff meeting I envisaged at Anet before the ranger CDI went live:

Staffer 1: Ok, peeps, ranger CDI coming up …
All staff: <groans>
Staffer 1: Come on guys, we at least have to appear to be interested ..
All staff: <more groans>
Staffer 2: So, any volunteers to lead this??
Staffer 3: <drops pen, ducks down to find it>
Staffer 4: Gotta use the toilet <leaves room>
Staffer 5: <spills drink on laptop>
Staffer 6: We need a way to decide this …
Allie: <arrives late> Hi guys, what did I miss??
All staff: <grins>
Staffer 1: We decided you will lead the ranger CDI!
Allie: Not fair!
Staffer 2: Don’t worry, you won’t have to do anything.
Staffer 3: Yeah, call in sick or something ..
Staffer 5: Look, this way you won’t have to do the ele CDI ..
Allie: But I like eles!
Staffer 6: We will bring you coffee and donuts for a week .
Allie: <ponders free coffee and donuts for a week> Oh, alright then …

You beat me to it Bri.

Other than creating the CDI post, they truely couldn’t have done anything less….except maybe have one of the janitor staff monitor the thread.

They put zero effort into it. Nada. They grabbed a hunk of meat and threw it into a pit of dogs, stood back and laughed.

Substance E.4852:

Forzani.2584:

Obsidian.1328:

Forzani.2584:

Prysin.8542:

…………..

1.Please keep the modes APART.

2. If you refuse to play the class as intended by the developers, then you will not be successful. .

Two statements that should be stamped on the forehead of every Ranger new or old

You’re right. But I refuse to play a class as intended that is designed without reason and common sense. ANet’s fault, not the players.

Doesn’t that kind of go without saying?

I wont be playing Wildstar. I can’t stand the look of it. Same thing with Warlords of Draenor. Both games getting hyped, but I can’t stand the cartoon characters.

Why would I ever complain about that? they have a product. The consumer either agrees with the product…or not.

Disagreeing with aesthetic choices is different from disagreeing with mechanics choices that don’t work. It’s unreasonable to expect a game to look/feel such that everyone loves it stylistically. It’s a whole other thing to expect a game to work correctly, and not an unreasonable one at that.

I, and many others, bought the game knowing full well the Ranger had a pet %100 of the time. I actually welcomed this, I thought “hey, maybe they figured out how to make it work in a way that it didn’t in GW1. Maybe I can have a functional pet without having to sacrifice survivability/playerdamage”

Instead, we got a pet that brings virtually no advantage to the class and actually hurts us in many spots because it can die and take both our damage and utility with it. Had I known that, I and many others, probably wouldn’t have bought the game.

ok, we agree on that. I thought you were alluding to something else. If you were happy with the pet idea, then you are completely correct in not being happy with how the pet actually works.

Obsidian.1328:

Forzani.2584:

Prysin.8542:

…………..

1.Please keep the modes APART.

2. If you refuse to play the class as intended by the developers, then you will not be successful. .

Two statements that should be stamped on the forehead of every Ranger new or old

You’re right. But I refuse to play a class as intended that is designed without reason and common sense. ANet’s fault, not the players.

Doesn’t that kind of go without saying?

I wont be playing Wildstar. I can’t stand the look of it. Same thing with Warlords of Draenor. Both games getting hyped, but I can’t stand the cartoon characters.

Why would I ever complain about that? they have a product. The consumer either agrees with the product…or not.

Atherakhia.4086:

Nike.2631:

I have to admit, prior to this round of threads I was against a player council.

Now I’m considering it if it would give someone — anyone — real access to the people who actually make the decisions instead of a red named secretary passing notes and tossing out “insights” that are so simplistic and divorced from real gameplay as to be offensive. Busted Pet AI is “a broken 2×4.” Yeah, that one is going down in the Hall of Shame.

My only concern with a player council approach is the same problem I had with all those SotG podcasts that Grouch lead. They never looked at the class as a whole, they only ever focused on one little niche and so long as the Ranger offered something in that niche, they were under the impression the class was perfect.

It will be the same with the player council imo. Those who like the condi builds or prefer playing non-ranged rangers may not be able/willing to discuss these topics for the betterment of the class as a whole. They’ll simply accept that the way they play is safe and secure and ignore the issues that don’t directly affect them.

A council or rep system is only as good as the 4+ people that the community feels has a good+ grasp of the class….an open and reasonable mind. I think we know a few people that would qualify.

Is the US electorate system perfect? No, it could be a lot better. Still, it is better than anything else.

A council or rep system is the same idea. Yes it is possible to end up a failure. It is also possible to be a great success. In previous games I have seen both ends of the spectrum. To dismiss it because it might not work is foolish.

How it is set up now with the CDI? Zero chance of success.

I choose a chance for success rather than zero chance

Nike.2631:

I have to admit, prior to this round of threads I was against a player council.

Now I’m considering it if it would give someone — anyone — real access to the people who actually make the decisions instead of a red named secretary passing notes and tossing out “insights” that are so simplistic and divorced from real gameplay as to be offensive. Busted Pet AI is “a broken 2×4.” Yeah, that one is going down in the Hall of Shame.

That’s the only way it would work. Just like they do in any AGM …strata meeting…business meeting……committees etc etc. A filter is needed before presenting it to the man. A neat, concise well written format that Anet can use and not have to decipher.

Chrispy.5641:

I’ll admit, I totally forgot the new season was starting next week…Lets do WvW instead. And I don’t think any topic is too broad, as long as it generally sticks to one profession (Ranger in this case). I’d rather keep the thread in one specific subforum though, since having 2 different threads with the same title might get confusing to follow.

And yeah, any player should be entitled to make a post and give their thoughts, not just Rangers.

In a perfect world maybe it would work. Reality? Unless you have an active moderator involved it’s going to end up exactly the same as the CDI = garbage

..and my stance will never change on opinions. I prefer informed opinions from people that know the class. Not an outside source looking in…..or else that also turns into a cesspool of “well my class doesn’t have that, why would Rangers need that” …“my class needs more help first” etc etc vomit ….just like what happened in the CDI

Stop the reliance on Anet. Infact, to hell with them

Unfortunatley Anet is the one that would be making any changes so yea, they are kind of needed.

bri.2359:

Am I the only one here that thought the CDI was deliberately structured by Anet to fail??

It was clear from the start Allie was incapable of running the ranger CDI. Crikey, she obviously never played a ranger let alone understood complex class balance issues. How could she be expected to pass this stuff on to the devs?

Anet could could have taken control of the CDI any time they wanted, but they deliberately let it slide into mayhem. Why?? Because they know full well what the problems are, but do want to the spend the time and resources to fix them.

This way Anet can say they tried but the ranger community failed to understand Anet’s concept for the class, so they can carry on ignoring the problems.

Agree 100%. I have said the same thing from the beginning….and I have been called a conspiracy theorist. I believe the CDI was created to let the Ranger population vent and hopefully placate them for awhile.

Eventually ……..eventually, there will be some small tweaks. They are not going to reinvent the class like so many think.

Chokolata.1870:

@Tobias: How dare you blame it on the posters?? The topic was poorly moderated from the get go and we had zero feedback on the developer side of things. Never did we get a “we are considering this and that” and the closest thing to a proper interaction was a gathered list that will be shown to the developers.

Im calling it now. Next patch will be a net nerf to the ranger

You are both correct. Horrible format without any guidance + posters spamming unrealistic “ideas” and redesigning the class with zero chance of having it implemented = clusterkitten

Jocksy.3415:

Prysin.8542:

snip
Please keep the modes APART.
Ranger is in the higher tiers in PvP, High tier in dungeons, viable but not preferred in PvE and useful in smaller WvW encounters.
snip.

Are we talking about the same class?

Ranger is in the higher tiers in PvP
Which high level PvP team is looking for rangers?

High tier in dungeons
And getting kicked from most groups even before saying hi?

viable but not preferred in PvE
hummmm… Solo PvE, maybe… Not gonna do the 6 mins achiev on any server that has half rangers, though you’re pretty sure to win it if there’s half that’s war…

useful in smaller WvW encounters
Though, once again, when partying the question is always “do you have an other character?”

---

Some people would rather have me bring one of my level 40ish uplevels than my level 80 ranger…
Does that not give an idea of how well is the ranger profession doing?

That statement is laughable.

The past few days I have been receiving this message when I try and go to the forums using Google Chrome …

Sorry, this area isn’t available yet. Please check back later. Try going back home?

Strangely IE it works.

Ideas?

Thanks

Matipzieu KyA.9613:

I have an incredibly stupid question.

If one of the core problems we’re looking at is trying to halt karma trains and instead promote defensive objective gameplay (i.e. defend keep, defend tower) which in turn would promote more zerg on zerg fights, wouldn’t a sensible solution just be to increase the amount of PPT that objectives give over time?

This would provide a real, tangible defense reward, and would encourage greater levels of (1) fights, and (2) upgrading (meaningfully claiming, and getting excited about “this is OURS!”).

Here’s an example of what I mean:

Tower: held for 0 minutes to 60 minutes: 15 PPT per tick (current)
Tower: held for 60 minutes to 2 hours: 20 PPT per tick
Tower: held for 2 hours to 3 hours: 25 PPT per tick
Tower: held for over 3 hours: 30 PPT per tick

Keep: held for 0 minutes to 1 hour: 25 PPT per tick (current)
Keep: held for 1 hour to 2 hours: 30 PPT per tick
Keep: held for 2 hours to 3 hours: 35 PPT per tick
Keep: held for over 3 hours: 40 PPT per tick

Stonemist: held for 0 minutes to 1 hour: 35 PPT per tick (assuming we keep current SM)
Stonemist: held for1 hour to 2 hours: 40 PPT per tick
Stonemist: held for 2 hours to 3 hours: 45 PPT per tick
Stonemist: held for over 3 hours: 50 PPT per tick

Supply camps (these would be meant to flip, so maybe a little different):
Supply camp: 0 min to 30 minutes: 10 PPT per tick
Supply camp: 30 min to 1 hour: 15 PPT per tick
Supply camp: over 1 hour: 20 PPT per tick

The particular amounts that I’ve assigned don’t necessarily matter. This was a first-pass suggestion that I came up with that would slowly accelerate the value of the targets. This would create increasing incentives to both defend and attack key objectives, and would reorient the game towards objective-based gameplay, AND encouraging fights without completely revamping the existing system.

However, something like this would need to be carefully thought out. One of the major risks is that in a server set where we have gross imbalances already, this would perpetuate them. (For example, servers A, B, C are going after each other. A is consistently dominating and has a clear point lead every week.) I believe the correct counter to this is that when a server hits a certain ratio of low points for that week, that server should acquire an “underdog” buff, which enhances the amount of PPT gained under this system (10 instead of +5 for every increment held, for example) or decreases the amount of time (for example, an “underdog” server gets the full 3 hours bonus as soon as they capture an objective).

That is probably one of the best ideas to deal with karma trains I have seen so far. The problem is the majority of people like karma trains unfortunately.

Yoh.8469:

Just a note of interest.
I’m playing around with a Nature’s Voice build and I noticed something rather odd.
Why does Guard have a 1 sec cast time? Really, I want to know.
I can’t make heads or tails of it, that a skill type which has always been defined by having instant cast times, doesn’t.
Not that the rest of their functionality has anything to do with shouts either.
It’s just a really weird design choice.

Can’t remember the name, but he will make an appearance telling you that it needs a 1 sec cast time or else it would be overpowered. That a shout isn’t always a shout

LightningBlaze.4913:

The cd is not 15 secs anymore….Forzani, I used that build for s/f a while back. It can be a lot of fun, specially when you have the reduce fire skills cd trait. You can also try taking 5 points away from water and give it to arcane. Roaming with s/f and from 0-10 points in the arcane tree is very effective.

Been using S/D more and doing LF bombs with Churning Earth. Unbelievable damage when you use fire followup. Only 14-17 Toughness though so need to get in and out fast.

I have been having a blast using this.

I changed it up. It’s now 20-30-0-20-0

Same armor as before so 60+ crit chance and 72% crit damage

I use cantrips to get in and out. Some crazy damage.

Dynamic handicapping sounds cool …no idea what it means though

Durzlla.6295:

Nabarue.3290:

I play my ranger casually from time to time, but have noticed I’ve been giving him more time than usual, and I think it’s time to get a little serious about it.

Let me start off: I love Sword/Torch. It’s fun, its fluid, and the sword is just great. So with that parameter set, I would like to try making a build for him around that.

I will WvW with him, and I mainly roam. I would LIKE to try the condi route, but if it doesn’t work, that is ok. What do you guys think, I was hoping the collective ranger community could help me round out this problem.

Thanks!

My suggestion would be run a Rampagers set with sharpened edges and maybe even sharpening stones, grab companions might, Sigil of earth, and then put 20pts in WS, and 20 in BM (take vigorous training)

Would be very nice damage. Seems a little glassy

I’m thinking the build is something like this …without the perplexity?

http://gw2skills.net/editor/?vMUQRAnf8YjMqUxaBL+rQ1agYVAQtHZy8Y69IWrv9nspntC-zUCBIODimWAmkGk+IQ5RFRjtsuIas6FYKUER1eFFRrmUALKNC-w

This would look fantastic on my male Norn Warrior

Some nice fights. Great use of Sword. I am 50/50 using it to get distance when trying to run away but I can’t use it to catch people like you do!

Very good point …and a good idea.

Illogical.6218:

1. day and night is different for everyone…
there are only EU and USA servers… what about the rest of the world…
what about the EU players that play in USA servers and visa versa
you cannot force people to move to a server where there is a ‘daytime concept’

2. ^also leads to the fact that some servers got way more people playing wvw in nighttime than EB can handle… means you are forcing people not to play WvW.

3. Probably most important one…
WvW isn’t about winning the match-up
It is about enjoying the concept, the fights, taking towers/keeps
Do you really think countless of people log-in everyday just because they want to win a match-up? no…

I think many people don’t log-on when their server is getting pummeled or not have much chance of winning.

Virtute.8251:

Forzani.2584:

Virtute.8251:

No.
ANet has done precisely what should be done for them to profit from human nature, and this is a primary responsibility they have to their shareholders.

Allowing free transfers a year+ ago helped them how? Offering free transfers again now trying to correct their mistakes?

Yes, they made some money in between these times with paid transfers but at what expense?

I could think of analogy after analogy of other businesses failing after doing the same thing. Short term profit followed by bankruptcy. If I was a shareholder I wouldn’t be happy with this…unless I had witnessed their actions and sold my stock before the inevitable collapse.

ANet is a private corporation, and I said stakeholders, not shareholders. Stakeholders in this case includes their employees, their publishers, and their publishers’ employees.

…

Feb 13 14

ArenaNet reported sales results for the fourth quarter and full year ended December 2013. For the quarter, the company reported sales of USD 11.4 million. For the year, the company reported sales of USD 43.6 million.

http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=4003429

Tell me more about your emotional bias that invests too much in the fantasy world within the game that they’re producing for profit and livelihood.

lol seriously? I don’t care if it is a ‘fantasy’ game or a widget making company. The ability to have the foresight to look into the future and predict what is coming is what every solid company does.

If their plan was to go hard for a couple of years, make some cash, then let it slide then it makes total sense. If the plan was to try and emulate the year after year success of WoW then they are in for disappointment.

They have something unique in WvW. Their version was the best since Daoc. Two major competitors are coming after that WvW crowd. ESO and Camelot Unchained. Anet can try and compete, or take the money and run. By their lack of attention to WvW it appears their ‘stakeholders’ are taking the money.

…and I have zero bias. If I enjoy a game, I play. If not, I don’t. I haven’t really invested any time in a game since Daoc so I don’t give a rats kitten if GW2 continues or fails.

Virtute.8251:

No.
ANet has done precisely what should be done for them to profit from human nature, and this is a primary responsibility they have to their shareholders.

Allowing free transfers a year+ ago helped them how? Offering free transfers again now trying to correct their mistakes?

Yes, they made some money in between these times with paid transfers but at what expense?

I could think of analogy after analogy of other businesses failing after doing the same thing. Short term profit followed by bankruptcy. If I was a shareholder I wouldn’t be happy with this…unless I had witnessed their actions and sold my stock before the inevitable collapse.

…and enough with all these recruitment “strategies” and drama inducing guild transfers.

Straegen.2938:

The entire system is flawed and needs a re-imagining.

Kurr.4179:

Honestly the main issue is that there are too many dead servers…

It should be 18 servers, split in 2 leagues of 9 or 3 leagues of 6.

This wouldn’t just help WvW, it would help PvE. The bottom half servers are desolate places.

Agree.

Anet needs to understand the theory of cause and effect. They completely ignored human nature when they allowed free transfers….or in fact any transfers. People gravitate to the ‘grass is greener’ concept. Combine that with wanting to play on servers they deemed more powerful with a game that rewards servers with more coverage and you have created a disaster.

The current setup is not fixable. It will require a full revamp for WvW to survive. I’m not sure if Anet has the will or desire to put the necessary work in.

lordhelmos.7623:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0n8N98mpes

ok, that really made me laugh !

No win scenario for Anet

1. Try to match similar strength servers to battle each other = people complain about lack of variety.

2. More random matchups = people complain about fighting servers that are way stronger/weaker than their own. Too many blowouts.

I’m sure Anet, and all of us, would love to hear the solution. Complaining is easy, obviously. Tougher to solve the issue.

Prysin.8542:

…………..

1.Please keep the modes APART.

2. If you refuse to play the class as intended by the developers, then you will not be successful. .

Two statements that should be stamped on the forehead of every Ranger new or old.