Just putting my support behind adding more worlds.
Group identity will be fine, and will probably be better than what we have now. Right now all we have is a bunch of people who transfer from server to server. There is no group identity.
JQ literally hasn’t been organized in years. Anyone claiming they are tanking on purpose is full of it or just outright lying.
JQ for the last year is a pug server with a decent SEA presence. And JQ’s SEA has always done their own thing.
It’s just ANET pulling their shenanigans again. ANET devs were the ones who leaked some info a few months back that caused the exodus of NA players from JQ. ANET did it specifically to hurt JQ.
Why certain devs over their have it in for JQ while they allow BG to overstack every chance they can is a mystery but I assume it’s some stupid personal reason that has nothing to do with 99.99999 percent of players on JQ. How classless and short sighted.
More, smaller “worlds”, which would of course be easier with matchmaking.
Problems are heavily stacked servers.. what incentives would there be to destack from servers like BG?
As long as ANET doesn’t open up BG for transfers for a very extended period of time (a year or more) then it will destack naturally through attrition. ANET will have to stick with it though. Even opening it up for a short period allows the bandwagoners to jump to the easy mode blobship.
Now..can we please stop this nonsense about battlegroups, and get back to actually discussing server linkings?
Gaile merged the battlegroup thread into this one. This is where we are to discuss it.
As for the rest of your comments, you misunderstood my intent. But that’s ok.
I would prefer to hear your proposed solutions to WvW’s problems.
(edited by Grim West.3194)
Here is what I concluded from reading this nonsense about battlegroups….A bunch of elitists want to exclude the rest of the community. Yea…no thanks, how about we let people play how, when, where they want.
Lol.
First:
WvW is a failure in it’s current form.
Changes have to be made or it will continue to suffer the agonizingly slow death march it is currently in: Less players, less fun and most importantly – less revenue for the company that maintains it.And the alliance business model outlined in this thread is terrible. The minute you narrow your focus, you eliminate groups, and lose players.
What do you propose they do to fix the fubar system they have now?
I meant to post more before hitting reply as you can see in my edit. I’m not sold on the battlegroup system either. But it could work with the right setup.
But one thing I don’t like about the replies so far is the constant whining without any possible solutions. We already know the current system sucks. Offer a fix to what we have now or come up with something better.
The Devs are just as desperate as we are for a solution.
I’ve suggested that you cap existing servers like the battle group suggestion and keep them locked, no matter what, with spaces only opening through attrition.
Overcrowded existing servers would evict accounts based on seniority, until parity is reached.
The alliance system locks people into a group for 14 weeks. You don’t think that will annoy people?
Couple that with a doubling transfer cost each time you jump, and I think you’d begin to see stability, cater to ALL players who all paid the same cost of the game, and keep everyone happy, rather than the select few who have clearly outlined their agenda in the past couple of pages of this thread.
Most games are scrambling to create community, because they know that equates to player attachment and longevity of the game.
Blow that up and it will be a steady slip into obscurity.
I definitely agree with what you are trying to accomplish. We are on the same page.
My differences are minor, like instead of doubling the gem cost of transfers, I would limit transfers to a certain time interval, payed vs f2p, etc.
And instead of evicting players (like on BlobGate), I would lock BlackGate for transfers for 1 or 2 years. Schadenfreude. I’m not usually like that, but in this case they deserve it. ANET won’t go that far but they should. BlackGate gamed ANET’s system until it broke, and we are ALL suffering the consequences. Make them pay.
Agree that 14 weeks is WAY TO F’ING LONG. Modern gamers don’t have the time or inclination for 14 Week Snooze Fests. Match results will be determined within a couple of weeks at most. Why prolong the agony? Total waste of time. ANET still has a Snail mindset in the Age of Leopards.
As for “Community”; you can acknowledge the hardcore server vets by giving seniority priority in Battlegroup assignments. But in reality, community just isn’t as big a deal as you claim because ANET’s fool move of being able to transfer at whim pretty much killed community in the womb. And I say that having never paid for a transfer.
The “minority of players” you mention has never been a part of ANET’s philosophy. What makes you think they would be that stupid now? If ANET made the system all inclusive (which fits with their stated philosophy and what they have built so far) then it won’t be any worse than we have now.
And if ANET truly gets a clue, they will make small groups and singles the focus of any changes they make.
TLDR:, Kill blobs and all is well.
(edited by Grim West.3194)
Here is what I concluded from reading this nonsense about battlegroups….A bunch of elitists want to exclude the rest of the community. Yea…no thanks, how about we let people play how, when, where they want.
Lol.
First:
WvW is a failure in it’s current form.
Changes have to be made or it will continue to suffer the agonizingly slow death march it is currently in: Less players, less fun and most importantly – less revenue for the company that maintains it.And the alliance business model outlined in this thread is terrible. The minute you narrow your focus, you eliminate groups, and lose players.
What do you propose they do to fix the fubar system they have now?
I meant to post more before hitting reply as you can see in my edit. I’m not sold on the battlegroup system either. But it could work with the right setup.
But one thing I don’t like about the replies so far is the constant whining without any possible solutions. We already know the current system sucks. Offer a fix to what we have now or come up with something better.
The Devs are just as desperate as we are for a solution.
Here is what I concluded from reading this nonsense about battlegroups….A bunch of elitists want to exclude the rest of the community. Yea…no thanks, how about we let people play how, when, where they want.
Lol.
First:
WvW is a failure in it’s current form.
Changes have to be made or it will continue to suffer the agonizingly slow death march it is currently in: Less players, less fun and most importantly – less revenue for the company that maintains it.
Second:
I am very far from an elitist and at this point in the game about as casual as you can get. Also, I actually would prefer that the existing system be fixed by killing blobs and servers like BlobGate. But I’m not blindly opposed to change. The proposed battlegroup system could work for the average casual player if done right.
Give ANET some cogent ideas instead of complaints.
(edited by Grim West.3194)
Who will “lead” these battle groups?
That just means tonnes of work to keep purging random troll f2p accounts that keep filling up my
alliancebattle group.How does one then stay with their community? They would be forced to join a battle group or risk changing
communityrandom players every season?
You have a lot of very good questions, all of which need answers. For the three quoted above I can see possible solutions.
Leadership of battlegroups:
Leadership of Battlegroups could be left to the commander tags we have in place. With random placement of players and guilds into battlegroups, it will be up to those leaders to rally the players they are given.
And I would propose that nobody can be kicked by any other player. Let the system kick players for inactivity perhaps, but it would have to require not logging in for a significant portion of the match.
F2P account trolls:
Don’t allow them. Only allow people who have bought the expansion(s) to play. In fact, I would suggest that if they do introduce this system or one like it that they wait until the next expansion.
Community
The new battlegroups could be called by the Server Names we have in place. Placement into those battelgroups could be given preference to players that have been on their servers the longest. Your spot could be “saved” for a certain amount of days before opening up to be filled by someone newer to the server or randomly placed by the system.
I can see an option after you click to join a battegroup that asks if you want to be placed into your server’s battlegroup or randomly amongst the others.
.
Would rather they fix the server system we have by forcing server balance (forcibly destack BlobGate), and killing blob warfare. But if they did decide to go the battlegroup route, I think it is workable. It could even be fun if done right.
(edited by Grim West.3194)
I think polling the players was a good PR move and we all appreciate that ANET listened. But it doesn’t really work. As was said above, find a direction and stick to it.
I can see ANET’s dilemma though, WvW for all of it’s problems is still a semi-popular game mode even 4 years out. It isn’t totally broken. So any major changes have the chance of breaking it and pushing even more people away.
Alliances sound interesting, but if done wrong it would break WvW.
It would be better to make what we have better. The first priority should be breaking up the blobs that dominate the game mode and destroy personal initiative. Reward small group play. Along with breaking up blobs they should destack servers like Blob… Blackgate.
There is no good reason to allow a server like Blackgate to exist.
You have to have at least 5 servers of similar coverage and numbers to create a competitive and fun game mode. Having only 1 is a sad joke.
(edited by Grim West.3194)
It seems that the greatest problem with battlegroups is the phase of building it. People fear discriminations and elitism. Maybe it would be better to randomly fill the battlegroups like the current WvW server do.
Guild members should play in the same battlegroup. New members will join in the next matchup..
^THIS
The destruction of small guilds and elitism is deadly to the game, and ANET’s bottom line (- are you listening Mr O’Brien?).
Back in the day before GW2 was released, they talked about WvW being a place ANYONE could jump in and have fun with. “The Mists” or some such. To ANET’s credit, WvW is very accessible for most players. Alliances could kill that if not done correctly.
If Alliance participation was randomized to favor small guilds and singles with only one or 2 large guilds in each then the matches would be dynamic and unpredictable. The trick is to keep each match short term – one (or 2) weeks at the most.
One of ANET’s major mistakes has been the snail pace of their WvW matches, events (golum was great fun for a day and then everyone hated it), server links, tournaments etc etc etc. Everything they do in WvW lasts way too kittening long.
ANET needs to get a fire under their behinds and get with it. They are snails the age of leopards. Other RvR games are coming, and the one that has the most nimble devs will win.
(edited by Grim West.3194)
I’d much prefer if they just capped all servers at say 1000 players and then boot people off based on seniority, with a one-week heads up you’re getting evicted notice.
Then we employ the same policy you want for your battlegroup, without alienating those who value their existing communities.
There’s a reason servers have worked for four-plus years; there’s an attachment that keeps people coming back, even for years when there was zero reward in WvW. To ignore that is foolish. It still exists today, you can see examples of that when the glicko was artificially boosted recently and the resultant player rage.
booting people off based of seniority can’t be determined and a server can simply become a battlegroup if they wanted. You would be able to effectively carry your server WvW community as a battlegroup if you wanted.
Sure they can. Transactions/consumption data will determine age of account and when movement happened.
Now you’re just fibbing to push your agenda.
My only agenda is discussion. I dont think its fair to force people off a server based off seniority. That will not only split friends, but it will cut guilds in half.
Well what happens with your system if guilds are cut in half, or they make changes in the future and want different players but you have it capped at 1,000?
You’re not being forward thinking enough. You’re looking for a quick fix, that in the end, won’t fix a thing.
Its not my system. Guilds wouldnt be cut in half because it match makes your guild too. If I were looking at a quick fix. I’d just accept what they’ve done.
If there’s a cap of 1,000 players and guilds are used to formulate, if they recruit, someone’s not getting in to play. Guild rosters change all the time. This system would wind up creating a critical mass of complaints on the forum as one big guild tries to out manoeuvre another.
And if you’re not in a big guild? Too bad.
Again, you’re not thinking this through.
just because someone is in a guild doesn’t make them apart of that battlegroup. The number is not important. 1000 players is not important. What is important is they’re willing to give a number cap.
I am thinking this though, I’ve actually been thinking about this for a very long time. As I’ve known about it for a while.
If there are caps or finite numbers to this proposal then they do indeed matter. And now you’re saying it doesn’t matter if you’re in a guild you may not be part of that battle group. Yet in the same breath you’re saying guilds will be used to kitten matchmaking.
Make up your mind.
I’m saying that the number would obviously change and probably wasn’t final. I would assume the number would be left up to debate while they fine tune the same. But the fact that there is a defined cap, instead of what we have now which is a system that can be easily exploited because the cap is determined by equations.
Guilds, individuals, and battlegroups will be match made.
And be random if you aren’t in a big guild.
And be subject to losing your spot as the big guild recruits.
And be gamed to outmanoeuvre another battle group.
If they are going to do caps, do it with existing servers based on account seniority and avoid ticking off a lot of people.
What you propose offers no benefit to anyone other than guild groups.
It eliminates a significant portion of the wvw population.
Not defending the proposed system. But it would be possible to put in controls that favor small guilds – if ANET were inclined to do so (I’m not convinced they care).
A percentage of the alliance could be reserved for guilds under a certain number of active players (not sure how to define that yet).
And large guilds could be limited in the number of players they field in the alliance.
Obviously that wouldn’t make large guilds happy, but so what?
And of course the system could be gamed, but if ANET actually cared about the health of small group play they would find a way.
I’d much prefer if they just capped all servers at say 1000 players and then boot people off based on seniority, with a one-week heads up you’re getting evicted notice.
Then we employ the same policy you want for your battlegroup, without alienating those who value their existing communities.
There’s a reason servers have worked for four-plus years; there’s an attachment that keeps people coming back, even for years when there was zero reward in WvW. To ignore that is foolish. It still exists today, you can see examples of that when the glicko was artificially boosted recently and the resultant player rage.
booting people off based of seniority can’t be determined and a server can simply become a battlegroup if they wanted. You would be able to effectively carry your server WvW community as a battlegroup if you wanted.
Seniority would be very easy to figure out. Many players are loyal to their servers, if they were penalized for being loyal while players in big guilds that transfer regularly are rewarded then you can kiss WvW goodbye.
Do you notice how Arena Net has a section for guild recruitment. They expect guilds to recruit from off their server aswell. Thats how some guilds recruit. What about convincing your friend to play this game. Then them getting evicted. Thats way more damaging and server destroying than anything I’ve heard.
The system you posted might work. I’m not against it. Would have to see more details and feedback from the players. Could be interesting.
I will say though, that it looks like it plays into Guild War’s recent trend (since HoT) of favoring large nameless blob guilds over small guilds. I personally hate that trend and don’t play as much GW2 because of it.
But otherwise I have an open mind on the subject. Obviously, the current system isn’t working very well.
I’d much prefer if they just capped all servers at say 1000 players and then boot people off based on seniority, with a one-week heads up you’re getting evicted notice.
Then we employ the same policy you want for your battlegroup, without alienating those who value their existing communities.
There’s a reason servers have worked for four-plus years; there’s an attachment that keeps people coming back, even for years when there was zero reward in WvW. To ignore that is foolish. It still exists today, you can see examples of that when the glicko was artificially boosted recently and the resultant player rage.
booting people off based of seniority can’t be determined and a server can simply become a battlegroup if they wanted. You would be able to effectively carry your server WvW community as a battlegroup if you wanted.
Seniority would be very easy to figure out. Many players are loyal to their servers, if they were penalized for being loyal while players in big guilds that transfer regularly are rewarded then you can kiss WvW goodbye.
(edited by Grim West.3194)
Glicko hell for one thing (YB having to be adjusted etc).
And it’s already boring because of the overstack problem.
Population is the main issue that has to be fixed. If it isn’t dealt with then nothing else will matter. Scoring is a minor issue compared to the population problem. Anet sticking their head in the sand for 4 years has made it almost unfixable.
Yaks bend Glicko hell, wasnt much of a glicko hell as the community made it out to be. However, the results of that are strictly due to the Live Beta and relink every 2 months. On top of not resting the volatility.
so Glicko hell I suppose is when a very populated server gets stuck by glicko rating in a lower tier in which they crush all opposition and shouldn’t be in that tier. In-fact, if Arena Net used 1 up 1 down. There would always be someone who crushes all opposition in these tiers and as Chaba pointed out above me the attrition rate would skyrocket worst than the Glicko system. Thus the Glicko system is better than 1 up 1 down even in it’s current broken state.
I don’t think you really believe that. YB would still be in the wrong tier if they hadn’t been adjusted. Talk about a boring mismatch.
And the reason there are mismatches is because of the population balance issue. If that isn’t fixed then there will always be mismatches in every tier. Or you can lock the tiers and be bored of the same faces forever.
The only fix for mismatches and scoring issues is population balance. Without it then WvW will continue to die.
I believe that Arena Net should have reset the volatility instead of fixing YB. So you agree the main issue is population imbalance. Then you’d agree locking server transfers to once a year would be a terrible idea since we are already imbalanced.
Sorry for the late reply. RL etc.
I do not agree. Population issues will sort themselves given the right incentives while locking the most populated servers.
The ability to be able to transfer servers at whim is the reason we have the population imbalance problem in the first place. It’s almost as bad now as when server transfers were free. If you recall, whole servers would be decimated in just a couple days because of mass transfers. That still happens occasionally and that is not healthy for the game, never has been.
Why you don’t acknowledge that problem makes me suspect your motives. Your push always seems to be for changes that benefit your alliance and not the game.
Another major problem with WvW is the lack of incentives for small group / guild play. Everything is based on blob warfare. Your alliance may like that, but most RvR players do not. Or maybe your alliance doesn’t like it but it is built for WvW as it is now. Either way the lack of viable small group play is seriously damaging to WvW’s ability to retain players.
I only bring that up because it ties in to WvW’s balance problems and mass server transfers. If small group / guild play were viable, players wouldn’t feel so pressured to transfer when the blob alliances do.
(edited by Grim West.3194)
Glicko hell for one thing (YB having to be adjusted etc).
And it’s already boring because of the overstack problem.
Population is the main issue that has to be fixed. If it isn’t dealt with then nothing else will matter. Scoring is a minor issue compared to the population problem. Anet sticking their head in the sand for 4 years has made it almost unfixable.
Yaks bend Glicko hell, wasnt much of a glicko hell as the community made it out to be. However, the results of that are strictly due to the Live Beta and relink every 2 months. On top of not resting the volatility.
so Glicko hell I suppose is when a very populated server gets stuck by glicko rating in a lower tier in which they crush all opposition and shouldn’t be in that tier. In-fact, if Arena Net used 1 up 1 down. There would always be someone who crushes all opposition in these tiers and as Chaba pointed out above me the attrition rate would skyrocket worst than the Glicko system. Thus the Glicko system is better than 1 up 1 down even in it’s current broken state.
I don’t think you really believe that. YB would still be in the wrong tier if they hadn’t been adjusted. Talk about a boring mismatch.
And the reason there are mismatches is because of the population balance issue. If that isn’t fixed then there will always be mismatches in every tier. Or you can lock the tiers and be bored of the same faces forever.
The only fix for mismatches and scoring issues is population balance. Without it then WvW will continue to die.
Glicko hell for one thing (YB having to be adjusted etc).
And it’s already boring because of the overstack problem.
Population is the main issue that has to be fixed. If it isn’t dealt with then nothing else will matter. Scoring is a minor issue compared to the population problem. Anet sticking their head in the sand for 4 years has made the balance issue almost unfixable.
I don’t have a problem with double teaming. Part of the game design. And I agree that 1up 1down is not the best solution. But for now Glicko has to go. 1up 1down is better than Glicko and will help eliminate a number of artificial problems. They can work on a better system after that.
But if they don’t fix the issues that allowed players to overstack servers and destroy any chance at balance then none of it will matter.
That wasn’t always the case. And just because you have settled down, it hasn’t stopped the masses that move on a whim.
In PvP games the players (especially American players) will gravitate to the winning side to get to easy mode. That has to be discouraged and penalized or the PvP becomes a lopsided joke. Which leads to people giving up and leaving the game. Sound familiar?
There are a number of ways fix the issue. How would you do it?
My initial post lines out the problems.
The fix is to limit player transfers to 1 or 2 times a year at most. With everyone’s possible transfer dates staggered across the calendar to eliminate mass transfer waves.
And close all transfers to servers with a history of “hibernating” which allows them to game the population model to allow overstacking.
It wasn’t intended as an insult. It is the results of the game being manipulated by players like you that I have a problem with. The long term consequences have been disastrous.
ANET deserves just as much blame. For they encouraged you at every step.
(edited by Grim West.3194)
Hey everyone,
I wanted to address the idea of moving world linking to monthly instead of every 2 months, since it is being brought up more and more frequently.
The team isn’t opposed to this idea; we actually think it would be beneficial to move to monthly because it would allow us to iterate faster on how we are calculating which worlds should be linked. However, the main reason for not doing this right now is the matchmaking algorithm, Glicko. Each time we shuffle worlds via world linking it takes about 4 weeks’ worth of matches before Glicko begins to reliably match make those new worlds into balanced matches. If we did world linking monthly, Glicko would not be able to create balanced matchups.
Our next priority poll is going to be asking if players would rather have us work on adding rewards to skirmishes (and possibly other feedback items being collected from this thread) or replace Glicko matchmaking with a 1-up 1-down system (wherein the winner moves up a tier and the loser moves down a tier.) The 1-up 1-down system should work better with monthly linkings than Glicko, so we are most likely going to hold off on 1 month linkings until that system is in.
Another possibility we could pursue is 1 month linkings, but use the Glicko offset system to guarantee the matches. Alternatively, we could manually change Glicko ratings to what we believe they should be for each world. Either option would force worlds to start out closer to being in the correct tier and thus give better matches faster. These options are contentious, so even if everyone on the forums seemed to like this idea it would be something we would poll on.
Your polls are ruining this game. 1 up 1 down is a terrible idea. Yet, it will get voted in because of the general population not liking what we currently. have. Just like we voted for linking and that was a terrible decision. You are the game designer.
Glicko is garbage. Too easy to game by people like you and your crew. Glicko was never designed to deal with the fickle easy mode transfer crowd and their short sighted mangy cousins (who tank matches on purpose to open up servers that are already overstacked).
1up 1down isn’t going to be much of an improvement, but it will be better than what we have now. It might even put a damper on the transfer addicts, etc. It’s a temporary fix though, ANET will have to do better. People will eventually game the new system also.
However, until the ability to overstack servers on a whim is eliminated, balance in WvW will continue to be a sad joke. ANET has to create a system that promotes some semblance of balance and stability to get people to care about WvW again. But that is so far from anything they have built so far, that it just doesn’t seem possible for them anymore.
Possible fixes:
1. Do not allow players to transfer more than 1 or 2 times a year (even that might be too much).
2. Never allow transfers to the two highest pop servers, whether they are “full” or not.
(edited by Grim West.3194)
Glicko is garbage, it doesn’t work for WvW. Get rid of it, it does more harm than good.
Deciding match make ups with Dice would work better and be more fun.
ANET has had 4 years to figure out server balance and how to use glicko effectively for WvW matchmaking.
They have failed miserably.
Not only that, they are actually more incompetent now with WvW matchmaking than they were at release. Amazing.
ANET has always been incompetent when it comes to server balance.
Using glicko for WvW is idiotic.
To have good fights you need balance between the servers.
ANET designed WvW to be all about massive blobs killing small groups ad nauseum.
If that isn’t what ANET intended then why did they let WvW become such a sad joke?
.
There are no fight servers.
Linking is required because ANET has done a horrible job at balancing the worlds.
Their scoring systems (new and old) actively encourages stacking to create the biggest blob possible. Which has the simultaneous effect of demoralizing the remaining players on the destacked servers. Forcing the players to live with being farmed by overwhelming odds, give up and transfer also, or just leave the game all together. Linking helped a bit, but the way ANET has implemented it actually causes more issues than it fixed. Typical.
It’s a vicious cycle and it’s long term consequences are the huge amount of players that have given up on WvW, in spite of the fact that it’s the only RvR game around atm. ANET had a chance to own that market, they blew it and continue to do so.
(edited by Grim West.3194)
Excellent. Look forward to seeing how this works out.
ANET gets fooled by the players all the time. BG has been doing it for years.
BG pretends to to stop playing every few weeks so they can open up the server and overstack it some more. ANET falls for it ever single time. BG isn’t the only server (see TC or the shi… alliance) that does it but they are the worst offender.
If ANET would stop getting fooled things would even out over time, but that isn’t going to happen. ANET will continue to be played and fooled and WvW will continue to be a mess of garbage overstacked servers and empty ghost towns.
ANET only has themselves to blame.
BG / TC will be open soon again.
They purposefully game the devs by pretending not to play anymore so they can stack more players on to their overloaded servers. They do it every few weeks and ANET falls for it every time.
The population is unbalanced because the Devs get played by the players. And have been for years.
For example, it is obvious Blackgate didn’t need any more players but just a couple of weeks ago ANET in their infinite wisdom opened Blobgate up for transfers. The players played ANET……. again.
TC and the sh… alliance played ANET constantly. You would think ANET would have figured it out by now. But they keep coming back to the table with the rigged rules.
It’s sad when the players run the show.
(edited by Grim West.3194)
Free server transfers was the first HUGE mistake (of too many to count) that ANET made with WvW.
Bringing them back is only required if you want to kill WvW completely.
GW1’s birthday presents are useful.
GW2’s not so much. How many useless Queen Jennah’s are there in the world? How many stacks (of non stacking) experience scrolls can you give us?
JQ will open up again, probably in the next few weeks. Just keep checking, it usually doesn’t stay open for long.
Linking isn’t perfect. The first attempt was especially bad since they really didn’t look at server coverage.
But overall it’s been very good. You meet new people, the maps fill up and there are plenty of fights to be found.
It helped to open up the tiers a little bit too, but not enough. Glicko still sucks.
(edited by Grim West.3194)
The extractor requires fractal access or gems correct? Which again doesn’t help us. Not going to bother until anet gets a clue. The 6 infusions from my toon’s amulets will just sit in storage until then. I wont fill up the empty slots in the amulets, the options are useless to me.
Cash only (24s). But, you have to go into the fractal lobby to get one. That’s free, though.
That worked, thanks. Built a two slot ring to test. Bit of a pita to do all the rings up on my different toons but I won’t have to do fractals. Good enough.
(edited by Grim West.3194)
Let’s not degrade to personal shots… Nothing I posted was nonsense… Some was incorrect it seems because the slot assignments were changed.. but you still have to do fractals to get the extra infusion slots and that sucks.. As I noted above, I will simply have to stop worrying about it since I don’t do fractals… Hopefully ANet will give us something nice in place of the infusions we can’t use anymore.
Please forgive me. I let my emotions get the better of me. Considering I made exactly the same argument in reverse in the past, I should know better.
Yes, infusing them requires fractals. But, attuning rings doesn’t. I’m not sure if those two slots are valuable to you WvW and PvP people or not. ???
To make up for my insult, I offer to personally escort you through the first 10 fractals. Just ping me in-game and mention who you are. It will take a couple weeks, though. 10 fractals would be at least a start on your quest for enough mojo to infuse something.
The extractor requires fractal access or gems correct? Which again doesn’t help us. Not going to bother until anet gets a clue. The 6 infusions from my toon’s amulets will just sit in storage until then. I wont fill up the empty slots in the amulets, the options are useless to me.
(edited by Grim West.3194)
And, if you’re less belligerent, they might even add a feature to change its type.
His belligerence is understandable. If you had experienced the bs ANET has thrown at WvW players ever since launch you would understand and probably react the same way. This is just another slap in the face added to a huge list of slights from ANET.
Walk a mile in someone’s shoes before you condemn them.
(edited by Grim West.3194)
That is for PvE players. WvW players are hosed.. again.
Your attitude towards those of us who really dislike pve could be better btw.
Can’t refund WvW infusions as far as I can tell and I have no interest in fractals.
I have 6 useless infusions now (6 level 80 toons each with their own amulet).
Again ANET forgets the WvW players. Soooo typical.
edit:
built extra slot rings to compensate, so don’t need the refund. But the amulet slot is pretty much useless imo. They will stay empty for now.
(edited by Grim West.3194)
Did i miss something or….
You can put your Infuisions now in the Rings, i have 3 WVW Infusions in every Ring, it also should work with every other Kind of Infusion
The wvw rings only have one slot, unless I’m missing something. No room for all the amulet infusions taking up space in my bank (multiple toons that all had amulets).
Primarily a wvw player. Not interested in fractals or whatever other lame pve content drops 3 slot rings, if they even exist.
Edit: 2 slot rings don’t require fractals, only a little silver and a visit to the mystic forge. Made a few extra slot rings to take up infusions refunded to my toons.
(edited by Grim West.3194)
To be productive, ask for stat standardisation in WvW with the same amulet concept as pvp.
Please no. I love that WvW sometimes has huge swings in FoTM builds and then huge nerfs a bit later. It helps keeps the game mode interesting.
Players are incredibly creative and they will always find the best build based on whatever changes the dev’s made recently. The devs should let the players be creative and not listen to their tears when they nerf.
My only complaint against ANET in regards to balancing is that the changes don’t come quick enough.
Coverage is a huge issue. JQ is a “full” server but NA is rarely queued.. Other servers have queues in NA on multiple maps, but are empty at other times. Fights are almost never “balanced” at any time frame.
You want people fighting at the same times with roughly equal numbers for “balance” but the servers have coverage all over the place. How do you fix that?
Telling players who don’t live in NA that their money and time doesn’t count isn’t going to work. It will just make them mad and they will leave the game. And the players will game that system too.
most those off hour guilds are just pvd and would get rekt in NA timezone. i could care less if some unskilled night capper would get mad cause his pvd is nerfed. They’re zombies m8
Lol at PvD. I’ve played on most servers (transfers when they were free and multiple accounts), they are all the same and PvD all day every day.
Every server (including yours) PvD’s like there is no tomorrow,. That’s how you get to higher tiers. Anyone in T1 or T2 or T3 claiming they don’t PvD is a pathetic liar. GW2 is built for PvD, that is how you win and move up tiers. I love how you all cry about it and then go ahead and PvD your hearts out.
JQ’s NA is low so they see all the hypocrite “fight servers” PvD all the time. You are not special and you are not a better human being than those who don’t fight during NA. EVERY server (including yours) blobs against those that are weak during certain time zones.
I would love it if PvD wasn’t important, but that is how the game is designed and it will not be changed. The mass player fantasy of claiming not to PvD is just a mass example of hypocrisy.
(edited by Grim West.3194)
Oh come on, you spawn camped. Nobody defends that camp, and organized groups rarely retake it. Why bother when a single player can retake it because nobody expects a group of enemy players to hang there.
You basically rolled over a bunch of roamers who were filing in single file to retake it.
I don’t have anything against that tactic, it’s legit. But any organized group would have rolled over those roamers. Making yourself into some WvW god because you rolled over some singles is what we find pathetic.
Might try to get in at off hours, but I’m not sure if that works anymore.
Check the vote thread out, they talked about scoring for the zerg. Just as I said.
If you have any facts to prove otherwise, please deliver.
Ahh yes, the best players all love to spawn camp. You must be so proud.