Guild Wars 2

domness.6719:

Malediktus.9250:

I dont like this idea, finding 10 players is not too much to ask for.

Yup, and doing it with lower numbers currently at least gives better guilds more of a challenge.

Would it fix that issue if the scaling stopped at 8 players?

10 players : 100%
9 players : 92%
8 players and less : 84%

Absurdo.8309:

If one or two people can’t make your static each week, it’s really easy to find a pug 10th. Make whatever requirements you want, and boot them if they’re bad.

Finding a 10th then kicking him because he’s bad then finding another 10th can easily takes 30 minutes. That’s 30 minutes of wasted time. Here is my break down for this 30 minutes :

- 5 minutes to find the 10th and get him ready (class, spec, food, joining instance, teamspeak)
- 20 minutes to test him, give him chance and realize he’s not ready for a clear run
- 5 minutes to find another 10th

I’m also pretty generous in that breakdown as I found that it usually takes way longer than 5 minutes to replace a player and my group usually give people a chance for much longer than 20 minutes…

Scipio.3204:

I like the Idea and if it was implemented the raid experience wouldn’t be as frustrating as it is now and I don’t see any major issue that could be against it. One thing though, afaik Xera can’t be completed with less than 6 man due to the 3 platform crystal thing during the first phase .

Also if they implement this the low man kills become far less impressive

EDIT: Also I think you should change the topic’s title or it might be merged with the other one

Thank you!

About Xera, I think it’s perfectly fine that you can’t go below 6 players. The goal is not really to be able to kill the boss with any number of players but just to make it easier to raid instead of spending your time trying to form a group.

You don’t need to change the way boon work or anything like that since the low man version is harder. Not only the boss has more health per player but you also have less player only doing dps.

Let’s take a 6 man of VG for example:

Most players that run for the green circle enter a tunnel vision and stop dpsing the boss entirely even if they can still range him. When you have 10 players, those 4 players focusing only on the green circle don’t matter that much has you still have 6 others that are dpsing. But when you are only 6, only 2 players are left to dps.

Nope you don’t need to change mechanics at all. There are plenty of kills with 6 or less raiders without any mechanics change.

Being able to do enough dps for those low man kills is the biggest challenge.

As I said, 10 man should be the easiest difficulty but it should not be the end of the world (for most group) if you are only 8 to show up tonight.

Note : This is not a post about having an easy raiding mode.

My raiding experience

I consider myself an experienced raider. I have killed every boss multiple times, have over 100 legendary insights, got my precursor armor, comfortable raiding on many classes / specs, co-founded my own raiding guild, etc etc. I’m not a super star but I think it didn’t do bad at all.

The problem

Still, there is a point about raiding that annoy me to no end : group forming.

You spend more time forming group than actually raiding and that sucks. Even when you have a dedicated group on a dedicated schedule there is always something that happen : “I can’t make it tonight”, “I’m lagging”, “Real life”, “Game Crash” or “any other excuses”. And now you are back to waiting after another player. It was so frustrating to constantly wait and wait that we even started to attempt (successfully) raid boss with less players but it was more difficult and we were more likely to wipe.

All this waiting is an horrible experience for anyone playing raid. This get me to…

Why do raids don’t scale in difficulty like the rest of the game?

One of the best feature of GW2 is that bosses scale (or try to…) according to the number of players around. This make the content relevant no matter how many you are.

This is what raids need.

How I would do it?

I would make 10 players the easiest difficulty. Keep designing raid bosses exactly like you are doing but, when there are fewer players in the instance, remove a bit of the boss health while keeping every other mechanics intact.

For example, remove 8% to the boss health for every player missing. That would give :

10 players : 100%
9 players : 92%
8 players : 84%
7 players : 76%
6 players : 68%
5 players : 60%

Conclusion

I think a change like this would help raid group tremendously to actually play the raid instead of waiting around to form a group because the boss would be killable with less players if you have a decent group.

A bigger world?

I would go in the completely different direction if I could. While I understand that a bigger world might make it necessary to make it feels like a real war this is not what WvW is.

WvW is not a war but a game. And, in a game player want to enjoy themselves. A big map include a lot of running until the fun can start. Would you want to run for 20 minutes every time you die? That’s not what I call fun.

Let players get into the action instantly!

Because you still need to determine which server should fight against which one.

Would you want the strongest server in the same match up as the 2 weakest servers? That would be pretty boring for everyone.

First, can we agree that the ranking system for WvW is pretty bad?

That’s why I decided to give my best shot at designing a new ranking system. My design philosophy was the following :

1. No randomness
2. Should be simple (so no more glicko)
3. If you win by a lot you should move up
4. If you lose by a lot you should move down
5. Don’t break perfectly balanced match up (unless #3 or #4)

You can see the live demo over here : http://coveragewars2.com

How does it work?

The only thing that matters to determine if you move up or down is your score relative to your opponents for the current week. Preceding weeks do not matter at all.

For a server to move up, his point minus the point of the weakest server in the tier above him must be 37. Note that 37 is just a number that I chose for this example. You can adjust it to make it easier or harder to move up/down. An higher value will make it harder, while a lower value will make it easier.

The formula to calculate the point of each server is the following :

server_point = ((server_score / average_score_in_tier) – 1) * 100

What do you think?

TLDR: Just check the demo it was a nice visual table.

So it’s still one up one down but on a 3 weeks period right?

I see 2 problems with it :

1. It’s one up, one down
2. It’s on a 3 weeks period

The 3 weeks period is bad because if a server gain a massive amount of bandwagonner (or lose a massive amount of bandwagonner), it shouldn’t take them 3 weeks of very unbalanced match up to move up / down one tier. Also, moving from tier 4 to tier 1 could take 9 (boring) weeks.

The one up, one down is bad because it doesn’t include the score in the equation. No matter if you win by one point in a very balanced match up or if you win by a landslide of 100 000 points, one up one down will consider that you won and will move you up a tier. Balance match up should stay the same unless the match up below or above are very unbalanced.

Any good ranking system will need to include the score in the equation. Basically, if you win by a lot you should move up and if you lose by a lot you should move down. And you should move up / down by the next week. This is the part where glicko fail as it can take you months to move up / down…

Dayra.7405:

Even if voting resulted in1 month relinks, ANet decided to make 2 month out of it.

So mostly (maybe you keep the link) 500gems every 2 month to be linked to the top.

Pretty cheap price to be the best! Right?

Clownmug.8357:

What specifically are the problems with one up, one down? I don’t remember what was said in the 1000 other threads.

Here is a 3 pages thread on this exact subject from 2013 for example :

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Implement-Winner-Moves-Up-Loser-Moves-Down/first

Let’s look at the situation :

1. Our current system is too stale, which means that servers get stuck in the same match up forever because they can’t move up or down.
2. One up, one down is too volatile, which means that you will get a lot of very unbalanced match up because server that shouldn’t move up / down are force to.

If you want to design a good ranking system, you need to aim somewhere between the two.

Estehim.9086:

Whichever Server is firstplace at the end of week, moves up one Tier, whichever is last moves down one Tier. Second place Server stays in the Tier. That seems to be much more intuitive and would create more dynamic matchups each week.

This is so sad…

While the glicko rating is not a good system and should be changed / adapted, why is it always a worst system that player are suggesting and why is it always THAT worst system that player are suggesting.

The system you describe is commonly referred as one-up-one-down. It has been discussed to death in over 1000 threads, will create way more problem than what we currently have and will not be implemented.

Please, go back to the drawing board and devise a better system.

Have a nice day

Guild vs Guild might have a chance.

Server vs Server is… meh.

Sure it’s possible. Just go into EotM!

As someone else pointed, it’s not just the stab change that make it harder but also the fact that it was 40 disorganized uplevel and pve build VS 15 very organized and well geared level 80 players on voice comm.

When the karma train left for EotM, it felt like there was a lot less dead weight in the WvW zerg. Zerg busting was mostly karma train busting in my opinion.

Plenty of players in EotM

Josh XT.6053:

Many have said it before including myself, but the glicko needs reset..

THIS

I just wonder why it’s not already done.

Maybe if we all copy paste it until a dev read it…

joneirikb.7506:

(Possible competitive mode)

If they wanted to make something Competitive out of WvW, I think they could manage something based on it, but not WvW as is. Mentioned before:

Structured pre-arranged team matches, where 1-5 guilds work together to form a team/alliance/war-group something, and arrange a time with an enemy team to meet up and play for 1-2-3-4 (pre-determined) hours on a specific map based on WvW.

Example maps: Cut out SMC from ebg and make it a own map. Probably one for more open fights like a big arena/os arena just larger with some more terrain. Basically a few different ones for different aspects of WvW, so people can fight in different ways.

• Teams: organized and pre-arranged. A max limit, and you can kick people that sabotage etc. You can train, organize, and make anyone on the team use teamspeak, proper builds etc, and set up roles for the fight.
• Population/Coverage: No longer an issue, X vs X enters, plays for Y time. Fair.
• Stacking/servers: no longer an issue.
• Fair-Weathers: no longer an issue, kick them off the team if they do that.

But this would require ANet to make another mode, a sort of in-between of PvP and WvW. And might sound crazy similar to what a lot of people want as GvG. And I’m not even going to go into the argument of using PvP or PvE stats/gear.

Kinda wish this mode existed.

Here’s a few questions :

1. Do you consider that WvW is a competitive game mode?
2. Do you wish that WvW was a competitive game mode?
3. Do you think that WvW can be a competitive game mode?

When I say “competitive”, I mean score wise mostly but feel free to elaborate on other parts if you want

Bonus question : How do you feel about losing or winning every week, or having a rating/ranking associated with your server. Do you care?

Yeah, I have to agree that it’s a good thing they made that first encounter so easy as I know many players that couldn’t kill a raid boss yet.

No matter how I look at it, it really feels like the first boss of the wing 3 is a direct response to the complaints to get an easy mode in raids. They frankly cannot make it easier.

It’s the only boss that I know of that doesn’t have a timer, that pugs don’t even bother to food up and beat on first try and where you don’t really need any special build or group composition.

And, it becomes a bit boring after killing it a few times. This made me realize that I kind of like the stress that come with having an enrage timer.

joneirikb.7506:

Do you think that something over which you have barely any control on the outcome can be considered competitive?

Not at all, I’ve never considered WvW Competitive at all, it is by design casual. This quote says it better than I can:

PopeUrban.2578”

Plenty of board games (most of which are, like WvW, all about territory control and PPT) don’t tally the score until the end.
Even in traditional sports, people have a tendancy to tune out if the game is already decided before the halfway mark if its obvious there’s no opening for a turnaround.
WvW is not a sport. It never will be. The number of players on the field varies by the minute, you have no control over the composition of the teams, and the participants can choose to leave the field at any time with no repurcussions.
Making sports analogies in relation to WvW is like comparing apples and oranges. It isn’t a sport, and it isn’t a competitive mode, and it never will be. It’s a casual, instant gratification interpretetion of open world siege pvp that only holds player interest as long as the moment to moment play remains interesting.
There are no instrinsic concept or benefits of ownership, no stakes, and literally nothing that makes “real” competition in a siege metagame work. It’s just a large population pvp map with objectives designed to shuffle players in to large group engagements. That’s all it will ever be. It is a meaningless war for no stakes that never ends, never benefits the victor, and never punishes the loser.
And that’s fine. That’s why the rewards revamp focused on personal reward rather than objective based reward. It’s the only logical reward structure for a system that has only ever been about personal gratification and playing war games in stead of attempting to simulate the decision making and tactical processes that go in to a more detailed and impactful actual war game.
If anything, the entire concept of matches and score could be removed from WvW and it would change nothing. The score doesn’t matter, winning or losing doesn’t matter, and there are so many variables inherant in its systems that ensuring “fair” or “competitive” match ups is an impossibility.

Good answer and I really like that quote too

I just find it strange that so many people complain about night capping and score in a game mode that cannot be competitive.

Why!?

It is almost like if a good chunk of the population wishes that WvW was competitive from my point of view. No?

But…

He got a point with upgrade. Fighting doors and walls is not fun and auto upgrade + fortified gate + guild upgrade made it worse. All those things are just getting in the way of the fun : which is fighting each other.

I would rather have the following upgrade system :

Tier 0 : wooden wall & no gate
Tier 1 : wooden wall & wooden gate
Tier 2 : reinforce wall & wooden gate
Tier 3 : reinforce wall & reinforce gate

Think I’m crazy with the “no gate” part for the first tier?

Would it makes sense if you had to win on 4 maps at a time in PvP while you can’t only play on one at a time?

I would like to bring another dimension to the question.

Do you feel like you personally have an impact on the score result at the end of the week or do you feel like a water drop into the ocean?

I user to play WvW for PPT every single day for 8 hours a day. I consider that its quite a lot of time invested in a game but even with that much time, it didn’t feel like my contribution was worth that much.

When you stop to do the math, it get plain obvious :

My contribution : 8 hours x 7 days = 56 hours
Global contribution : 24 hours x 7 days x 4 maps x 40 players = 26880 hours

So, yes, I was a drop into the ocean. Its not a bad thing by itself. I mean, WvW is still a really fun game mode and a lot of players are enjoying it. But its a casual game mode and I was trying to be “competitive” score wise.

Do you think that something over which you have barely any control on the outcome can be considered competitive?

The score can’t matter and will never matter in WvW as long as it is so big. I can’t play on 4 maps at a time so why do I need to conquer/protect 4 maps at the same time in order to “win” at the end of the week.

This is one of the many reasons that I think WvW is too big. For me it means, too many maps at the same time.

Weli.4568:

Johje Holan.4607:

Xenesis.6389:

Gudradain.3892:

But, I always wondered. When there is 3 identical home bl, the home server has the advantage on his home map because of the layout AND the fact that the other servers focus on keeping their home map too. So, if there was only one “home” map, the server owning the “home” position would feel much more pressure from the 2 other servers and I’m not so sure anymore that it would give them such a big advantage.

Might be interesting to see if having only 1 borderland map can still be balanced enough to be fun

Hm could be interesting to cut it down to 1 bl and have maybe green be the home team so blue and red can always apply pressure them. In that way you could force what should be happening in matchups but never does, the two lower teams hitting the top team to hold back their points. While the green team will feel more pressure, they have a slight defensive advantage with the north area.

Then if you need to have 3 maps, add another copy of ebg.

This is a fantastic idea!

Because yes, there are too many maps for the number of people playing.

I’ve heard people say cut down on the maps but the argument is always that you can’t because then there would be a server(s) without a BL. But the way you two have framed the setup it works.

Anet I think you should beta this idea.

Don’t think adding another copy of any map when one gets full is good idea. What if you are the only extra player? Are you gonna be soloing the whole map? What if your side is the only one with extra players? What about scoring. Don’t think it’s a good idea. Only works in EotM as it doesn’t really affect scoring, but how would you score this type of layout so that it doesn’t support server stacking.

What you could do is scrap the idea of home borderland and have the maps work like EB. Could tweak the layout of the current maps to support this.

I don’t think he’s talking about dynamically adding map during the week but rather determine the number of map the current population is able to fill before the week start and keep it the same across all the week.

Loosmaster.8263:

You’re basically asking for dynamic maps. EotM…

Not at all.

I’m asking if you think there are too many maps to cover.

For example, would it be better if instead of 4 maps you only had 1 map to cover? One week, EBG would be the only map in the match up. Then the following week, alpine borderland would be the only map (only 1 not 3 copy).

Of course, the servers we currently have are too big to fit all the population in one map so they would probably split into smaller server. And yes, some maps were not designed to be balanced on all 3 side (ex.: Alpine borderland). But still…

Is there too many map to cover?

Justine.6351:

It is too big if there are not enough players to fill it (late night).
It is not big enough if there are too many players (reset).

It’s not really my question. Let me explain :

For example, currently (on NA) we have 12 opponents battling in 4 match up containing 4 maps each. We could also have 3 opponents battling in 1 match up containing 16 maps. Or we could have 48 opponents battling in 16 match up containing 1 map each.

My question is : “What should be the number of map per match up?”

Note that the number of maps in a match up directly affect the total number of opponents. More opponents can lead to more match up variety and better balanced match up.

If you want more match up variety and more balanced match up, you need to have more opponents. With only 12 opponents it’s very unlikely to get 3 opponents with very similar strength in the same match up.

And, since you have 4 big maps to fill, you cannot have more opponents because there is just enough population to fill them.

But, if you reduce the number of maps and split the servers, you could increase the number of opponents by 2 or 4 times.

Johje Holan.4607:

Xenesis.6389:

Gudradain.3892:

But, I always wondered. When there is 3 identical home bl, the home server has the advantage on his home map because of the layout AND the fact that the other servers focus on keeping their home map too. So, if there was only one “home” map, the server owning the “home” position would feel much more pressure from the 2 other servers and I’m not so sure anymore that it would give them such a big advantage.

Might be interesting to see if having only 1 borderland map can still be balanced enough to be fun

Hm could be interesting to cut it down to 1 bl and have maybe green be the home team so blue and red can always apply pressure them. In that way you could force what should be happening in matchups but never does, the two lower teams hitting the top team to hold back their points. While the green team will feel more pressure, they have a slight defensive advantage with the north area.

Then if you need to have 3 maps, add another copy of ebg.

This is a fantastic idea!

Because yes, there are too many maps for the number of people playing.

I’ve heard people say cut down on the maps but the argument is always that you can’t because then there would be a server(s) without a BL. But the way you two have framed the setup it works.

Anet I think you should beta this idea.

Yup. A beta would be nice. I wonder how to convince them to consider it..

Jayne.9251:

shrek.1046:

Yes its too big, no it doesn’t need 4 maps. It would be better to have 2-3 tri pointed maps. And some proposals for changing WvW hinge on being more flexible and only increasing the number of maps as the population requires it.

Nope. They tried that with HoT maps and everyone hated it and begged to have home WPs restored. What you’re talking about is EoTM setup.

EotM is not the only system that could have a dynamic number of map. For example, maps could be closing in off hours and reopen in primetime.

joneirikb.7506:

The more I look at this, the more I think the Borderland maps are designed entirely wrong (yes, both of them). And should be more linear, with increasingly handicaps the further back the home server gets pushed. So the outnumbered server can drop back one step at a time, until the have enough map handicaps to hold back against even vastly outnumbering enemies.

They would still lose massively in points, but it would create a gradually scaling system, that no matter how outnumbered you are (except 80vs0-1) you at least have something you can do, and that “last” objective on your Home BL could be defended successfully by 1-2 persons. And easily taken back.

It’s not about “Fair”, it’s about having something to do that feels automatically valuable for the team. And it would funnel the activity to 1-2 objectives at a times.

Brings out the popcorn, and waits for the Alpine/Desert Lovers/Haters to being the flame

You are right.

It’s not about making it fair, it’s about making it fun for everyone. Give hope even to losing server and give challenge even to server overwhelmingly winning.

Your idea would do just that.

I shake my head every time I see a thread complaining about players that were forced to build “spawn” siege in order to have a chance to recap their very first tower in their home borderland and I think : “Those people complaining don’t understand wvw at all”. They are literally complaining that they can’t easily enough spawn camp players.

Xenesis.6389:

Depends. There are players who prefer a smaller setting, less players, the roamers and havoc crew basically. If you start taking away maps so it’s queue 24/7, you’re just not going to have much breathing room.

Also they’ve already made their bed in the homebl/ebg concept, only map to take out would be, and well that’s a no no. Like I said in another thread a while ago, I wish they had just went with all ebg concept maps instead, we wouldn’t been in the mess we are in with maps and it’s more flexible if you need to minus or add maps.

It’s true that they totally shot themselves in the foot going with home bl concept were you need 3 of the same maps and can’t adjust the number of map at all…

But, I always wondered. When there is 3 identical home bl, the home server has the advantage on his home map because of the layout AND the fact that the other servers focus on keeping their home map too. So, if there was only one “home” map, the server owning the “home” position would feel much more pressure from the 2 other servers and I’m not so sure anymore that it would give them such a big advantage.

Might be interesting to see if having only 1 borderland map can still be balanced enough to be fun

Bringing another consideration to the question :

Is there enough oponents? I’m talking about the number of server.

Having 4 maps to fill means that there can be less servers than if you have 2 maps to fill for example.

Also, having more opponents (servers) can create more match up variety.

musu.9205:

Gudradain.3892:

I think it would be better if every class could do portal.

Everyone wants to be able to do a portal, but no one want to be a portal bot. I initially made a mesmer just to be able to port players into WvW keep, but I never liked playing mesmer. I would much rather like if my ele could do this skill.

honest answer : not gonna happen as long as anet balance pve and pvp as whole.

how to make every class be able to use portal :
1.make it a f6 skill or elite skill , classes like ele or necro will be completely broken in pvp .

2.make it a tool in pve as some achievement reward or raid reward . first of all,it will cause access problem , it will work just like wow gear level .either you have it or you have less choice to join group, it wont be too bad but why make bad design to begin with .secondly, portal hold back mes from ever buffs mes needs like sustain dps and many weapon skills .if anet make portal a general tool in pve but still balance with the idea that portal is still being mes only thing in pvp . it will make mes balance much worse if mes sustain damage isnt screwed enough .right now mes gets chrono to work around , what about next expansion . what about core mes and level experience or solo power ?

Thx for the very good answer.

I especially like your point about how the portal is one of the thing holding the mesmers from becoming a real viable class. It’s something I wonder too.

I used to only WvW and the only reason we brought mesmers were for portal and veil.

Now I’m mostly raiding and the only reason we bring mesmer is for quickess/alacrity (+ tanking).

They kind of have a place everywhere but only for their gimmick which feels weird.

Chinchilla.1785:

Nope. Not really, especially compared to the other parts of this MMO.

Each map holds about 75 people per team, so 225 people per map. There are 4 maps, so potentially there could be 900 people playing non-EOTM wvw per each match up. There are 12 matchups per region, right(lost track with linking)? So that’s 10800 for US, and 10800 for EU (I think they have 12 match ups?).

Meaning, at any given time only 21600 players can be in WvW (not counting EOTM overflows). That’s assuming people even choose to play it. The active population is probably less than that.

So again, it’s not too big. In fact, it’s rather small if you consider how many people were there at launch (keeping in mind different timezones throw in other issues). It just hasn’t changed significantly to bring people back to play for long. We are, after all, back to the same home borderland map that was there at launch 4-5 years ago.

Hmmm. I’m not asking about how many player in general play wvw but about how many map do we need per match up.

But thx for the interesting math.

I’m starting this thread because I would like to have your honest opinion (with explanation) to the following question :

Is WvW too big? aka do we really need to have 4 maps per match up?

WvW is too big…

Why does it have 4 maps?

Reduce it to one map per match up then split up those big servers that don’t even know each others and you would get 4 times as many possible opponents.

The 4 maps are the biggest issue to wvw currently.

I think it would be better if every class could do portal.

Everyone wants to be able to do a portal, but no one want to be a portal bot. I initially made a mesmer just to be able to port players into WvW keep, but I never liked playing mesmer. I would much rather like if my ele could do this skill.

Does it work in WvW?

Does it work in wvw?

mazut.4296:

No, dont lower the LI, lower the insane amount of T6 mats…

I totally agree.

The number of LI is fine as its something you get while doing something you like.

fishball.7204:

Weerus.3701:

Hello

I have raid ready chrono and revenant so far. Now I want to make heal spec druid. I heard they are very usefull for raids as well as dungeons and fractals.

I have ascended gear ready and and enough currency to buy jewlery I need. So wich stats should I focus for armor/weapon/jewlery? Any other things I need to be aware of?

p.s. looking for raid group

Thanks

The guys that replied above me are skilled raiders with guild groups that are trying to min max their damage.

In general if you aren’t going for record runs or in a guild group then you need to realize that the tradeoff for a little DPS gain (zealots) is not worth the cost or the risk associated with it.

Most pug or semi casual groups tend to be ok with magi/clerics mix for healing druid since your main job is to heal and not be top tier DPS. Top tier DPS is managed by you keeping scholars bonus and GOTL up for your allies.

The only thing to consider really when you build your druid, is to have multiple sets of trinkets (Magi, Clerics) so you can swap out in case you have more toughness than the tank (Aim for 1100-1500 toughness). The tank needs to aggro the boss by having highest toughness so you have to be lower than them on your druid.

Also, zealots is extremely expensive in price and that money imo is far better spent just gearing up another character instead in addition to gearing a Magi/Clerics druid.

This is the best answer.

It’s now easy to get into raid!

Wing 3 First Boss is the entry boss.

Figure out the mechanics, plan a strategy and any group can kill it.

As others have said, don’t waste money on zealot. Magi armors/weapons + cleric trinkets is the way to go.

Staff doesn’t do much and celestial avatar do no damage. Also, you would probably doing more damage by constantly boosting 5 other players with grace of the land.

In general, as a healer, you want to maximize your healing power. This is what most group will require. Having more healing will make it easier to keep your teammates alive and you will get an easier kill on the boss.

The zealot madness was started by a tiny fraction of the raiding player base that want to set world record by maximizing every bit of dps.

Notes : I main a druid healer and cleared the first 2 wings several times.

I’m perfectly fine with the legendary insights requirement as it is something I naturally get while doing the thing I love : raiding.

I’m way more worried about all the other ridiculous and boring requirement that we might get. For example, provisionner tokens!?

The karma blob IS the essence of WvW.

Without it, WvW lacks a back bone. It feels empty and boring. Then once you have the karma blob you can start to build all the other parts around it like : defending, roaming, scouting, zerg busting and etc.

I don’t understand all those talks that want to get rid of the karma blob. There is no WvW without it. If you find a way to get rid of it, WvW will simply disappear.

Blaeys.3102:

I’m happy that people are enjoying raids – and I’m having fun in them myself – but many of us came to GW2 to get away from raid heavy communities like those in WoW. We want content that we can do in large groups – or in small chunks of time with small groups.

GW2 was the perfect game for people like us – one that focused on the community as a whole and that provided content designed to bring that community together in new and fun ways. And, just as importantly, one that was continually trying to give us something new to do in large groups. It can still be fun for us, but the past year has been disheartening and portentous of moving closer and closer to the models used by those games we left to come here.

A raid every now and then is fine, but ANet – if you’re listening – you need to get your focus back on what made end game in GW2 different from all of those raid focused games out there. Get back to new ways of bringing the larger community together to have fun on a regular basis. To me, that means laying off of raids for a while – at least until you can prove that you can balance developmental resources in better ways.

The heart and soul of GW2 isn’t in a 10 player instance – it’s out where every player lives and breathes in your game. Since September of last year, that part of the game has been slowly stagnating. You need to fix that – which probably means moving the focus away from raids for the foreseeable future..

Guild missions. Open world dynamic events. New maps. New collection events. New jumping puzzles. Creative ways to do things together in the world. These are the things my guild – and the guilds we play alongside ( altogether numbering several hundred active players) – are waiting (not so) patiently for.

I don’t think that you realize and appreciate how much work was put into the 4 HoT map versus the work that was put into the raids. Those 4 maps are insanely complex with ton of events and place to explore. The difference is that most players skip through all that open world content without realizing how much they are missing while the raiders try and enjoy every single part of the raids. We redo the same events endlessly because we enjoy them.

The raid content that we have right now would maybe represent 1/4 of verdant brink from my point of view. You should go back on those maps and take the time to visit every little thing. I discover new things everytime I visit them or see things in different way. You talked about JP for example. Well those maps are giant jumping puzzle if you decide to. Did you need to have a chest with a garbage at the end to have fun when you were a kid?.

I just geared my tempest as a healer for this fight. My idea is that the sustained healing from the staff tempest auramancer healing build should keep everyone mostly full health all the time and hence would reduce the “bad luck”. Also, I read that many group are using a tempest healer for this fight.

But I’m brand new to it so I have a few question

1. Our group setup will probably be tempest + druid healer. Which healer should do what? Which one should escort the players dropping poison to make sure the don’t die? And which one should focus on the rest of the group?

2. Is it necessary to run with action camera? It’s really useful to ground target your auto attack but if you focus on the group staying around matthias do you still need it?

Thanks