Guild Wars 2

Lol I already showed you my post from two years ago about that.

Justine.6351:

Ya I don’t like downed state in wvw. It’s expected for numbers to be unbalanced due to the hotjoin nature and size of the maps. And yet downed state favors the larger numbered group from solo/roaming to havok to zergs.

I really would like to see the outnumbered buff remove the requirement for a side to spike thier enemies even if it means screwing individuals on the opposing side who happens to find themselves in a 1vX.

Hot join? Wvw?

Don’t you mean pvp?

Xenesis.6389:

Big
Giant
>Colosseum<
In The
Middle

Nope. Big giant 100-step tower with a WP at top, and broken, open walls along the way up.

Although I like this idea too as it would encourage community/sport.

Hexinx.1872:

Giant Colosseum with lots of seating, and a vendor who manages the current fights. Teams register in it,

Vendor acts as heart event guy who takes bets for 1 minute time limit, tax it like the BLTC if you want, no one will care.

matchup commences.

Will never happen. But I’d love to have a full system, and eventually incorporate a ladder system for guilds.

Just not sure how you could regulate no-gank zones there (and troll interruptions).

Quantity does not always equate to quality.

I didn’t even want a reward track because it would push wvw away from being strategy based into “what’s in it for me” … which sucks for growing a team environment.

ArchonWing.9480:

pvers are all guilty before proven innocent. They are all leeches and should not be in here to defile the sanctity of wvw. All they do is run in a circle and kill npcs.

/proceeds to run in a circle and hit doors

A WITCH!

BURN HIM! BURN HIM!!!

Reh.5986:

In reality everything should be blown up and redistributed intelligently into 9 servers. We’re just burning through bandages atm and raising transfer costs is just another bandage.

How do you prevent the whole scenario we have now from repeating itself? Hegel wasn’t wrong.

So …. If somethings defended its avoided for an easier flip.

Eh you can see where I’m going on this.

It’s not wvw.

Reh.5986:

Until population balance/coverage is at least improved, trying to force people to stay in terrible matchups, servers, server cultures will likely backfire.

Servers will never be balanced if you don’t put limitations on pop caps.

It’s oddly hilarious the ones crying for balance also want to be able to transfer where they want.

In this game mode, it’s either/or. Not both.

SpellOfIniquity.1780:

Jayne.9251:

OP thanks for the perspective.

Next time might I suggest trying wvw instead of EoTM. Two very very different styles of play.

What makes wvw great is a sense of teamwork. EoTM hardly anyone plays strategy, it’s basically just a different pve champ train map.

In wvw you see the same faces every day and get to know them. You learn their strengths and who to trust. If X is hitting Y, you know that Joe Guardian is epically good at killing off their siege. Jane Elementalist can read a map and predict where the enemy is going. Fred thief does one better and actually trails the enemy, calling out their movement so our team can intercept them. You don’t get that in EoTM.

I just want to point out that many people who consider EOTM a champ train probably haven’t done it in a while/don’t do it very often.

While I absolutely agree that WvW and EOTM are two entirely different things, EOTM has changed a lot since the days of K-training everything. There are lots of fights in EOTM and lots of fight-focused commanders as well. Since the EOTM rewards were reduced, people stopped focusing so hard on that loot and instead started to treat it a bit more like real WvW.

It’s a bit like WvW on fast forward to be honest. There are more frequent captures and more frequent fights. Just the PUGs are a lot worse and commanders are hit and miss. Sometimes the commander has no clue what they’re doing, sometimes they’re semi-experienced, sometimes they’re so good they dominate the entire map.

The stigma of EOTM being a PvE map is no longer relevant. You should give it a few tries some time. You might get a few bad tags but when you get a good one you’ll see what I’m talking about.

Does any defend? Last time I was in there, nobody did. It’s night/day difference between the two modes, simply for that alone. It changes the whole scope of play and encourages team/community. Where you’re invested beyond flipping the next objective. That has real value and implication associated with enjoyment/engagement levels.

OP thanks for the perspective.

Next time might I suggest trying wvw instead of EoTM. Two very very different styles of play.

What makes wvw great is a sense of teamwork. EoTM hardly anyone plays strategy, it’s basically just a different pve champ train map.

In wvw you see the same faces every day and get to know them. You learn their strengths and who to trust. If X is hitting Y, you know that Joe Guardian is epically good at killing off their siege. Jane Elementalist can read a map and predict where the enemy is going. Fred thief does one better and actually trails the enemy, calling out their movement so our team can intercept them. You don’t get that in EoTM.

ArchonWing.9480:

Jayne.9251:

ArchonWing.9480:

Sagramor.7395:

Jim Hunter.6821:

Why the hell should I have to join a guild to play WvW?

/This

^
I find the anti-non-guildie mentality pretty hilariously narcissistic.

Not really. It’s more to avoid inevitable drama when you group a bunch of people online with a self-appointed leader.

More referring to the whole concept of having to wvw with a “wvw guild”.

Your double negatives confuzzled me

Four shield generators, one omega, two sup ACs. Problem solved.

ArchonWing.9480:

Sagramor.7395:

Jim Hunter.6821:

Why the hell should I have to join a guild to play WvW?

/This

^
I find the anti-non-guildie mentality pretty hilariously narcissistic.

Not really. It’s more to avoid inevitable drama when you group a bunch of people online with a self-appointed leader.

Someone rich. With a bad heart.

I think people keep forgetting that those generators can be used both to attack AND defend. Think old-school days of elementalists standing on top of walls.

Part of the joy in WvW for me is finding counters to what folks say are uncounterable. It’s physics. I merrily drag along members of my server for vast experiments. Then we jump with joy when we find the solution.

I agree that DBL isn’t as roamer friendly as the alpine, and truth be told, I prefer the alpine .. but I think DBL offers some kind of parity (or an attempt at it) for the lowest ranked server in ways that can be creatively defended.

I have solutions for ALL proxy cata spots

Surprises the heck out of the enemy when they’re starting to suddenly die

Jim Hunter.6821:

How do you figure?
Your whole argument is based on the dbl being easier to defend. If you read what I wrote it clearly isn’t.

It absolutely is Puck.

The fact that you can’t plant yourself in a north tower and treb garri is just one example — it’s slower process; swords can appear on the map and that doesn’t mean the gate is already down and the tower/keep flipped like in alpine. You actually have time to run and defend. Pair that with revisions to keep wps and it becomes infinitely easier to respond to.

On top of that, there’s a lot of creative places to put siege that gives full advantage to the defensive side. I watched ONE guy from SFR (with spectacular aim) keep out a 10 man group from Hills on DBL (whatever the name is), with strategically placed trebs. People couldn’t even get close to the gate or vuln wall.

Oh and those two spots you say can’t be countered. Well, they can be countered I found spots.

Pair that with the travel time it takes to cover DBL and get from one structure to another, and that added time aids the defensive team.

Overall, it’s an easier map to defend.

Sarrs.4831:

5. Oasis event heavily favors the defending team especially if they have a T3 garrison. Much shorter travel time when you can head straight from your garri into the event.

Oh bite your tongue!!!

They better not bring back that lazer event.

Between the lag it caused map wide and the forcing people to pve in wvw, it was just terrible.

Jim Hunter.6821:

Jayne.9251:

BlazeQ.1095:

Just a random question: Why the red map?

1. DBL is easier to defend.
2. Some folks hate DBL, which means less traffic and therefore a small boost in ppt for the lowest ranked server.

Or it could go the other way.
People hate the bl and don’t want to go there to defend so the PvD players can karma train to their hearts content.

Naw red will just need minimal response to put up a halfway decent defense. Heck, I used to do it with two others vs Elona blobs when the bl first came out.

Well-placed trebs pwn all.

BlazeQ.1095:

Just a random question: Why the red map?

1. DBL is easier to defend.
2. Some folks hate DBL, which means less traffic and therefore a small boost in ppt for the lowest ranked server.

Henry is the wurm by Bay.

I would just like to point out that I love our Wvw crew. Someone new, comes for advice, and he actually gets advice. I think that speaks volumes about the wvw community.

Kimiku.1652:

You know, it’s OK to let other people enjoy themselves. As frustrated as you seem to be with whatever your experience has been, it’s not cool of you to attempt in your post to shape me into everything you despise about what you’re going through.

Hopefully you will find your own enjoyment from the game or the people around you and if you can’t, maybe it’s a good time to move on or take a break.

First adult response I’ve seen on these forums in a long time. Bravo.

I’m still holding out for the April Fools where if you attack a doly, it summons every doly on the map and stomps you silly.

Lord of Rings.5371:

TW is totally engaged fighting MAG in EB right now, being pin sniped, moaed, but having fun.

https://www.twitch.tv/eldsvadadods

Who’s the screamy guy?

Lol aren’t they hibernating to get paired at next linking?

Thieves, generally, are terrible vs cold.

It’s also hilarious to see them run after they can’t resist trying to gank you; standing on a stealth trap.

Than.

That sounds vaguely like a “third-party program.”

Cough.

RodOfDeath.5247:

Jayne.9251:

Don’t complain about this or it will go back to Saturday reset.

I’m not sure I understand what reset has to do with patches that happen during the week?

They moved reset to Saturday because of threads like these on the forum. Anet obliged because they knew they would always patch on Fridays.

Everyone hated it, and spent six months complaining/begging to. go back to Friday.

Don’t complain about this or it will go back to Saturday reset.

See? you learned a new word!

So: You have a guild scattered across many servers and you want to jump to a “full” server to play because, well, you’re all part of a guild? Thereby circumventing the “full” status – and potentially pushing out smaller guilds and players from maps by taking up their spots in map?

No. Sorry.

If you truly all want to play together for WvW, you have to decide collectively as a guild whether WvW is important to you. If it is, then you need to transfer down to an open server so you can all play together.

Not jam into an already full one.

If WvW isn’t that important to you, then you can carry on spread out across multiple servers.

P.S. You CAN all get together in EoTM, assuming you’re all green/all red/all blue.

Innocent deer with BEEG UGLEE TEEF?

Oh wait, community. Spot on.

Korgov.7645:

Were EotM players allowed to vote on trying the Repair Hammers? They are not WvW players.

Worse. PVE folks angry about the GoB changes.

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/WvW-Poll-12-July-Repair-Hammers-Closed/page/3#post6245742

Loosmaster.8263:

kitten ing them right after implementation, GG on your feedback.

Eh, I kind of feel the same way.

If we had a responsible player base, I’d be all for this. Sadly, this would only make the bandwaggoning lopsided matches much worse.

Someone needs to take map chat screen grabs of first interactions with the natives

@Ezrat. I never said I was speaking for anyone. I just said serve the greater numbers, whatever that may be.

Ezat.1548:

You can say all you want to restrict players not to ‘bandwagon’, but you are actually being selfish in your own bubble of ‘server community’. If Anet is to restrict a guild to a particular server and add consequences to their guild halls… then Anet is undoing their ‘casual’ approach in all their game modes. Why would pve guilds enjoy so much freedom in their realm while us as WvWers have to pay so much cost to transfer or enjoy a game mode that WE seek, we don’t want your selfish ‘community’ heroes to restrain other players from enjoying WvW however they want.

Some people don’t care about servers falling apart, when a server falls apart, people just naturally seek the challenge elsewhere, or they become the server white knights seeking to rebuild… its their choice. Either they go up or down the tiers, its their choice. Not dictated by you.

Making WvW to become more restricted will just make this game mode die even faster. Thats why I suggest Free transfers back in 2013, a casual mode, just like Anet intends it to be… and for us to finally ACCEPT it as it is.

Oh the irony.

A guild will have what? 50 players max?

How many do you think make up a server community?

And who’s being selfish?

Bottom line, evaluate what serves the greater number and implement. Not cater to a minority.

HazyDaisy.4107:

Better still, perhaps any defenders still in a structure after we cap it should just explode immediately so we don’t have to leave people behind to defend.

This made me chuckle

Ezat.1548:

If we are so determined to raise the cost of server transfer, have you ever thought on the unforeseen consequences of this action? How are people going to transfer their friends to the server they want to play together? How are communities going to be able to recruit new blood into their server/community?

I think we need to stop blaming and throw away the negative stigma of bandwagoning in wvw, let us open back the server restrictions and server costs. Make WvW back in 2013 where server transfers are FREE! Let people freely move between servers, if some guilds wish for small-medium fights, they can go to lower tiers. If some people seek for large scale fights, go for higher tiers. You cannot please all WvWers if we are to lock and restrict it as it is now, there are many kinds of WvWers out there. Please, don’t try looking this whole situation just trying to protect your little server community!

Completely disagree with you. Letting players go where they want has resulted in the mess that is NA right now. And it’s starting to creep over and infect EU now, too.

And it’s an ongoing cycle: Anet closes the servers to “full” — suddenly we get a bunch of posts on the forums about how people can’t play with their friends/open the servers. Anet caves and opens the servers, then literally less than a week later, we get a bunch of posts on the forums complaining about WvW and its lack of balance.

And you’ll notice I’m not saying close transfers completely. If a server has room, then transfer to your heart’s content. Just no more bandwaggoning to the high tiers where it completely ruins the gameplay and gives lopsided matches where people stop playing because what’s the point?

If it’s crucial that you play with friends, then you need to evaluate, as an adult, what is more important to you: being on an already over-populated server, or going to a lower tier one and playing with the people you like. It can’t be both. Because both means that an already overcrowded server gets more crowded and then just steamrolls any opponent they encounter.

That steamrolling is no fun for the winning server, the losing servers or pretty much anyone who actually likes WvW as a game mode.

The root cause of this steamrolling/overstacking, political egos aside, has been the bandwaggoner; plus Anet caving and not standing behind decisions to lock servers, since most of the bigger ones are already overflowing above the “normal” population.

Otherwise, we’re stuck in a vicious cycle of “OPEN/BALANCE” wah wah wah forever.

Tongku.5326:

There are many, many ways to counter it, some things that have been thrown around these very forums for the last few years just of the top of my head in no particular order:

1. Rework the entire transfer cost system so that
a. it reflects which link you transfer to and gets more expensive, and I mean MORE expensive, not this current joke where you can get enough transfer gold from farming HOT maps for a few hours, but something that actually can be felt in the pocket.
b. The more an account is transferred around within a certain time period (for example 1 year) the more it costs each consequitive time it gets transferred.

2. Change the scoring system further so that server populations are taken into account, everything from PPK to PPT farming should reflect this. This way, server hopping for the win becomes simply irrelevant.

3. Do what they have done before, lower the “full” status bar on the links that already have plenty of players and lock them down. But this time, do not give in to bandwagon whining.

4. Impliment a limit on total transfers-in and have that limit visible on the server selection menu. So a guild can see if they will fit or not, and how much space there actually is on any given server. So people dont get stuck and do not transfer needlessly.

Many other things can be done. Disperse T1, each T1 server has enough people on it to fill the rest of the servers to the brim, though due to their “hybernation” periods, they may not realize it.

etc. etc. lots of stuff can be done, but wont be for 2 reasons. First it would take a ton of resources to do all this sort of stuff, maybe even re-launching and remarketing WVW, 2nd is that A-Net simply lacks the balls to do so and caves in to the whining, just look at what happened the last time they locked down overstacker servers, really wasn’t that long ago.

Love ALL of these ideas. I think implementing even just one or two would fix/resolve a lot.

The sequential increase is intriguing, it lays the responsibility of costs firmly on the player. You keep jumping, you’re going to pay more and more until it’s too exhorbitant. Could there be a “reset” to the cost say if a player stays 6 months on a server?

Last idea is brilliant — list population caps on server front page at transfer window.

As for comments that it shouldn’t be punative, I agree to some extent. But that only works when you have people who genuinely care about the game itself and not just themselves.

Teon.5168:

Jayne.9251:

Teon.5168:

Jayne.9251:

My solution is:

• Raise transfer costs to $50 each time. No gems. Real money.
• Cap servers that are full. No matter. This will take a long time to see parity, but every time Anet caves, it just reinforces the “vocal minority” thing.

I’m even willing to let transfer fees in gems, since it would take a couple weeks to get that $$$, and hopefully make people think twice about random jumping.

That wouldn’t solve anything. There would still be bandwagoning. You would still see random jumping, and capping the servers and saying tough luck would just cause people to leave.

Stuff, minus the $50 transfer fee(which is just absurd, as no sane game company would do that), has been tried before by other games that had a much higher priority on wvw.
That’ll never happen here.

EQ2 used to charge $75 to transfer your account to another server. And people paid it. Just not that often.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I don’t recall EQ2 having much in the way of large scale wvw.

And just to add, I did edit my original post that quoted a bit.

Nope. But I dropped by the other day and the game is still thriving after 10 years WITH a monthly sub.

Teon.5168:

Jayne.9251:

My solution is:

• Raise transfer costs to $50 each time. No gems. Real money.
• Cap servers that are full. No matter. This will take a long time to see parity, but every time Anet caves, it just reinforces the “vocal minority” thing.

I’m even willing to let transfer fees in gems, since it would take a couple weeks to get that $$$, and hopefully make people think twice about random jumping.

That wouldn’t solve anything. There would still be bandwagoning. You would still see random jumping, and capping the servers and saying tough luck would just cause people to leave.

Stuff, minus the $50 transfer fee(which is just absurd, as no sane game company would do that), has been tried before by other games that had a much higher priority on wvw.
That’ll never happen here.

EQ2 used to charge $75 to transfer your account to another server. And people paid it. Just not that often.

morrolan.9608:

Jayne.9251:

Has it worked for ESO?

3 factions? Yes.

Then why are you here?

Has it worked for ESO?

OP photo looks like this!

:)

Justine.6351:

1) scrap wvw in its current form.
2) make it a hotjoin 3 faction map not based on server, can only join the team that has the least players, teams of upto 5 will que same side.
3) forced player reassignment if a team becomes -5 population, volunteer rewards. Teams that qued kitten will be moved together if calculator dertermines their current side can lose 5 and enemy team needs those 5.
4) use ebg map as is.
5) who ever caps stonemist wins.
6)close map 60min after victory or if all players have left.
7) 50 players per team.
8) que for map but at 30 a new map will open (previous map locks) and places them there.
9) sorry blob guilds.

People don’t like losing and certainly not from Friday night, through the next 7days to Friday night again. The type of player who bandwagons will never be discouraged no matter how many stipulations you place on them.
People who don’t care about ppt play wvw because of being able to fine tune their gear/build, random open world format encounters and guild wars combat gameplay.

This sounds like EoTM.

There’s a reason why folks prefer WvW to EoTM.

Not trying to discourage discourse, I think it’s an important issue that needs to be addressed, but hotjoin would erode the whole value of “team” and ultimately the reason why many play WvW vs PvP/EoTM.

Eval.2371:

$50 is very absurd. 20$ is even a bit much and is the current gate.

The only real way to stop it is, to make it too pricey to change.

Then what’s the right price?

Jana.6831:

Do we have bandwaggoning on EU? (genuine question) I know it has been a huge problem on NA where things are differently.

Yeah, we’ve been infected for the past six months.