Guild Wars 2

Radakill.3469:

Just curious what would happen when both teams are even, we’ll say 100 each side, then Team A has people start logging off while Team B retains its population ? Does Team B get to keep their 100 or do people get randomly booted out.

Then the overpopulated team would have a variable wait que imposed until a balanced is again within a certain percent parameter, for instance, a 25% variable (hypothetical). So if team A and team B had 100 each, team A lost 30, then team B would have a que imposed until either team A’s pop increased, or team B’s pop decreased to the desired population variable.

This would be true for all 3 realms of course, just using 2 teams as an example.

The cap que could and should still be in play for all 3 realms, that shouldn’t cause any problems.

I would like to think that once a certain % difference in population is noted a re-log is enacted to balance population. If not steamrolling will continue as players can remain playing even with the disparity.

Though this may lead to some exploiting of the mechanic to prevent keep captures.

Fenrina.2954:

Jaytee.9513:

Switching attunement should be second nature for any elementalist…it would work like summon elemental skill.

In my case, I want to stack might and damage multipliers for use with Ice Storm. Having to switch to Water means I have to wait for Fire to finish cooling before I can generate might with the Bow. (Burning isn’t a big deal since I can inflict that via a signet if needed.).

Stack might first with fire/earth attunement then switch to water/ hit summon conjure (if you have sigil of battle it also adds might also). I think Might added thru EA is not that large (1 stack?).

Another suggestion I would like to give is to make weapon sets assignable to each attunement.

We have 3 or 4 weapons in our set which we can then assign to each attunement eg. staff assigned to fire and air, dagger/focus on water and and earth etc.

We could then have way more flexibility with our builds (not getting range locked, builds for single target busts, or better defense/escape set ups.)

Fenrina.2954:

Jaytee.9513:

Or you could perhaps make the conjured weapon a single utility slot to be based on attunement so that u can chose weapon that is summoned. Make the CD on the shorter side (because it displaces your 20 weapon skill set) so you can use it more regularly as situations arrive.

If a person is only interested in only one conjure, this makes it harder to access it quickly. I don’t need to pull out a Lightning Hammer or Earth Shield if I want Frost Bow for 900 range attacks.

Biggest problem seems to be Charges vs Cooldown. 25 Charges is fine for 30 second cooldown. 50 Charges works best for 60 second cooldown. Instead, we’re given 25 Charges for 60 second cools. Sure, we can pick up the second weapon, but frequently, it’ll get snatched.

Just saying that these weapons are highly situation, being able to access all of them with one utility slot maybe more enticing for players to use it. A lower cd would allow tossing them to get weapon skills back not as costly (60 seconds is too long imho). This would also help break range lock on ele’s weapon sets.

Switching attunement should be second nature for any elementalist…it would work like summon elemental skill.

Taldren.7523:

Fenrina.2954:

The reason conjures are fire is simple. They give the player addition attack options. I use Frost Bow to attack from a range I couldn’t. Fire is about attacking. Attacking is the theme that binds conjures to Fire. If your looking at conjures for reasons other than “does this give me attack options I want,” you will likely be disappointed no matter how low the cooldowns get.

So Fire is about attack … and yet all elementalists use Air for attack. You see a disconnect with your logic? All Conjured weapons are about attack and all (well less so with water) attunements are about attack as well. You really have to go out of your way to make some 6 degree connection why Conjuerer is a fire trait.

Still my solution:
Make Conjurered Weapons act as weapon kits. When you activate conjured weapon you will have a F5 ability to drop a weapon that would act like the current conjured weapons for other players, but it will have charges and a duration just like the current weapons.

Done. No more Conjurer trait and everyone gets what they want.

Or you could perhaps make the conjured weapon a single utility slot to be based on attunement so that u can chose weapon that is summoned. Make the CD on the shorter side (because it displaces your 20 weapon skill set) so you can use it more regularly as situations arrive.

Cactus.2710:

Solstice.1097:

style.6173:

Titan.3472:

Remove everyone from every servers. Rename 24 global servers (no more NA or EU but GLOBAL): make everyone choose a server after these change : implement a lower cap on population on every of these server. Start leagues. Here you have 24 random servers that have all equals chances. Next season repeat the same: remove everyone from servers, rename them all, etc…

This^^ With the exception of keeping NA and EU separate for lag reasons.

Remember, this is a thread about “World Population”. It needs to be even across servers. Right now it is not.

actually, this thread is less about fixing population imbalance, and more about addressing the problems it causes.

Then in my opinion this thread will be a waste of time. Just about every proposal I’ve seen to simply address the score imbalance caused by population imbalance would either be ineffective or could easily be abused. If we aren’t going to see some serious effort from ANet to equalize match populations then WvW is doomed and I will go find something else to do until EOS or some more intelligently crafted game comes out. You can equalize the score without fixing the population balance, but you can’t equalize the scope and entertainment value of the match without it. It’s that simple.

You need to look at the reasoning why people bandwagon or stack populations. If you don’t address those it will just re-occur. Look at my above post to see the problems a “faction” system could produce.

I feel for your frustration at unbalanced matchups ( I face them on a regular basis as well —-—>ehmry bay is my server) but Anet is trying to not alienate the large player base on tier 1 servers with longer queues (which I feel is the players own fault).

At least they are acknowledging the concerns and asking for feedback.

For truly balanced matches dynamic population cap would be required with cap set at lowest servers queue. Either hourly re-logs or relogs set when population differences are greater than a certain percent.

This would pertain to total 4 map populations and not single maps…..

Simple solution which insures balanced matches no matter who the opponents are.

Problems involved with this solution:

1) Higher queue times for stacked servers when playing underdogs.

2) Imbalances of power/player ratio due to wvw rank masteries (high tier servers tend to have higher ranked players due to constant steamrolling of lower populated servers and their ability to “WXP farm” faster.)

3) Imbalances due to lack of organization (no commanders in wvw, guild groups with have their members waiting in queue while opponents have full guild groups playing).

For those asking for three faction model these are the problems that have to be addressed:

1) Populations can still stack to a dominating faction (Organized guild stacking could also pose a problem).

2) Controlling “trolls, griefers, spies, and hackers” becomes problematic as tracking and banning individuals become harder (population pool per faction becomes very large so these individuals can “hide” easier).

3) This type of change may require major re-coding meaning a long wait period for the WvW player base before a “fix” is implemented (Look at PVE guesting as an example).

4) Voip communications need to be reset for each “instanced” match up (teamspeak server set for each match would change weekly).

These are the problems that I can see arising…….Which is why I suggested a lower impact type solution of tying rewards/ppt to a population ratio.

Players can decide for themselves whether easy wins/small rewards or challenging wins/large rewards suit them (effort = reward amount).

Smaller servers would gain stronger players due to faster WvW rank leveling, while stacked servers would have slower leveling when playing underdogs (no more easy wxp/karma/reward farming).

Not to sound negative but changes to elementalist seems to nerf survivability a bit. Being the squishiest class available (lowest hp, light armor) with no passive defenses or evades seem a bit unfair.

Devs have taken away mobility (RTL nerf), heals (EA internal cd of 9 sec and healing co-efficients), buffs (through boon stealing-removal or boon hate type traits given to other classes) but given nothing in return leaving ele’s as the least played class in pvp tournaments.

Taking 50-60 points into water and arcane traits is a must if you plan on running solo or small groups. Without those traits ele’s die far to easily and now you want to bump up some of those traits to master tier lvl? Even if people chose to place 30 into arcana line they still will lose out either elemental attunement or renewing stamina (protection buff generation or increased dodge ability) and this sounds like a big nerf to survival.

What do ele’s get in return? A 2 sec reduction on attunement swap. Slightly lower cd on a few utilities……..

With all the power creep from equipment and “balancing” other classes, elementalist are having a hard time staying alive long enough to be of benefit to groups in sPVP or WvW, which is why there is less and less of them playing (they are becoming rally bait- more of a detriment to the group).

IMHO elemental attunement trait should be a built in passive as part of the class mechanic, attunement recharge have a base of 10 sec, and perhaps specific condition removal for each minor (air 5=cripple removal, fire 5=chill removal, earth 5=burning removal, water 5 bleed or poison removal) which would make attunement swapping important to survival.

These changes would decrease the need for water/arcane trait lines.

Cactus.2710:

I believe that all these posts suggesting score adjustments based upon population differences totally miss the point … which is that it is not fun to play when you are significantly outnumbered. In my opinion, the ONLY way to fix WvW is to come up with some way to roughly balance populations in a match. Otherwise we will get the situation where, in an extreme example, an undermanned server can keep the score close by mostly capturing camps or killing yaks. That’s not a full spectrum of the WvW experience.

I suppose that the suggestion to automatically form an alliance between B and C if A has a dominant population presence might help, but that’s pretty much just a way to balance a 2-way battle …. it no longer is the 3-way conflict originally intended. In my opinion, a better method would be to keep the 3-way format and implement a forced mercenary system like Rift did with their warfronts … although I’ll admit not everyone would like that.

In any case, score balance does NOT equate to game play balance. If instanced matches with equal player caps for each faction (notice I didn’t say server) are the only way to achieve game play balance, I say do it.

The idea of adjusting PPT/rewards according to population differences makes players realize that easy battles does not equate to easy PPT/Rewards, which is the one of the main causes of population stacking.

In order to make population spread out on its own, you need to create incentives to do so. Given choice of joining a stronger group or weaker with same rewards for the win which would you choose?

Now if you create a population ratio which determines rewards/ppt, you place a question in the player’s minds: Do you want easy battles with little rewards or challenging battles with great rewards?

As I said in previous posts I don’t feel like its a punishment for stacked servers as they make up for the smaller rewards with increased frequency of taking objectives. Weaker servers have greater rewards/PPT because of the difficulty in fighting against superior numbers.

Exactly, scaling rewards and PPT values for objectives should be based on effort…..you outman your opponents you get less rewards and PPT for each objective taken/defended. You’re undermanned at the time of an objective being captured/defended you get more rewards and PPT value assigned to objective.

More effort required———>better the rewards……This would result in weaker servers gunning for the strongest because reward payout and PPT gained is greater.

Population ratios are not fixed and are forever fluctuating so an average is taken every hour. “Nightcapping” effects would be lessened. And different strategies my come into play because of fluctuating PPT values of objectives (a tower captured while undermanned maybe worth more than a keep taken while you were steamrolling your opponents).

Each objective has a base loot and ppt value when taken. Multiply base value by population ratio to determine rewards are given and what PPT value it has.

A server steamrolling another because of population imbalance wouldn’t benefit as much because not much effort is needed.

Removing advantages of being stacked by lessening rewards should help spread population.

Remember it should always be more effort more rewards and not the opposite…..

This shouldn’t be taken as a magical fix which will instantly balance populations but as a long term solution to try and create a balance. It would give weaker servers an incentive to keep fighting (reap great rewards for their efforts) while discouraging bandwagoning for easy wins (by giving out a proportionally less payout)

Jaytee.9513:

Many different sound suggestions have been made as people look at it from different perspectives. The question to be asked is why do players create these imbalances?

Human psychology dictates that people will follow the path of least effort for the most gain. Simply put: current game mechanics favors population stacking for easy wins and rewards.

Now my suggestion would be to change the mechanics by creating a population ratio between servers which would be used to determine rewards. A highly stacked server would not get easier rewards playing against much weaker ones as the ratio would reduce the reward amount. Weaker servers would be highly rewarded for efforts against a stacked server as the ratio would boost rewards.

1) WXP, Karma, and Loot should be based on ratios of population difference. If server A has highest population playing against a server with half the population they receive half the base reward. Server B with half the population of A gets double the base reward. Player reward =(base value)X(ratio)

2) PPT should work similarly with each objective having a PPT value point given at the time it was acquired. PPT= (base value)X(ratio)

3) Population is based on averages (10 samples) taken randomly each hour, counting total population of all 4 maps. This would prevent population ratio manipulation.

These changes in my opinion would promote a value system where more effort equals more rewards for players and servers and may help prevent stacking in the future. These changes may create a more strategic type of game play instead of the zerg to win mentality as taking objectives while outnumbering opponents maybe prove unfavorable.

It may promote weaker servers to target the strongest to get greater rewards and PPT. (preventing the 2 stronger servers targeting the weakest for easy ppt routine as attacking the weakest may net very little rewards).

Once again the idea is for players to realize that more population equals less rewards and PPT per objective taken, which could reduce the incentive to stack servers over the long run.

Many of the suggestions may mitigate problems caused by population imbalances but don’t address WHY imbalances occurred to begin. Look at what happened before the start of Leagues…..people speculated which server would get an easy win/easy reward and began stacking.

We need to create a disincentive to stack servers which is my reasoning behind a population ratio co-efficient controlling PPT and rewards.

When a stacked server plays against a weaker ones its too easy to “farm” WXP and Loot as well as maintain PPT…. make players realize they can’t have it easy and reap rewards at the same time. Taking objectives while an opponent is heavily outmanned should not provide the same rewards and PPT while taking objectives while undermanned should give way greater gains.

Population ratio is not map based but an average wvw population count at time objective was taken/defended, so manipulation of ratios would be hard to do.

Are you punishing stronger servers? No because the fact is the more players a server has the easier it is to obtain objectives………

More effort more reward….. easy wins equal little reward. When players realize this they may transfer to lower populated worlds and help spread out population base.

Many different sound suggestions have been made as people look at it from different perspectives. The question to be asked is why do players create these imbalances?

Human psychology dictates that people will follow the path of least effort for the most gain. Simply put: current game mechanics favors population stacking for easy wins and rewards.

Now my suggestion would be to change the mechanics by creating a population ratio between servers which would be used to determine rewards. A highly stacked server would not get easier rewards playing against much weaker ones as the ratio would reduce the reward amount. Weaker servers would be highly rewarded for efforts against a stacked server as the ratio would boost rewards.

1) WXP, Karma, and Loot should be based on ratios of population difference. If server A has highest population playing against a server with half the population they receive half the base reward. Server B with half the population of A gets double the base reward. Player reward =(base value)X(ratio)

2) PPT should work similarly with each objective having a PPT value point given at the time it was acquired. PPT= (base value)X(ratio)

3) Population is based on averages (10 samples) taken randomly each hour, counting total population of all 4 maps. This would prevent population ratio manipulation.

These changes in my opinion would promote a value system where more effort equals more rewards for players and servers and may help prevent stacking in the future. These changes may create a more strategic type of game play instead of the zerg to win mentality as taking objectives while outnumbering opponents maybe prove unfavorable.

It may promote weaker servers to target the strongest to get greater rewards and PPT. (preventing the 2 stronger servers targeting the weakest for easy ppt routine as attacking the weakest may net very little rewards).

Once again the idea is for players to realize that more population equals less rewards and PPT per objective taken, which could reduce the incentive to stack servers over the long run.

NoTrigger.8396:

Grevender.9235:

since we will get a “support patch”, can we expect then a future “offensive patch”?
taking a quick look in the Elementalist forum you may notice that people are tired of being stuck into support roles.

i dont think you are aware of what an elementalist can do

most dps in pve, just saying.

They cant event fix population balances, want to make rewards based on population and coverage….do you think they deserve any money from players? If you do sure feel free to donate. For me its the main reason I don’t buy gems anymore. The imbalanced wvw matches every week + rewarding those stacked servers has left me not wanting to support them.

Not trying to be ungrateful just telling the truth. Game has marvelous potential but poor mechanics that are causing the majority of problems that are coming into play meta.

LOL, every single MMO out there experiences these kinds of server population imbalances and no one can find a way to balance it?

So many good suggestions have been made but not taken into consideration.

Hindsight is always clearer but ANET should have placed a population balancing cap at the release of their game for WvW . Meaning when 3 servers are matched up the second highest server within the group sets the cap limit (Total wvw population not map count) with lowest populated server receiving UM buff.

This would of helped prevent these problems:

1) Stacking of population on winning servers as queue would grow very long.
2) Skill lag to some extent as population is more spread evenly across all servers.
3) Competition would be more based on strategy, teamwork, and skill not on
Coverage and population.
4) Lack of variety of matchups.
5) Balanced growth of player achievements + WvW abilities through all servers
(Stacked servers have a huge advantage as they can lvl up WXP far easier with
massive zergs. Devs should seriously look at WXP level comparison between high
and low tier servers).

Just saying that I hope future MMORPG’s look at the problems that have been occurring repetitively throughout history and take note to prevent these…….

Adding a siege buff and/or defensive structure buff onto outmanned servers would be a good addition to try and balance wvw population differences.

The way Outmanned is determined also needs to be addressed IMHO. Currently its based of a single map population. I feel it should be based off total wvw population of a server at a given time period. And it should be given to any server who is outmanned not only the least populated one (Stacked server A outnumbers both B and C by % so both deserve Outmanned Buff).

With the current match-up system failing miserably something needs to be done……..

Maybe the ability to assign a weapon set for each attunment would provide more flexibility for elementalist builds and gameplay.

Dagger/Dagger for fire
Scepter/Dagger for air
Scepter/Dagger for earth
Dagger/Dagger for water

Would be my selection for weapon sets

Vena.8436:

Elochai.1280:

That most of the match ups every week are greatly unbalanced?

Actually its about 50/50 (NA), though this week seems to be starting off worse than usual. Usually T1 + T5/6 are usually consistently close with T4 and T7/8 being chaotic between good and blow-out.

T2 and T3 are stuck in hell because TC is stuck in T1.5 and they will completely demolish wherever they end up.

This is exactly the problem.

There is no function to balance population differences between servers. So most times servers will be faced with overwhelming odds. Now taking into consideration that players want to win and numbers mean everything, what happens?

Server stacking…….

This becomes more prevalent when you apply pve bonuses based solely on wvw point totals. Rewarding stacked servers when they play Under-populated ones is like getting kicked in the groin. Where is the rewards for trying hard to challenge a stacked server?

We get more evolution points so we are more likely to get un-balanced matchups, lol.

See the picture yet?

This is one of the reasons people get frustrated with the current match-up system. You are kitten ed if you do or don’t.

Rewarding players on a outmanned server with higher loot potential may encourage players to participate more.

Outmanned should be based on MOS rating which means different reward levels according to differences in server ranking (100 pt difference means lvl 1 buff, 200 pt difference = lvl 2 buff etc.). This buffs should be serious not some minor 20 magic find with the extreme differences in server ranking having no repair costs and bonus rare chests upon taking larger objectives.

This would make fighting stronger servers more appealing and less of a punishment in the eyes of players of the lower ranked servers.

If they gave buffs to defensive structures and siege in accordance to population ratios it would help a lot to even out matches.

Even supply manipulation can be used to even out matches without creating OP players. Give larger supply carrying capacities to servers with lower population, higher structure hp and higher siege damage. These could offset some of the disparity in population sizes.

Stronger NPCs for camps or higher capacity dolyaks to help with defending/providing supply.

These are all viable options but they have not thought of it. Fighting outnumbered shouldn’t me you lose automatically.

Basket of Boxes.1976:

Jaytee.9513:

Wouldn’t the “gaining” 1 ability point for each character be exploitable? I mean levels 1-5 for wvw rank is so easy to achieve. Create new character…….level it to rank 5, delete character, repeat………..

Quick easy way to gain ability points for your main……..

Just saying if that is how its going to work how do you stop that from occurring?

If you are talking about wxp being shared your new character wouldn’t be rank 1 when you made them they would be whatever rank your main was. You wouldn’t be able to exploit account bound wxp that way.

This is what OP stated:

“New characters will start off with one ability point, and all existing characters will receive one more”.

How do you interpret that?

I interpret it as "when each character levels all existing characters on the same account will gain one more ability point. Not sharing wxp.

Wouldn’t the “gaining” 1 ability point for each character be exploitable? I mean levels 1-5 for wvw rank is so easy to achieve. Create new character…….level it to rank 5, delete character, repeat………..

Quick easy way to gain ability points for your main……..

Just saying if that is how its going to work how do you stop that from occurring?

Envicerate only hit for 5k on me so I was wondering if something fishy was going on when an auto atk hits higher than a burst skill……6k triple chop, and no I myself am not running a zerk setup I’ve decent armor rating (2600-ish)

Just questioning the validity of said damage…. damage log shows attack sequence of 500-600 hp dmg from same atks then suddenly spiking to 6 k damage. Just wondering about a possible hack in use…got 11k+ in a single chain of axe attacks. It was 2v2 against necro and warrior. Any thoughts?

Seems like a bug is cropping up causing message suppression in WvW. And it seems to be happening during ninja attacks on capture points. I rarely chat except to relay messages abt impending attacks or attempts.

Been wondering if foul play is at hand here……..

FirstBlood.7359:

In MMOs rogues are like a mechanism of natural selection. Players with the reflexes of a dairy cow and clicking all skills are easy prey, but no thief can touch a good player under fair circumstances. Mistform, protection, knockdowns, stun and chill aura – what else do you need? It’s almost impossible for a properly built S/D, D/D or even staff ele to lose against a thief.

Lol, staff elementalist beating thief 1v1. What game are you playing?

The new match up system is a hit and miss with stacked servers facing off two weaker opponents at times.

A “bounty” buff for ppt on the top server’s bl would encourage a double team against the strongest opponent which may alleviate the pressure off the weakest server as many times the 1st and 2nd place servers will focus the 3rd as they are “easy” points.

This buff should only occur when a lead of X points is achieved (fill in the blank). This may encourage more competitive fights for the stacked server while reducing the frustrations for the weakest (usually being double teamed).

Nerf doesn’t necessarily mean a direct change to a class. It could also mean what was given to other classes. For example look at torment which causes damage upon movement….. mobility is one of the main defenses of an elementalist yet these skills have been given to the two classes who cause the most trouble for them.

Wouldn’t you call that a nerf?

Drarnor Kunoram.5180:

Last I checked, Eles have two invulnerability skills, extremely high protection uptime, frequent condition cleanses, and frequent healing, none of which got removed in this patch. All that happened to the popular D/D build was that it lost some stunbreakers.

I think what OP is expressing the fact that in order to get the above benefits ie. survival necessities, we have to trait heavily into arcane and water.

This limits our builds considerably if we are playing small group or solo roaming. Almost all our hard hitting skills have ridiculous cast times which often requires cc to make them hit in a reliable fashion….with cc skills going on cooldown for long periods after.

We’ll just have to see what these “buffs” to staff and traits do in real time combat as to many changes are occurring within a single patch to determine the “balancing effectiveness” between classes.

The bonus system in place giving buffs to a server is out-dated and ill conceived because of the new match up system.

Being based on ppt and points give huge rewards to stacked servers (higher tiered) because they can dominate point-wise with more coverage and higher wvw populations.

Is this fair to a lower ranked server who is fighting harder against a higher tiered server?

Glicko points don’t mean diddly squat in motivating players in my opinion and the current system creates further imbalances in server population.

Just saying that to create a better competitive gaming environment, changes are needed to encourage the spreading of player population not the “stacking” of servers which we are seeing now.

The main problem that I see is target lock break with every stealth and shadow return, with only 3 secs of reveal most people can’t re-acquire target and use a skill other than auto attack. Melee types can’t use gap closers without target and ranged atks also require a target. I think this and the reveal not activating on a miss or blocked attack are main problems…….. you would see alot less GC thieves with these implemented.

Many players are complaining about unbalanced match-ups between servers which in general is caused by wvw population differences and time zone issues.

How about shortening matches to 8 hour periods between resets (along with increasing upgrade speeds for camps, towers etc) and creating 3 different ladders for each time slot.

This would result in more balanced matches as well as higher turn out due too quick matches which can be determined with a single gaming session without being stuck in a mismatch for prolonged periods.

You get rank scoring for each placement at the end of each match, ie. 1st place =1.0 pt 2nd= .75 pt 3rd= .50 pt. for that match ladder. With 3 different ladders to follow, match ups will be more diverse and competitive due to more equal coverage and player base.

“Nightcapping” and other common issues caused by population imbalances would be reduced dramatically and winning will be more focused on tactics not coverage.

Making upgraded towers and keeps give more ppt could encourage defense and additional points for taking upgraded structures could encourage major offensives.

In the event of an undermanned situation happening I would grant an additional waypoint on each map to facilitate travel and grouping. Once UM buff is gone those WP vanish. These would only appear if TOTAL server count indicates undermanned (not map population).

Please feel free to add additional suggestions or criticisms as long as they are concise and well explained.

Aeros.2046:

Amins.3710:

It’ll be nice once we don’t have to fight AR/BP anymore… simply because you’ve neither learned nor implemented adaptive strategies over the last 6 weeks.

It’s one thing to say “population imbalances” made for crappy gameplay, but even the small roaming groups are just bad.

6 weeks… zero improvement on any front…

I mean, srsly?

Instead, what’s happened is larger tower hugging zergs afraid to come out even when there’s equal numbers.

Obviously you were not in Eternal Battlegrounds all day yesterday. We had a massive force, all in our brand new Teamspeak rolling across the map. Every time the Ehmry zerg attempted to fight it, it would die. Over and over, and over again. Flipped all your towers, nearly got your keep, and engaged you guys in field fights in your supply camps for hours on end.

I made about 427 Badges of honor yesterday, and the 7 or so people from my guild who were in that fight made about 10,000 influence for us. Farming Ehmry. Clearly…we are not improving.

I must say though, it was Ehmry who proved dissapointing. They’ve been saying for weeks that they are superior tactically and its not a numbers situation at all. Yet the moment we field a zerg that is at last equal in size to yours, it turns into a loot fest with all of us rolling magic find gear and farming Ehmry for rares and badges.

Indeed, very disappointing.

Its also quite obvious that the ZERG that BP had far out numbered our groups and yet you can chest thump about it. Hugging the camp for addtional support was smart but it should be mentioned. Its clearly funny and hypocritical because BP always complains about the “Zerginess” of our population on Ehmry but yet creates a bigger zerg and then brags about it…….

Killing someone 2 v 1 is not something to brag about in my opinion but then again to each their own.

I have the same problem but have a work around……….it may be due to firewall problems with gw2 client not connecting to the internet so your account is not logging in. Try this………

Start up the client and hit log in

You will see the the news and announcements along with the play button but dont hit play. Instead hit the little gear shaped icon above the announcement section and it will give you some options. I edit my settings to log into my account then hit play. The client seems to respond only after you manually log in.

I was going to try to re-load the entire client but looks like a few of you did without success. Try this work around and see if it works.

Anet should really try to look into this………

It seems I have to log in manually through this website before the gw2 client will start responding. If i dont log into my account the client hangs (windows says that its not responding) but if I access my account settings through web-browser it will allow the client to connect…….Anyone else got this issues?

How to rectify the problem?

After patch cant log-in as client is non responsive in windows. Did repair utility to check archived files everything checked out….

The incident got reported so all ANET has to do is look at the logs to see what happened……if a hack or exploit was used then a ban is in order. This is something we can all agree upon, correct?

So why bring up what ifs and scenarios trying to explain the sudden capping of a fully reinforced keep? If nothing wrong was done then no worries. If someone gets banned then I hope its a lesson we can all learn from.

Opening music theme sounds weird and off key……. only started after computer shut down unexpectedly while playing

Was something added for easter?

Pls respond…..thx

Dasorine.1964:

Sir Vincent III.1286:

The idea of a “glass cannon” is for it to break after dealing a lot of damage. But glass cannon Thieves aren’t breaking after massive damage and that’s the problem.

I think the nerf will be on the survivability of glass cannons, since they have to break, rather than targetting the damage output of the Thieves.

But that’s just me.

The question is though, why these glass cannons don’t break afterwards, people claim its because stealth is overpowered but it doesn’t actually prevent that much damage against people that know how it works, so what else is it causing these glass cannons to reduce all this damage?

Invisibility not only breaks LOS atks but it breaks target lock meaning players have to re-target the thief (hit tab) every time stealth is used.

Not to mention the regeneration, condition removal, and repositioning going on in the mean time.

Opponents cant react given only a 3 sec window.

GC builds should require support from other team mates for survivability but as it was thieves could run full zerk gear with no toughness, vitality and still survive.

All I can say is welcome to the club of placing more resources into those areas in order to survive……….

They should make the reveal debuff happen whether an attack happens or not as this prevents chain stealthing which effectively allows a thief to “reset” a fight when they feel they are losing. All other characters face risks when engaging in combat while the thief can effectively attack then stealth away. Combined with all the escape mechanisms a thief has ie. shadow returns, crippling traps, caltrops etc. it technically allows a thief to troll other players which i feel is detrimental to player enjoyment……

Really many other games had stealth as an ability but it always came with a penalty, ie slow move speed, high cooldowns, increased vulnerability etc never additional buffs like how GW2 makes it – exactly the opposite (higher speed, regeneration, condition removal, increased damage). IMHO too much benefit is stacked upon an already OP skill which make it impossible for opponents to effectively target you. Its like giving a warrior endure pain with a 10 sec CD. Really people need to think about the two sides of the coin……..

In my opinion breakout events should only be giving to servers who are not point leaders in their tier during the current match up. Keeping the scores close in a matchup should be ANET’s priority if population balances within a tier cannot be obtained.

The more a server is ahead in points the more favorable advantages the weaker servers should get.

Keeping the point spread close keeps more players interested in WvW IMHO which leads to more satisfaction overall. I mean we all want to play to win right?

Why play a game when you have no chance of winning?

This is why players will quit and move on, when weeks upon weeks they face certain defeat…….Tier 8 imbalances is a perfect example of what I am saying and certain other tiers have similar problems with the same servers winning every week till they move up and get trounced while the server that moves down gets to dominate.

Basing perks and buffs based on server scores is the easiest way to prevent exploiting of these while trying to keep each server competitive within their tier matchup.

Just a thought to throw out to the devs……..

sostronk.8167:

Jaytee.9513:

If thieves are blaming culling as the fundamental problem to the OP’ness of stealth, What should ANET do if they can’t fix it?

That is the question…….

People state that this is the reason for the seeming imbalance to the skills of thieves, now please state how they should fix this if culling can’t be eliminated.

This is not about crying or whining, this is about a problem that many players feel needs to be addressed…..

How can so many complaints arise if there wasn’t a problem?

Responses from the ANET dev teams would be greatly appreciated.

Not that many complaints have arised. Its just a vocal minority on an internet gaming forum.

So the thousands of responses is a vocal minority? Go look how many threads appear complaining about stealth…..

If thieves are blaming culling as the fundamental problem to the OP’ness of stealth, What should ANET do if they can’t fix it?

That is the question…….

People state that this is the reason for the seeming imbalance to the skills of thieves, now please state how they should fix this if culling can’t be eliminated.

This is not about crying or whining, this is about a problem that many players feel needs to be addressed…..

How can so many complaints arise if there wasn’t a problem?

Responses from the ANET dev teams would be greatly appreciated.

As we all know WvW population is the winning factor in world pvp.

Even within a single tier there are brutally mismatched opponents who don’t have an chance at winning. Undermanned buff don’t mean squat when you die constantly in situations placing you 1 v 5 because your server doesn’t have the playerbase of your opponent.

How about trying to even out the scores by removing supply camp buffs on guards of the point leader of the matchup? This would allow easier capture and reduced reinforcement rates for the point lead nation so they can’t build up a lead that basically ensures a win.

The lowest scoring team should recieve stronger NPC’s and a higher supply carry amount to allow the easier holding of capture points helping them remain in contention with the leader.

Second place server should receive of the of the two buffs to help maintain their placing.

I feel this may help lower population servers remain competitive as well as help equalize time zone dominance where a server is guaranteed a win because of lack of defenders within a time period.

Players may disagree that WvW doesnt matterto player developement but the bonusus attributed to WvW scores help build characters and give unfair advantages to certain servers ( they can earn more gold at an easier pace thus funding more wvw participation while lower population servers never get these bonusus).

Well if a team was allowed more players then the rest wouldn’t that be called unfair? I too have experienced this on my own bl, being placed in queue and yet it seemed that we were out numbered badly……..

Its weird because being overwhelmed 2 to 1 and being placed on a queue seems wrong. Just my 2 cents…….i’m sure there are many others who bring up this disparity.

Seems that even within the same tier, imbalances and blowouts occur and its usually because of population imbalances.

Placing a max population cap based on the lowest populated server in wvw would solve this but it would limit the amount of players able to enjoy this aspect of the game (especially when servers have different time zone dominance). But I think a buff to NPC’s on Undermanned servers and the removal of guild claim buff (for supply camps) on point leading server would help a lot with maintaining a more closer gap regarding scores.

This could be done without un-balancing pvp combat. The NPC buffs should be based on score with the third place server having the highest buffed NPC’s.
Giving them a chance to hold capture points and catch up with the leaders making a more close score match.

The tier system is too simplistic for making competitive match ups as population is the key to winning. Makes it so the lower populated servers within a tier have a fighting chance at least………..

Just a suggestion, but maybe they should make stomps permanent when you are killed by an outmanned server. Meaning they cant rez you at the zerg location. You would have to run back to position.

Littlefeather.8623:

Jaytee.9513:

Littlefeather.8623:

I can assure you, that no one from Rethesis has transferred to exploit anything. Again, we chose to transfer to make a WvW focused server, from the bottom up. This requires night time presence as well as NA presence. This is a great combination right now for Kaineng, and at the right time.

If that is what you believe then i can’t gainsay you. I’m just saying what many others are feeling.. This is something you shouldn’t deny………..

Can you empathize with the facts that disruptive events like this destroys the enjoyment factor for the casual player?

Yes I agree, to every decision there is a cause and effect. But we did not come here for this sole intention, I am sorry with the state of WvW in this tier at this moment, I really do apologize, I know its crappy for DR and EB, no one negates that. But our intent was to create WvW focused server, which is now Kaineng. Again, I understand, the guild I am in has been there too, and it is very disheartening, so I do understand.

Apologizing does not rectify the situation when the majority of posts coming from your server seem to defend your actions at griefing the lower lvl tiers. To say that your leaders did not plan it out this way is like saying your guilds never did wvw before……. which we know is not true.

There is no doubt in my mind that griefing the lower tiers was intended to cause bandwagoning at the expense of alot of players enjoyment.

ANET is the ones who should be apologizing for allowing such actions to take place to begin with. Breaking the tier ranking system in my eyes is a severe exploit causing many people to leave out of frustration.

Littlefeather.8623:

I can assure you, that no one from Rethesis has transferred to exploit anything. Again, we chose to transfer to make a WvW focused server, from the bottom up. This requires night time presence as well as NA presence. This is a great combination right now for Kaineng, and at the right time.

If that is what you believe then i can’t gainsay you. I’m just saying what many others are feeling.. This is something you shouldn’t deny………..

Can you empathize with the facts that disruptive events like this destroys the enjoyment factor for the casual player?

The current system is full of flaws which leads to stagnation and griefing.

By allowing mass transfers and the slow adjustment of server rating, ANET is allowing the few large guilds to effectively destroy the tier ranking system, giving them the power to grief other players of low ranked servers they are facing.

Look at the current situation with Kaineng?

Is it fair for the other servers they are competing with? Being out manned 24/7 destroys moral within a server and prevents a community from effectively growing from within.

Outmanned servers have no chance at being competitive and basically creates an un-enjoybable game enviroment for the majority of the wvw players of said server for that whole match up. It effectively demoralizes the player population and makes people quit………

Why play a game where you don’t stand a chance of winning?

Think about what competition is and base systems designed to create it not destroy it……

Think about systems that reward community building and server loyalty……..

Create ssytems that can balance servers despite large popultaion differences…….

All the above can create a more diverse and highly competitive end game.

quercus.9261:

Jaytee.9513:

Define “Over Powered” and I’m sure we can come to a consensus of whether or not a revamp of skills etc is required for thief class.

When one character class can force build/gear/trait changes in all the other character classes to even be competitive there is an imbalance.

Name a single class that can remain competitive against a thief without mass investment in defensive attributes/utility/gear?

When imbalances like this occur it begins to limit play styles and builds available for use in any competitive instance.

This is why certain set builds are becoming common place……When all the other character classes must run knight, cleric or some other toughness build to just survive an initial encounter with a thief what does that tell you?

That is how I define a class is OP.

Like I said if you have no problem dealing with thieves post your gear set trait build etc and we’ll see if there is a trend……..

My Mesmer is built specifically for thieves in WvW. Full toughness spec, vit and toughness on all armor and weapons, cleric jewelry. I play a condition shatter spec. I can usually make a thief run away

Thank you for being honest…. It seems that there is some truth to what I am stating.

Players have to specifically spec to counter a single class, namely the Thief. This tells me that the class abilities are out of balance compared to the others.

This is the point that I am trying to convey to ANET’s dev team. It is a limiting factor preventing diversity in builds and play style. Dying in a few attacks is extremely frustrating for the losing side and removes the fun factor the game is trying to promote.

As to the person who recommended GC D/D elementalist as a counter, you would die to a thief’s attack in 1 sec. Ask any elementalist……..

I have posted some suggestions regarding counters to crit damage stacking but it just could be the damage coefficient of certain thief skills are too high.