Guild Wars 2

Caedmon.6798:

Change this random crap,you’re officially Killing wvwvw now.The servers matches are unbalanced as hell,keep this up and more people will drop.

Football teams don’t play the same 2 or 3 opponents every week! Just because you are number 1 doesn’t mean you only play number 2 or 3. Frequently the top team plays someone facing relegation and, surprise surprise, they mostly stomp on them.

Devon has said the current extreme matchups are just, like in the very beginning, to get an understanding of real capabilities against different opponents. The ossified leaderboard at the moment was not helpful. The alternative was a complete reset of the ranking (which some did call for). Then Vizunah, might have played Vabbi! How would that have gone!

They have said in a few weeks the system will be adjusted so everyone meets teams closer to their ranking. As i said earlier I think about 250 glicko points feels right, at least for Europe, and should probably happen sooner rather than later. Then we should have a bit of variability, a good thing, but maybe without some of the extremes.

But some teams will still get wiped. That happens in all sport. Trying to rig a system so every battle is always even is pointless and probably impossible.

Those saying one up one down is the “obvious” solution don’t speak for me! I agree with others it wouldn’t solve anything.

Personally, I say well done to Devon to ‘fessing up to his uncertainty in the current rankings and being prepare to test them. The stick he is getting from some is IMO very unfair. Many here and on Reddit felt people were locked in tiers and it was unclear if the ranking differences were genuine; on the other hand I think we are learning things weren’t as broken as maybe we thought. Variety is good, but playing teams too far from your league is not fun for anyone. I vote for tightening the RNG soonish so opponents are within around 250pts of you, at least in EU.

Of course that means there would be no suitable opponents for Vabbi and FoW. Unfortunately, this just seems to be true!

This, from only 2 weeks ago, should be included: http://mos.millenium.org/servers/view/7/74

On the final morning, with only around 10 hours to go all 3 teams were within about 900 points of each other. Things shook out a little in the final hours. The final result doesn’t look quite as close. But all week it was crazy, with leadership switching hour to hour.

Yeah but it was down for several hours this morning, now down again for over 45 mins and counting.

Mif.3471:

Having to pay 10 silver for increased supplies every single time a camp gets flipped is a hugely unfair burden on scouts/yak runners/sentries (whatever you want to call the people that get kitten done instead of zerging).

If anything is changed with camp upgrades, this should be first.

As someone who does it all the time you will not find me arguing with that! Paying for tower upgrades and camp upgrades to help them is a very expensive hobby! But vital though.

Thor.1756:

Honestly the primary advantage of upgrades outside of double supply delivery is that it increases the total supply that can sit in the camp, which is actually quite useful for one’s spawn camp.

That too, but very expensive in prime time when camps are flipping. I’d see it as a side benefit, rather than a reason in itself, unless you plan also on a manned camp guard.

Personally, during prime time I’d take supplies from upgraded and full keeps and towers rather than use higher level camp upgrades. With double supplies and, in EB, caravan guards, supplies used in this way are usually quickly replaced.

Supply upgrades are essential, as others have said, when upgrading towers. Doubly so in EB when you hold SM. SM needs yaks and double supplies!

Caravan guards are just about essential in EB, unless you have players fulfilling that role, not to protect against invaders, but to protect against CRITTERS. Loads of yaks will fall to nothing more than local fauna without guards to help them. If not on way to first tower, then on way to SM.

So, especially in EB when upgrading, straight away order guards then supply, if not enough people to guard yaks and supply then guards if there are some human protectors. In BLs, maybe just the supply upgrade is OK.

The other “higher levels” upgrades are only useful out of primetime hours, when you are reasonably confident there are only small squads of attackers and no zerg. They can stop a small team capping completely, especially if the camp also has hylek/dredge/ogre support. At the very least they buy time for a response from players. But, if you are expecting a zerg you are right those upgrades are a waste of cash!

Castaliea.3156:

Well I can now tell you that it does not happen every time as I have not gotten a single chest yet clearly ranked up. Thank you for ignoring half of my previous post though.

Yes,it should happen on every wXP rank-up. I have read nothing about it starting only after a few ranks.

It is a chest like the daily – I.e. in your UI, not in the world.

If you already had some ranks before this update you should get 2 chests per rank up until you have earnt chests for all previous ranks obtained. Eg. If you were rank 5 when the chests were introduced you would earn 2 chests until you get to L10.

If none of this is happening for you I suggest a support ticket. But remember it is for wXP ranks, not regular XP levels.

PainShot.7154:

Sorrow furnace EB cant place ANY siege, probably because some troll put a lot of arrow carts in some hiden place. 1 hour timer. yay!

Don’t think it’s due to the 1 hour timer. Anet have said they have found a bug. It just seems they haven’t fixed it yet.

Don’t understand guys :~. I have never had an issue with the 5 min timer. It is reset every time you add more supply to the site so, even if building on your own you had 5 mins to get to/from a nearby supply camp to keep the build moving along. Sure that makes you focus, but don’t think i have ever lost any siege because of it, even if I died visiting the camp.

I’ve noticed that the time allowed to add more supply to partially built siege has gone up from 5 mins to 10 mins.

Didn’t see that in the release notes and not sure anyone has asked for it. If it is impacting the siege cap might be an idea to revert to 5 mins.

To all in GH, you did an awesome job in the early part of the last matchup. Coming in as the red server from below you were much more of a force to be reckoned with than anyone expected. The battle was tight and I honestly don’t know who would have won if things had gone to plan.

But to claim the victory as unsullied when the last 2 days were totally destroyed by DCs does not do you any favours. It is impossible for anyone to know how bad the DCs were for others, in severity, frequency or timing. As I said before this matchup started and not just now, after 3 days, better to write last week off and see who wins plain and fair this week..

TaeK.5821:

I commend the group of RoS who were so persistent at Dredge on reset night

Thanks for the video It was a fun encounter. Interesting how 2 sides can have different perspectives though.

Initially we thought you were pushing into our corner. When you started camping in the dredge we thought it might be a distraction for a planned attack elsewhere, when you stopped pushing out altogether and started just jumping up and down inside the tunnels we decided to leave you to it! Most of us moved on to other targets and a couple of scouts stayed watching you dance from WC. So we didn’t feel cowed. We just thought you were trying to waste our time. But the battle was fun none the less, thanks

I agree the tasks should improve defence readiness. IMO they should replace current costs for and/or speed upgrades or provide new ones, like heightened npc “alertness”.

timidobserver.7925:

Don’t need more PVE garbage in wvw. This would only cause people to be out doing PVE crap rather than actually defending the tower.

This is a cheap shot others have made and, IMO, a pretty meaningless one.

What counts as PvE?

Why would training the troops (whatever that might mean, we haven’t discussed it really) be PvE, but buying an upgrade from quartermaster for strengthened troops for cash is not?

What about collecting supplies? Escorting dolys? Siege? Repairing walls? Even walls themselves! Take all these things out and you just have 1vX PvP, which maybe what some want, but it is not WvW.

We can discuss the details We would need to be sure that we were not distracting people from the real game, allowing attacks to be mounted under cover of a mini-game. But just saying “no PvE in WvW”…..

But that is exactly the opposite of what I am suggesting. I am not at all trying to punish people for being in a group, or “out of nowhere” de-buffs. just to provide some real-life balance to that decision. Currently the Zerg has all the advantages of numbers but none of the disadvantages.

Real life:

- it would be easy for sentries on the road and in towers to spot a large mass moving around the map
- troops need feeding
Etc.

I was thinking about how the “feeding and watering” might work, without it becoming a chore and this was my thought:

- Make EVERYONE need 2 supplies every 15 mins (or similar, we can discuss the details!) before their health starts to decay
- collect it automatically when they are in a friendly tower or camp. Never collect more than 2, just 2 every 15 mins and health is restored.
- for small groups moving around or in a tower this would just happen automatically and would be barely noticeable in camp/tower supplies – dolys arrive sups come in, a few sups go out to feed the troops
- for a zerg of 50 they would need 100 sups every 15 mins, they may hit a camp and empty it! Or they may have to visit a friendly tower and reduce its reserves! No complex activity to do, just visit a friendly tower or camp, but still the zerg needs feeding!
- we may have to increase the normal doly supply drop a little to allow for all these supplies going out of the world, but that is doable.

Yes, it’s another one of these threads! But let me say I am not one of those trying to make WvW less epic or to unfairly disadvantage an organised opponent!

Nothing wrong with a good Zerg v Zerg battle when numbers are even and skill lag does not ruin it. WvW should be epic I agree. But the problem is balance. What I think is missing is any of the real downsides of keeping a large army on the move. In the real world although a large force has advantages it also has problems such as mobility, keeping itself fed and watered, visibility – none of these are really true in WvW. Some changes along these lines could well help:

- More environmental challenges for zergs, eg. Narrow valleys between areas where the zerg is forced to become long and thin and the enemy can set up ACs etc on the hills to the side
- Nerf speed progressively (say from 10-25%) as group grows bigger than 10
- Put a map marker showing location and size of zergs as they pass allied sentries/towers
- Reduce health of zerg overtime. Require some supplies to be used to refresh health relative to Zerg size. This means zergs may need to stop by friendly towers/keeps and take their supplies to keep themselves fed draining the health of those locations.

I think this could make WvW more epic, not less. I’m sure not all will like all these ideas! But let’s have your thoughts

Thanks for that A kind thought.

I’m confused because I thought that was exactly what happened now. Not directly using populations, I realise, but a lower tier server gets more points if it does well. It is precisely why it is possible to lose and still gain points or win and lose them.

Thank you so much for this Devon. You have made a lot of people very happy

Remember from next week you could be matched with any server +/- 9 from you (roughly). Personally, as I said above, I don’t like the idea of handicapping based on current server population or tower population as that penalises people for getting their team out. Trying hard and having most people you can on the field should benefit you.

But I do think a team 8 places below their opponent in the table (for example) who caps towers should get greater rewards, both personally and as a team, and not just in their rating at the end of the week. But, also, just my opinion

Well I understand why you would feel like that, but (on average) I’d still say that it IS easier for a higher tier to cap than a lower tier, so the reward should reflect that.

Note: I am only talking a handicap relative to your opponents, not some kind of absolute scaling, so if you are playing teams close in rating the rewards will not be that different.

TallDan.6350:

Yeah you missed….. the new one; morning capping

Maybe we could have some kinda on line diary where servers could let their opponents know what time is convenient for them to attack?

Defending is as essential task that is frequently neglected and having everyone run with the zerg is the opposite of what is needed. It is the temptation of the zerg that can leave stuff abandoned and neglected.

I agree defending should not mean sitting in towers. It is better to patrol, keep eyes open, upgrade towers and camps, build siege, respond as needed and protect dolys as you go. But still few find it sufficiently rewarding. It’s a fact!

I took the OPs idea as a broad concept of “how about things to keep people interested in defending whilst actively helping the tower” rather than being too prescriptive about what those things should be. As such it is really little different to fixing a wall, just more interesting and less time specific.

Why should some upgrades not be possible without hard cash, but instead be due to some possible fun activity? I think it’s worth exploring. But we do, I agree, need to ensure it does not distract defenders so they get hit by surprise while playing some mini-game!

We have 2 threads now: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/pvp/wuvwuv/5-24-Dz-RoS-GH

Yeah, kinda like it. All need to make sense, like your training idea and all should improve the tower as well as reward the player. Should not be so distracting though they take a player away from observing/guarding.

Have fun this week everyone

Don’t know why the old thread was closed. It had actually just reached a good place! But here is a new one

Another idea, that, I don’t know, might help a bit with server balancing.

How about handicap wXP for forts (not individual players) based on server rating. So players on a lowly server get more wXP for capping a high tiered server’s tower/keep/castle.

Seems to reflect the real-life reward due and might encourage some to move from high to lower tiers.

Deniara Devious.3948:

kitten .2746:

JonPeters, the problem is not the matchmaking, but the score system itself. Fix the scoring system so that the server with most coverage doesn’t automatically win.

Exactly.

Already last year I gave a good suggestion for this:
The score obtained from each objective should be reversely proportional to the proportion of players per total number of players.

Sorry English is not my native language, so here is an example:
Let’s say server A has 100 players, server B 200 and server C 300. Total number of players in that tier is 600.

Let’s say objective X would give 100 base points, server A would get 100/ (100/600) = 600 points doing that, while server B would get 100 / (200/600) = 300 points doing that and server C would get 100 / (300/600 points doing that.

Objective Y would give 300 base points, server A would get 300/ (100/600) = 1800 pts doing that, while server C would get 300 / (100/600) = 600 points from it.

In other words, because server C has 3 times as many players, they need to earn 3 times more base points from the objectives to earn the same amount of actual points for their server.

Another way to balance the game is to make the outmanned “buff” to actually do something. Preferably increase the defenses of the weaker side e.g. give more health and toughness to the outmanned side (NPCs, players and structures). NPCs and objects should be buffed more than players, to avoid giving the outmanned side “godlike” powers.

33.3%/33.3%/33.3% <- perfectly equally distributed population on 3 servers

It could have multiple levels e.g.
Outmanned (<25% total population) +50% NPC & structure hp & thoughness, +10% player health & thoughness
Overpowered (<17% population): +100% NPC & structure hp & thoughness, +20% player health & thoughness
Last Stand (<10% total population): +200% NPC & structure hp & thoughness, +30% player health & toughness

So in other words, if there is a total 100 players on a map, outmanned would be triggered on that side who has less than 25, outpowered when that side has less than 17 and last stand when that side has less than 10 players. It is possible to have two sides having similar outmanned buffs e.g. one server totally dominating the numbers game with 90 players and the others have just 10.

My suggestion wouldn’t stop zerging or night capping, but it would make it a bit slower and give at least somewhat better chances for the weaker side. A more clever formula could take in account the total number of players in all maps to avoid abuses like having a big zerg teleport from one map to another and then leaving them empty (to trigger Last Stand on them).

The current system is bad, because it leads to even bigger imbalances in the long run. The losing side has even less motivation, a downward spiral. While some band wagoners will join the winning side.

I am actually curious how the current outmanned works. It seems to require quite bit population difference e.g. if there is 20 players on your side and while enemy has 29 (= significant advantage), it doesn’t seem to trigger. Can some developer please explain what are the current limits?

I posted this elsewhere:

Personally, other than a modest “outmanned” buff, that you could kinda justify in the real world down to adrenaline, I don’t like faking the battles to make it easier for a weaker team.

What I might prefer though is to move to more like golf handicap system – adjust the in-game scoring for weaker/ stronger teams. Weaker servers, get more points for a cap. Ratings could still be calculated on the basis of an un-handicapped score (as now). But the displayed score in-game could reflect the handicap. That way we would no longer have the situation where a team wins the matchup, but loses points. And a lower tiered team that fought hard would actually stand a chance of winning instead of losing badly but having the dubious “honour” of still gaining rating points!

Personally I also prefer this to adjusting scoring on current active population (as suggested in another thread). A server that puts out a full team on the night deserves reward, not punishment, for that.

It seems better to me.

- lower tiered servers still have a better chance to actually win, not just gain rating points few care about

- high tiered servers are handicapped for their higher average population (and, yes, ability/organisation)

- there is still an incentive for servers/guilds to “get their team out” rather than have it all lost by an “overpowered” nerf.

Personally, other than a modest “outmanned” buff, that you could kinda justify in the real world down to adrenaline, I don’t like faking the battles to make it easier for a weaker team.

What I might prefer though is to move to more like golf handicap system – adjust the in-game scoring for weaker/ stronger teams. Weaker servers, get more points for a cap. Ratings could still be calculated on the basis of an un-handicapped score (as now). But the displayed score in-game could reflect the handicap. That way we would no longer have the situation where a team wins the matchup, but loses points. And a lower tiered team that fought hard would actually stand a chance of winning instead of losing badly but having the dubious “honour” of still gaining rating points!

Personally I also prefer this to adjusting scoring on current active population (as suggested in another thread). A server that puts out a full team on the night deserves reward, not punishment, for that.

I dunno. The rating already serves as a handicap for the higher tiered server – they have to totally dominate if they don’t want their score to go backwards and visa-versa, the weaker team can lose yet still gain points. If you start handicapping in the game as well as via the ratings it would get messy!

Edit: nirvana, our posts crossed. Was replying to CHIP.

Got great respect for both our opponents in this matchup, if not for all posts in this thread It was an awesome, hard-fought week until the chaos of the last 2 days.

Looking forward to a week without disconnects and seeing who really owns this tier. Bring it on!

Doyen.7063:

Get rid of the most points for yaks for 10 ppl hitting it. A solo player should get the most points available for the slap, rather than the zerg.

This is off topic but I can’t help respond. I too feel it is somehow wrong that everyone in the Zerg gets the same point for a cap as a highly skilled small team. Not so much, in fact, for dolys, which anyone can kill given time, but for sure, for towers and keeps.But, what’s the alternative?

At the moment, although WvW is not perfect by any means, all people on a server do pull together and do support each other. You are always glad of an extra helping hand. With this kind of change people would be scared of assisting other players for fear of the verbal abuse that will come from some, even if a minority. Even if most people do not abuse others there will still be comments along the line of “why did you have to get involved, I had that covered”.

A change that awarded points by how many participated would lead to a destruction of team spirit, less focus on actual WvWvW and more on competing WITHIN a server for caps and points.

One idea, may not work but I’ll put it out there. How about a weekly reward (wXP or other) at the end of each matchup, based on your personal contribution to the week. This would be based in some way on your contribution to each battle/cap. That way, the reward is abstracted from individual caps and less likely (won’t say impossible) to cause intra-server strife!

Sounds like a game bug to me, rather than a server issue, judging by the number of servers involved.

The location specific nature of the problem makes me wonder if it is something at those locations causing the issue. As it is a new problem, could it possibly be a bug, occasionally, with placement of the newly introduced traps? Just a thought.

Hi Anet, plz, plz can we have a reply on this. Our matchup this week, has been, very fun, but has been made a farce, score wise, by these disconnects!

Just read our matchup thread: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/pvp/wuvwuv/GH-vs-ROS-vs-DZ

Yes, I know there is a lot of other stuff there, but for about 48 hrs now various locations have been death to anyone who enters! It seems DZ could not really enter EB for about a day because their spawn caused disconnects!

Some kind of response explaining why this has happened and hopefully saying it will be resolved for next week would be great!

I have a huge respect for what GH have done this week. Really very impressive. Don’t want to take anything away from that. But it is very hard to know what DZ would have done in the last day or so if not disheartened by their EB issue. Who knows it might have been worse for us!

Anyone seen a response from Anet on these DC issues?

TallDan.6350:

It would be nice if somebody from DZ could clear this up but it does seem on the face of it that they have the worst of the deal.

Someone in DZ posted to say they had given up on EB and indeed I have seen very little of them there since. But, then, I’m not there all the time!

fab.3298:

TallDan.6350:

No the matchup is great the fights are fun, I just take exception to somebody declaring themselves the winner when DZ can’t even play.

I’m pretty certain DZ were in second when I first started getting disconnect issues a few days ago but I may be wrong.

Every side has it. We couldn’t play on ROS BL yesterday.

yeah but I do think DZ’s problems in EB are especially severe.

TallDan.6350:

This week’s scores are null and void.

As I said. It’s sad but it probably doesn’t matter much, if at all.

We were all set up for a repeat match next week anyway and after that the matchup rules and probably scoring system, change anyway.

Hyung.6140:

Not to mention that this week there’s no guarantee scores will be settled yet! Surmia are very likely to win but what’s great about this matchup is that there’s no assurance even as we approach the end of the week.

Hope the excellence continues right through to tomorrow night (and into the rematch!). Have fun today all – sadly I’m out pretty much all day so will just be watching MOS jealously…

For sure it’s been a great week! Thanks all in GH and DZ for pushing us so hard and still all up for grabs. Great shame for DZ if your keep is bugged, but we’ll still have a return match next week. And after that sounds like the matchup rules are changing anyway!

drkn.3429:

And yeah, it was us at Jerri – our small force, actually, while our main team was flipping Dz stuff, just keeping you busy in your corner in the meantime ^^

Thanks drkn, Well all I can say is I admire your commitment to that minor distraction!

kovah.9764:

Why was the guy infracted? I see nothing wrong with his post

Ditto, completely baffled!

…BTW were the other servers getting a lot of game crashes after 1AM UK. Several of us were all seeing game crashes at the same time. Played havok with trying to cap Klovan!

drkn.3429:

• tonight’s GH EB commander bows to both opponents *

And one occasional commander when no one else is on(!), bows back Thanks for a great night.

Thanks for the epic battle @ Jerrifers tonight (just after midnight UK time).

Sorry, I honestly can’t remember if it was DZ or GH, but you guys just kept coming, under mortar and about 6 ACs. Bravo for effort, especially when you tried to build rams under that barrage by sheer weight of numbers I think I saw the gate fall to about 1% at one point. If you had got one ram built even for one or two hits I think the door would have gone.

Unfortunately you picked a fully stocked tower and somehow we kept the gate closed. Better luck next time

I suggest we stick to “Ticking is not fun, and prevents people doing sensible things (such as building modest precautionary siege, even on upgraded towers/keeps/castles). Plz fix it Anet”.

We don’t really know their problems and all these contradictory solutions (mine included!) risk them saying “See, no one agrees on a better solution. Ours is as good as anybody’s”!

Another idea that might help to encourage tapping: a red flashing light on the top of siege when it is down to its last 5 or 3 mins. Might remind less dedicated, casual players. At least they will all ask why the siege is flashing!

Snowreap.5174:

outcome #1 (“when siege does not despawn”)
and for the person who asked earlier: yes, siege sabotage is a real problem. here are some sample threads/posts

Im not saying there wasn’t a problem, but, even if the timer has fixed it, 30mins is still an arbitrary number. There is nothing magic about. Who’s to say an hour would not work as well, especially if it was only for siege in towers. We should try it. It is not like Anet are not experimenting in all kinds of other ways with the game!