Guild Wars 2

Dawdler.8521:

Isnt relink soon? Probably related.

friday

make sure you coordinate which guard is stab1 and which is 2 in a 2 guard party because of what archonwing described. some commanders will call for stab 2 and others will want you to use it as stab 1 expires. If not used to the timing, I’d try to take stab 1 as that is almost always called in TS. Durability runes work real well for guards that run in zergs as well as sigils of energy.

Last but not least, if you don’t understand something just ask. A good commander or lieutenant will explain (if not in battle). Every one here was confused at some point in wvw …

Happy hunting

love to play my ranger, engi, or mez and not have to pug it or do small ops doing so. no reason any class should be frowned upon in guild groups after all this time…..

Chaba.5410:

Hey, any of you guys who get the rendering issue also use LoD by chance?

I haven’t experienced this bug since I stopped playing necro, which uses transforms frequently.

are you saying to check the box or uncheck the box? I have it checked and I experience the WP bug – not so much rendering issues…

But it isn’t 2 months.. not sure if op stated how often the (link) changes – daily reset? Different for eu – Na- ocx – sea?

Dusty Moon.4382:

Why should A.Net care? Bandwagoning pays their bills, the more bandwagoning, the more money they get. After all, most use RL money to buy gems for the transfer.

until there is no one left playing because of these actions….

of course closing it mid transfer would be sort of funny….

open bg open mag – give them their own locked 2 server “choo choo” tier…..

I love when I see the 1 or 2 on YB playing on the same BL. I know who is being targeted first and it isn’t me. I give them a ton of credit for displaying the tag under that circumstance….

Funniest thing I recall is 2 massive zergs sending out 1 anet rep from each server to 1v1 before all mayhem broke out…..

morrolan.9608:

Deemo.6094:

its not a downgrade….. Servers are having to do more calculations than ever before. Condition stacks, sigil/rune procs, boon duration effect and removals, stablilty etc etc etc

That doesn’t explain why its suddenly worse, I’ve noticed it getting worse as well.

the score floaters? only thing “new” that I can think of other than at t he end of a scrimmage and score turnover…..

if peeps have such a sad life that trolling other servers is an accomplishment for them, I sort of feel sorry for them instead of getting mad…….

Chaba.5410:

Sounds like your server has too many players if your queue is an hour long.

there is also more than EBG to choose from…….

morrolan.9608:

joneirikb.7506:

They’ve said before (at least couple of times) that they count “man hours in WvW”, so basically how much time is spent from multiple people. If 100 people spend 1 hours each its’ 100 man hours, if 10 persons spends 10 hours each it’s 100 man hours. Or something similar (they never explain it in detail).

They’ve never said anything like that AFAIK. They have said players that are only in WvW for a short time won’t be counted as part of the population. The implication being that once a player passes that threshold of time or WvW activity they are counted as part of the population and treated the same as someone who spends a lot more time in WvW. This is why JQ kept getting locked, they have a lot of casual players who spend short amounts of time in WvW in comparison to other servers like Maguuma which is primarily composed of players who spend large amounts of time in WvW.

I suspect it might be man hours. DK would count as his own zerg for YB if counted that way……

morrolan.9608:

It is mindboggling that they actually think the top 5 servers have approximately equal populations

what he/she said……. AND locked at that….

ArchonWing.9480:

On the subject after crafting tables (I can’t quote because apparently the tree is too long)

I find that incredibly hard to believe that they would hold a significant appeal and the only things I’ve heard have been a few scattered anecdotes. Crafting in this game by and large is for high end items because for most other things, buying off the TP is far more convenient. Therefore, I find it highly difficult to believe that new players are spending a lot of time crafting high end, expensive food, and ascended armor which is overpriced and a waste for most content in this game. It’s already an inherently exclusive activity.

So as for the more established players, I really don’t see why they would pick a much more inefficient spot to do crafting. I mean, I don’t pve very much at all, and I just got myself a royal pass. Or port to Rata Sum/Fields Of Ruin. At this point, going to WvW to craft just seems utterly absurd.

Furthermore, times have changed. In the first year or two of Gw2, maybe, there were complaints about WP costs which have vanished since it’s much easier to gain coin. Another thing was crafting for levels but that has become so inefficient that it’s really not much of a thing either.

Crafting tables or not, when people see their fps drop to 10, the populations are woefully imbalanced, the combat mechanics are questionable and often devolve into build wars, and general neglect is far more enough to click the leave the mists button.

I mean in terms of rewards, which would attract a much more general audience have increased by quite a bit as opposed to before. But the issues still remain.

It doesn’t matter what carrot you use when there’s no payoff.

player parked at the end of a jump puzzle. port to wvw to craft/bank. return to the end of the jump puzzle when leaving wvw. this is why wvw crafting was convenient – the toon ends up where it started after crafting….. don’t know why they don’t do the same with royal /airship passes – they would sell more of them…..

X T D.6458:

Can people please stop with the ridiculous comments in regards to telling others where and how they should be playing, just stop it, get off your high horse and stop with the condescending posts.

Now, here is what I am curious about regarding this change. Is this a permanent change or temporary? If permanent it could seem like a more heavy handed attempt to funnel people to lower tier servers and starve higher tiers of new blood to keep up with player attrition and stay competitive. It could very well have the opposite effect in that it might boost the populations of lower tier servers, but hurt the populations of higher tiers servers regardless of whether or not players transfer off, essentially resulting in no gain for the player base. Now if this is a temporary adjustment, I can understand it.

The timing of this is rather odd, the populations of the 5 now full servers has to be greatly varied. I seriously doubt YB has the same population or activity level as BG does.

not even close to JQ and I don’t think TC / JQ are close to BG/Mag…..

Xenesis.6389:

morrolan.9608:

1. How are TC, YB and JQ meant to match BG and Mag?
2. The population caps were too low anyway to properly cater for the size of the maps and the map caps themselves now its going to be worse.
3. Players in off hours on NA servers are only enough to really fit on 1 tier, its going to spread those populations out so they become much more sporadic.

The three servers you mentioned were tier 1 sized before, the only server than has not come down to tier 2-1.5 size is BG, and their accidental opening by dropping below the old threshold didn’t help. Also it has yet to be seen how many moved to Mag over their cheap link ET, we’ll see next week and if they are over the threshold then it’s wait and watch time on the ticking time bomb bandwagon.

What other solution do you expect them to pull out? Like I said those 3 servers have been open and still haven’t recruited enough catch BG, do you want them to leave it to be a constant arms race with BG?

You can’t bring 22 servers up to BG or Mag’s population levels, it has to be the other way around.

THE ON LY time YB was T1 recently was when they got a great link and rose from low t3 with FC.

Jayne.9251:

Swamurabi.7890:

McKenna Berdrow.2759:

For population balance reasons, we’ve lowered the population thresholds for a world to be considered ‘Full’. This is to keep the population disparity between high pop and low pop servers more similar.

What are you going to do to lower the disparity between the full threshold and the largest pop servers?

Evictions based on seniority!

I know that wasn’t serious, but that’s the only way BG/Mag de-stack at this point without drastically lowered map caps / significant queues (even then the accts will go to sleep while they play other accts)….

McKenna Berdrow.2759:

For population balance reasons, we’ve lowered the population thresholds for a world to be considered ‘Full’. This is to keep the population disparity between high pop and low pop servers more similar.

meanwhile…. JQ,YB, and to a lesser extent TC have 0 chance to match the populations of BG/Mag (even if they were able to)…… at least without a new approach to the link logic….. if the new logic is YB + SOS or FA, well then maybe

and YB has nothing near the pop of the T1 loser of the week….. Makes no sense…

1) 1) 1) 1) Introduce some sort of balance where guilds actually want all classes in wvw instead of 4-5…..

easy solution leave the 3 team 180 man blobs of t1 and sometimes t2….. doesn’t happen nearly as often in t3 or t4……

Straegen.2938:

I think scoring in WvW is mostly pointless but 2-1-1 is just dumb. The dominant coverage ends up winning the round and the two less populated servers go into a why bother mode since 2nd is as good as 3rd.

If they want more score competition make the 1st place server objectives worth more loot.

this is what it seems like to me as well. if all 3 servers are in t he same ballpark size wise, maybe it works. if 1 server is so much larger at certain times, 2 v 1 wont matter so why bother?

Spurnshadow.3678:

OK, so an update on the end of the week regarding some data.

In the past, the war score has typically gotten closer and closer together, meaning their difference in ratios gets smaller. This seems to generally be the case, but not in the degree that I was expecting. I think this might be due to the lower level of competition in this new system.

Also, some match-ups seem to be very lopsided when comparing activity to skirmish score. Most notably T2. T2 has closed the gap tremendously in war score, meaning there’s been much greater activity for the 2nd and 3rd place servers, but the skirmish score is nowhere near reflective of this activity.

Also of note is in T4. DB has actually surpassed NS in war score, yet they lag behind in skirmish score. This may simply be the skirmish system working to keep run-away matches from happening by incrementing the score to 2 hour time blocks, or maybe they’ve been pulling some overtime during the week, but been falling just a bit short. Dunno. I’m not paying close attention to T4.

I suspect that having efforts not rewarded with scoring will continue to erode the player base. On my server, BG, and the enemies I encounter, I’ve seen a large decrease in activity and population. I truly think this is due to our efforts not being rewarded. Yes, there’s other philosophies at play. As one example, there’s rivalries that we’d actually like to engage in, which requires us to fight TC. This means the 2nd and 3rd place servers are not engaging the first place server.

Another example: we do not have direct lines of communication with the players and commanders on the other servers. As such, we can’t co-ordinate 2v1s. All we can do is try to incentive’s 2v1s via our own behavior. However this doesn’t always work. So, instead of fighting a much greater population in the 1st place server, it’s more fun to engage in a more even fight with the 2nd/3rd place servers.

Without this 2v1, the whole 211 scoring system falls apart. WvW is a RvRvR. It is the core of what makes this game mode great and above all other games regarding large scale PvP. The only other exception is the fight mechanics. Please return us to this 3 way free-for-all.

I also find it amazing, and frankly insulting that we’ve gotten no response from any dev on this most fundamental and drastic change to WvW, and whether they think this is working, not working, or still to be determined. This lack of attention could also be affecting player attrition.

something is grossly wrong with that chart…. No c in Yacks Bend

Smooth Penguin.5294:

Liston.9708:

it means everyone is on holiday – nothing more nothing less…..

If being on holiday means a server now has less population, shouldn’t they lose their full status?

no no – meant anet is on holiday – that was the reason for delay. I doubt any analysis by them is going on….

it means everyone is on holiday – nothing more nothing less…..

Allow paid accounts to bump F2P accounts out of a full server? Doesn’t address the plethora of 9.99 accounts though…..

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Reverence.6915:

Servers with the weakest coverage don’t even need to turn up now to be rewarded. Smart move

What? Servers that don’t show up now still get points awarded in 3,2,1. This makes zero sense.

rev meant if you are obviously #3, you end up with the same points as #2 at the end of the week even if everyone goes to pve….

that said, it is silly to make judgements on the system without the system playing out for several weeks….. If more people play, the change is good. if drastically less people play, the change might be bad (need to know why they stopped)..

McKenna is a she

Chaba.5410:

Change the implementation of the algorithm. Manual adjustments mean the implementation is broken.

that is the best solution, but when it is broken a 1 or 2 week adjustment to realign is better than the cd fiasco of linking 2 that made people just leave…

once we get beyond we have less than we used to have… The WVW population is a fraction of what it used to be 4 years in… when people say BG is over stacked, they aren’t comparing to 2014 BG pop they are comparing to the current pop of the other servers..

70-11-0 shows that (score at time of post)

I do think there needs to be a penalty for too many transfers in a set slice of time…

swellercross.3974:

You mention hibernate , what if ANET automatically transfer an account if not used for a month to the lowest tier server, will this solved an instant over stacking of servers?

id just de-link allowing the player to choose a new server, but then would people sit a month for a free transfer? maybe the time out needs to be 6-8 weeks.

jamesdolla.3954:

BG closed.. Damage already done tho.

let the whining commence that guilds got split or people missed the open status….

this isn’t rocket science….. look at the tick since they opened….

boycott wont be needed – people will simply take the week off at some point in any severely unbalanced match – no matter which servers are involved. the question is how soon in the week it happens.

Sarge.9730:

For those interested in facts as opposed to wild accusations to make themselves feel better. BG has had no queue on any BL today which is a normal occurrence outside of reset night.

#stacked

Look at the tick since BG opened. Now tell us it isn’t stacked compared to other servers……

no point in this now that bloated BG, that was going to be perpetually closed with these extra servers, is now open….. Sorry BG you don’t have your 2013 population anymore, but no one does…..

largest lead of all servers in NA and claiming they need more because they don’t have 2014 population…. Anet didn’t kill wvw – the players did…

see my signature

Jayne.9251:

Liston.9708:

will question how others DID get back to their home (which was the same)……

Well that’s because of the ajust BG thread indicating behind the scenes favours (blah) and non-response from Anet.

Very disappointed about that.

I wasn’t even considering that, but yes you are correct….

Jim Hunter.6821:

Liston.9708:

Chaba.5410:

I think this thread exemplifies the challenge Anet has with regards to getting guilds that want new members to move to smaller servers.

Agreed – we only see it every single week….. And every single week the answer is move or whither – the guild’s choice….

and most guilds would rather whither than move. Which is why adding a bunch of small servers and no incentive to move would be a waste of time.

the solution provided thus far won’t work – I agree. But you must admit the OPs post is made just about every week if not more … the funny part is often the “split guild” scenario was created by recruiting from a link in the first place…

if the nuclear blow them all up is ever considered, you cant retain the old servers to be repopulated – too many will feel hurt they didn’t get back to their home and will question how others DID get back to their home (which was the same)……

Chaba.5410:

I think this thread exemplifies the challenge Anet has with regards to getting guilds that want new members to move to smaller servers.

Agreed – we only see it every single week….. And every single week the answer is move or whither – the guild’s choice….

If it isn’t something like red silver general (FA) I wouldn’t waste time. Too many don’t like the generic eotm references. Guilds are somewhat problematic with crows server guilds, bank guilds, and multi guilds pug zergs.

Maybe UI option to turn 2 digit server tag on or off for those that want shorter names….

Agree with that

Jeknar.6184:

atheria.2837:

Anet is being anything but clear about WvW linking and when it will occur again.

This lack of care is destroying WvW – not making it more fun.

I don’t know what are you talking about. It looks pretty clear to me when the relinks happen. I expect next relink to happen at December 30th unless Arena Net change their mind and go with 1 month period.

Doubt it would occur Xmas eve

it was probably close enough tc/jq/yb/mag could have been treated similar. maybe et/ar are pretty small these days?

Edit: the more I look at it, the less I understand it….

YB couldn’t keep up with a link….. servers 3 and 4 should be treated the same (however that is) since the difference is so small…

removal of that sub-forum was death blow #1