Guild Wars 2

Jayne.9251:

You still haven’t outlined how it won’t be gamed.

Like a big guild group decides to push out another guild because they got in a fight by hyper recruiting and making sure all their players stay on map and fill those spots in your selected 1,000 player example cap.

And how does the battle group decide priority of placement? Is it random and first-come, first-served, like existing servers (and if that’s the case why change it)? Or will it give preference to the biggest guild in the battle group and get them “priority seating” on map?

Also, why can’t some of the principles you’ve stated as a benefit to the battle group simply be applied to the existing server set up and keep everyone happy?

As well, what happens to people who don’t want the big map blobs? We’ve heard a lot from them lately, and it seems they’re being ignored with a plan like this.

Again, the battlegroups, while ideal for GvG groups, and guilds in particular, does nothing for everyone else.

And I’d love to see the percentages of players in those guild groups vs smaller guilds/solo that actively play this game.

Don’t cater to a select few.

Include everyone.

Build community.

That’s what keeps a game going.

The 1000 person cap isn’t a map cap or world cap. It’s a cap on the battlegroup that similar to a guild cap. This is what you’re not understanding. 1 single guild can’t make up a battlegroup because a guild takes up slots up to 500, which means to fully fill an alliance with the biggest of guilds would require 2 guilds of 500 player each. If you have a battlegroup like this, it would probably still be playing with other guilds and players on a world. This battlegroup would be at a disadvantage simply do to management. In fact, their micromanagement would have to cover multiple timezones and is not feasible by any means.

Coming from someone who has played the higher tiers, I can’t name a guild that can fit this mold.

When you create a battlegroup you don’t have to breach even half the size off 1000 players because it will match you up with like minded players to create a balanced world. This is already similar to how its done with server links, but instead it’s looking deeper to analyze the community.

You can not gain the system because it locks all words during the 10 to 14 week season that would happen more frequently. Thus, you can’t move to sway battles in your light and you can’t decide the battle before it starts because you don’t know the match to be made.

You can make a battlegroup with all smaller havoc casual guilds and it would be match made just the same.

I think Battlegroups include everyone fairly.

The load screen bug is the most annoying thing in WvW. Surprised It hasn’t been fixed yet.

Swamurabi.7890:

Expanding on the 1000 player battlegroup. An even distribution breaks down to 250 players per timezone. Split into five 50 player guild groups that translates into 4 guild lead 50 player squads and 1 50 player pug squad.

How many commanders are on during OCX and SEA timezones and how many players can be fit into 50 player squads. The limiting variable, commanders or players, will tell you how many competitive battlegroups can be formed.

Even if you lumped in all the other players in NA to fill the gaps that the 5th and 6th servers have, I don’t think you’d get more than 4 full battlegroups.

A few things. Typical WvW match-up balance doesn’t have all three servers with balanced time zone coverage. This is normally the dream for server communities. Instead, balance in a match-up normally happens more like a puzzle. There aren’t enough OCX and SEA to have an even spread, but you can make up for the lack there of. This is the same for WvW as it stands right now, and is the same thing ArenaNet and the community wants to balance out. That’s why we have victory points in play.

It also, doesn’t matter how many battlegroups are formed because all battlegroups will be match made together to create the worlds that are probably bigger than 1000 players.

Spurnshadow.3678:

Factions are a horrible idea. It would be super easy to manipulate that system.

Faction 1 full, make faction 2 an ally of faction 1. Dominate faction 3. or Make 3 factions and win trade.

Factions are too mercurial to create any kind of pride or identity, which is an important part of many players in this game. Also, they’d be total anarchy. Who’d be the leader(s) of a faction? How often would those leader(s) need to be redetermined with new factions? What about VoiPs? Who’s gonna create, administrate, and pay for voips so that factions can be secure and communicate? What about community websites? If factions were constantly re-forming, there’d be no point to them. What would happen to all the people that currently play together, but now can’t. Instead, they may be pitted against eachother.

Servers have a purpose. They create a sense of identity that drives people to win a match. They also create a foundation to build a community that a faction system could never do.

Of course, Mal, and players like him, don’t get that. They are the people who have multiple accounts on different servers, create their own factions and try to bully and manipulate other servers to their whims. He has no interest in community and usually ends up hurting them. He enjoys playing the political game to influence things to fit his way.

No need for the character assassination when the only thing I’m trying to do it be apart of the GW2 community you claim I have no interest in. You should know the attempts generally don’t work in your favor.

Alliances aren’t Factions. They are two different things yet both can have an identity.
Players make Guilds. Guilds make Alliances. Alliances are apart of a Faction. Factions exist on a Server and in Guild Wars 2, Servers exist in a Tier.

It doesn’t matter if the game design fails to incorporate mechanics in which the community can categorize, organize, and balance itself. Humans in general do this and a video game is nothing but a simulation. We are the same community and all layers of the community has its own identity.

If Arena Net wants to better quantify, analyze and kitten the community to provide rule sets for proper balance, they need to be able to identify and analyze the identities of the community.

After Arena Net identifies the actual structure of the WvW community and its identities, ANET will be able to strike balance. The same balance and health we ask for will be achieved.

This is why I’d back any of the following: Battlegroups, Globes, Factions, Alliances. To fix our issues.

EDIT: ArenaNet pls https://puu.sh/ruah8/85ed477b96.png no kittens.

The way I took the information is the initial formation of the Battlegroups is to be capped at 1000 players. After that, All battlegroups and individual players and guilds will be match made.

Thus, the actual size of a world is greater than that of 1000 bodies.

Jerus.4350:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

apharma.3741:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

apharma.3741:

Infusion.7149:

There should be a free HoT legendary if you get Ultimate Dominator, honestly or AT LEAST the ones on the Trading Post.

Each maxed out title in WvW should give an ascended weapon/armor box. It’s essentially the only thing relevant besides ascended trinkets.

I.e. Defender of camp/keep/tower/SMC = Defender’s box of armor, Assaulter of camp/keep tower/SMC = Assaulter’s Box of weapons/armor

Then have X maxed WvW titles = legendary backpack.

Current titles:
Ultimate Dominator Get 250,000 total kills in WvW.
Yakslapper Kill 2,500 enemy supply caravans.
Leader of the Yak Succesfully escort 2,500 supply caravans.
Fixer-Upper Spend 10,000 supply on repairs.
Unstoppable Force Capture 7,500 objectives.
Unhappy Camper Capture 2,500 total supply camps.
Tower Toppler Capture 2,000 total towers.
Plays for Keeps Capture 1,000 total keeps.
Kingmaker Capture Stonemist Castle 200 times.
Immovable Object Defend 3,000 objectives.
Camp Counselor Defend 500 total supply camps.
Keep Guard Defend 1000 keeps.
Tower Guard Defend 750 total towers.
Royal Guard Defend Stonemist Castle 500 times.

Then have reward tracks for ascended trinkets/backpacks. (Bloodstone fen / ember bay reward tracks do okay though)

Except people kill traded in OS to get ultimate dominator and excessive loot. I don’t know anyone that is even close to ultimate dominator from normal WvW even playing most evenings for nearly 4 years.

Not saying some haven’t got it legit through pressing 1 on their lootstick guards when massively outnumbering other groups, just not anyone I personally know.

I have Ultimate Dominator and theres at least 10 people with it on my server that all got it legit. We didn’t even play EoTM to do it. We played WvW normally.

Yeah, I didn’t say some won’t have it legit but 250k kills is a lot especially if you’ve been on a bronze server most of your GW2 time. To have it by now you’d have to get about 170 kills a day, easy enough if you played a GWEN character and zerging in T1 but not everyone can or wants to play like that. Making ultimate dominator a requirement for the legendary back piece would rediculous.

I just think having 250ks is worthy of a legendary. A lot of people set Ultimate Dominator as a personal goal. The work for it, is intense.

I don’t disagree, but I don’t think it should be THE WvW legendary for the reasons given above. I imagine something more like having to capture each point in every map and then take some item gained by doing so to SMC or each garrison to charge it. 4 parts 4 maps. Then like kills, dolyaks, and gold sink stuff mixed in there.

I do not think it should force us out of WvW like the fractal backpiece does (having to go to world bosses and such).

I agree with you. I think there should be various ways to get legendaries and each game mode can have more than 1 way.

DeWolfe.2174:

btw, JQ owns SMC right now.
Sorry TC

Savage!

apharma.3741:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

apharma.3741:

Infusion.7149:

There should be a free HoT legendary if you get Ultimate Dominator, honestly or AT LEAST the ones on the Trading Post.

Each maxed out title in WvW should give an ascended weapon/armor box. It’s essentially the only thing relevant besides ascended trinkets.

I.e. Defender of camp/keep/tower/SMC = Defender’s box of armor, Assaulter of camp/keep tower/SMC = Assaulter’s Box of weapons/armor

Then have X maxed WvW titles = legendary backpack.

Current titles:
Ultimate Dominator Get 250,000 total kills in WvW.
Yakslapper Kill 2,500 enemy supply caravans.
Leader of the Yak Succesfully escort 2,500 supply caravans.
Fixer-Upper Spend 10,000 supply on repairs.
Unstoppable Force Capture 7,500 objectives.
Unhappy Camper Capture 2,500 total supply camps.
Tower Toppler Capture 2,000 total towers.
Plays for Keeps Capture 1,000 total keeps.
Kingmaker Capture Stonemist Castle 200 times.
Immovable Object Defend 3,000 objectives.
Camp Counselor Defend 500 total supply camps.
Keep Guard Defend 1000 keeps.
Tower Guard Defend 750 total towers.
Royal Guard Defend Stonemist Castle 500 times.

Then have reward tracks for ascended trinkets/backpacks. (Bloodstone fen / ember bay reward tracks do okay though)

Except people kill traded in OS to get ultimate dominator and excessive loot. I don’t know anyone that is even close to ultimate dominator from normal WvW even playing most evenings for nearly 4 years.

Not saying some haven’t got it legit through pressing 1 on their lootstick guards when massively outnumbering other groups, just not anyone I personally know.

I have Ultimate Dominator and theres at least 10 people with it on my server that all got it legit. We didn’t even play EoTM to do it. We played WvW normally.

Yeah, I didn’t say some won’t have it legit but 250k kills is a lot especially if you’ve been on a bronze server most of your GW2 time. To have it by now you’d have to get about 170 kills a day, easy enough if you played a GWEN character and zerging in T1 but not everyone can or wants to play like that. Making ultimate dominator a requirement for the legendary back piece would rediculous.

I just think having 250ks is worthy of a legendary. A lot of people set Ultimate Dominator as a personal goal. The work for it, is intense.

Hey Jayne, I’m going to make another thread soon. So that what I pasted here is as the topic and the focal point of discussion. Thanks for the discussion so far and I hope we can continue it.

what you’re labeling as a big group is just the same as playing for a server. Matching making is done by numerous ways that is not only left up to guilds. But individual players and smaller guilds too. If there are two small guilds that like to play together. Then they create a battle group. Lets say that battle group now holds 30/1000 players. After the period to create battlegroups is done, it will match make the player base and keep everyone together. Battlegroups big or small, and individual players.

Then it would lock the servers for 14 weeks during the season which stops any bandwagon. Thus, if you wanted to keep your loyal server core together then, all you’d have to do is make a battlegroup and no matter how you are matched you will be together.

I really don’t know how else to explain that.

Jayne.9251:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jayne.9251:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jayne.9251:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jayne.9251:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jayne.9251:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jayne.9251:

I’d much prefer if they just capped all servers at say 1000 players and then boot people off based on seniority, with a one-week heads up you’re getting evicted notice.

Then we employ the same policy you want for your battlegroup, without alienating those who value their existing communities.

There’s a reason servers have worked for four-plus years; there’s an attachment that keeps people coming back, even for years when there was zero reward in WvW. To ignore that is foolish. It still exists today, you can see examples of that when the glicko was artificially boosted recently and the resultant player rage.

booting people off based of seniority can’t be determined and a server can simply become a battlegroup if they wanted. You would be able to effectively carry your server WvW community as a battlegroup if you wanted.

Sure they can. Transactions/consumption data will determine age of account and when movement happened.

Now you’re just fibbing to push your agenda.

My only agenda is discussion. I dont think its fair to force people off a server based off seniority. That will not only split friends, but it will cut guilds in half.

Well what happens with your system if guilds are cut in half, or they make changes in the future and want different players but you have it capped at 1,000?

You’re not being forward thinking enough. You’re looking for a quick fix, that in the end, won’t fix a thing.

Its not my system. Guilds wouldnt be cut in half because it match makes your guild too. If I were looking at a quick fix. I’d just accept what they’ve done.

If there’s a cap of 1,000 players and guilds are used to formulate, if they recruit, someone’s not getting in to play. Guild rosters change all the time. This system would wind up creating a critical mass of complaints on the forum as one big guild tries to out manoeuvre another.

And if you’re not in a big guild? Too bad.

Again, you’re not thinking this through.

just because someone is in a guild doesn’t make them apart of that battlegroup. The number is not important. 1000 players is not important. What is important is they’re willing to give a number cap.

I am thinking this though, I’ve actually been thinking about this for a very long time. As I’ve known about it for a while.

If there are caps or finite numbers to this proposal then they do indeed matter. And now you’re saying it doesn’t matter if you’re in a guild you may not be part of that battle group. Yet in the same breath you’re saying guilds will be used to kitten matchmaking.

Make up your mind.

I’m saying that the number would obviously change and probably wasn’t final. I would assume the number would be left up to debate while they fine tune the same. But the fact that there is a defined cap, instead of what we have now which is a system that can be easily exploited because the cap is determined by equations.

Guilds, individuals, and battlegroups will be match made.

And be random if you aren’t in a big guild.

And be subject to losing your spot as the big guild recruits.

And be gamed to outmanoeuvre another battle group.

If they are going to do caps, do it with existing servers based on account seniority and avoid ticking off a lot of people.

What you propose offers no benefit to anyone other than guild groups.

It eliminates a significant portion of the wvw population.

How does imposing seniority not tick people off? People move for various reasons. What if drama happens, what if they change timezones in real life and have to find a server that better suited them. What if they recently got their friends interested in GW2 so they are new to the game. What if someone just came back to the game and found there friends somewhere else.

Imposing seniority would tick me off. considering how much change Arena Net forced upon us all recently.

Swamurabi.7890:

The main problem with putting X players in a battlegroup/team/server/alliance is that the distribution of those X players should be the same as the distribution of the Y and Z players that are on the other teams in the match.

This does nothing to change the fact when I log in to NA prime I can go to a map and face somewhat even numbered sides, but when I log on at noon on Saturday, which is EU prime, I’m outmanned.

All I want is to log in and play WvW and have relatively equal sides.

Correct. This system isn’t a system that handles timezone differences more than the system we already have. It just allows you to pick where you want to play in a more balanced way.

Jayne.9251:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jayne.9251:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jayne.9251:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jayne.9251:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jayne.9251:

I’d much prefer if they just capped all servers at say 1000 players and then boot people off based on seniority, with a one-week heads up you’re getting evicted notice.

Then we employ the same policy you want for your battlegroup, without alienating those who value their existing communities.

There’s a reason servers have worked for four-plus years; there’s an attachment that keeps people coming back, even for years when there was zero reward in WvW. To ignore that is foolish. It still exists today, you can see examples of that when the glicko was artificially boosted recently and the resultant player rage.

booting people off based of seniority can’t be determined and a server can simply become a battlegroup if they wanted. You would be able to effectively carry your server WvW community as a battlegroup if you wanted.

Sure they can. Transactions/consumption data will determine age of account and when movement happened.

Now you’re just fibbing to push your agenda.

My only agenda is discussion. I dont think its fair to force people off a server based off seniority. That will not only split friends, but it will cut guilds in half.

Well what happens with your system if guilds are cut in half, or they make changes in the future and want different players but you have it capped at 1,000?

You’re not being forward thinking enough. You’re looking for a quick fix, that in the end, won’t fix a thing.

Its not my system. Guilds wouldnt be cut in half because it match makes your guild too. If I were looking at a quick fix. I’d just accept what they’ve done.

If there’s a cap of 1,000 players and guilds are used to formulate, if they recruit, someone’s not getting in to play. Guild rosters change all the time. This system would wind up creating a critical mass of complaints on the forum as one big guild tries to out manoeuvre another.

And if you’re not in a big guild? Too bad.

Again, you’re not thinking this through.

just because someone is in a guild doesn’t make them apart of that battlegroup. The number is not important. 1000 players is not important. What is important is they’re willing to give a number cap.

I am thinking this though, I’ve actually been thinking about this for a very long time. As I’ve known about it for a while.

If there are caps or finite numbers to this proposal then they do indeed matter. And now you’re saying it doesn’t matter if you’re in a guild you may not be part of that battle group. Yet in the same breath you’re saying guilds will be used to kitten matchmaking.

Make up your mind.

I’m saying that the number would obviously change and probably wasn’t final. I would assume the number would be left up to debate while they fine tune the same. But the fact that there is a defined cap, instead of what we have now which is a system that can be easily exploited because the cap is determined by equations.

Guilds, individuals, and battlegroups will be match made.

Jayne.9251:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jayne.9251:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jayne.9251:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jayne.9251:

I’d much prefer if they just capped all servers at say 1000 players and then boot people off based on seniority, with a one-week heads up you’re getting evicted notice.

Then we employ the same policy you want for your battlegroup, without alienating those who value their existing communities.

There’s a reason servers have worked for four-plus years; there’s an attachment that keeps people coming back, even for years when there was zero reward in WvW. To ignore that is foolish. It still exists today, you can see examples of that when the glicko was artificially boosted recently and the resultant player rage.

booting people off based of seniority can’t be determined and a server can simply become a battlegroup if they wanted. You would be able to effectively carry your server WvW community as a battlegroup if you wanted.

Sure they can. Transactions/consumption data will determine age of account and when movement happened.

Now you’re just fibbing to push your agenda.

My only agenda is discussion. I dont think its fair to force people off a server based off seniority. That will not only split friends, but it will cut guilds in half.

Well what happens with your system if guilds are cut in half, or they make changes in the future and want different players but you have it capped at 1,000?

You’re not being forward thinking enough. You’re looking for a quick fix, that in the end, won’t fix a thing.

Its not my system. Guilds wouldnt be cut in half because it match makes your guild too. If I were looking at a quick fix. I’d just accept what they’ve done.

If there’s a cap of 1,000 players and guilds are used to formulate, if they recruit, someone’s not getting in to play. Guild rosters change all the time. This system would wind up creating a critical mass of complaints on the forum as one big guild tries to out manoeuvre another.

And if you’re not in a big guild? Too bad.

Again, you’re not thinking this through.

just because someone is in a guild doesn’t make them apart of that battlegroup. The number is not important. 1000 players is not important. What is important is they’re willing to give a number cap.

I am thinking this though, I’ve actually been thinking about this for a very long time. As I’ve known about it for a while.

Grim West.3194:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Grim West.3194:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jayne.9251:

I’d much prefer if they just capped all servers at say 1000 players and then boot people off based on seniority, with a one-week heads up you’re getting evicted notice.

Then we employ the same policy you want for your battlegroup, without alienating those who value their existing communities.

There’s a reason servers have worked for four-plus years; there’s an attachment that keeps people coming back, even for years when there was zero reward in WvW. To ignore that is foolish. It still exists today, you can see examples of that when the glicko was artificially boosted recently and the resultant player rage.

booting people off based of seniority can’t be determined and a server can simply become a battlegroup if they wanted. You would be able to effectively carry your server WvW community as a battlegroup if you wanted.

Seniority would be very easy to figure out. Many players are loyal to their servers, if they were penalized for being loyal while players in big guilds that transfer regularly are rewarded then you can kiss WvW goodbye.

Do you notice how Arena Net has a section for guild recruitment. They expect guilds to recruit from off their server aswell. Thats how some guilds recruit. What about convincing your friend to play this game. Then them getting evicted. Thats way more damaging and server destroying than anything I’ve heard.

The system you posted might work. I’m not against it. Would have to see more details and feedback from the players. Could be interesting.

I will say though, that it looks like it plays into Guild War’s recent trend (since HoT) of favoring large nameless blob guilds over small guilds. I personally hate that trend and don’t play as much GW2 because of it.

But otherwise I have an open mind on the subject. Obviously, the current system isn’t working very well.

Same man even though people refuse to believe it. I believe healthy communities need a variety of play styles small and large. To be far aswell, my guild is under 50 players and we only field 15 to 20. We aren’t a big guild although we do pug command for our server. I think the system I detailed is a very good one although not perfect.

I think that system detailed has a lot of clouds surrounding it. Like I’m curious to know more about this purposed match-making system. I’m also curious to know about down time inbetween the 14 week seasons and how transferring would work during the down time.

All of that is not very clear from what I just shared. But it seemed to me they were going in the right direction.

apharma.3741:

Infusion.7149:

There should be a free HoT legendary if you get Ultimate Dominator, honestly or AT LEAST the ones on the Trading Post.

Each maxed out title in WvW should give an ascended weapon/armor box. It’s essentially the only thing relevant besides ascended trinkets.

I.e. Defender of camp/keep/tower/SMC = Defender’s box of armor, Assaulter of camp/keep tower/SMC = Assaulter’s Box of weapons/armor

Then have X maxed WvW titles = legendary backpack.

Current titles:
Ultimate Dominator Get 250,000 total kills in WvW.
Yakslapper Kill 2,500 enemy supply caravans.
Leader of the Yak Succesfully escort 2,500 supply caravans.
Fixer-Upper Spend 10,000 supply on repairs.
Unstoppable Force Capture 7,500 objectives.
Unhappy Camper Capture 2,500 total supply camps.
Tower Toppler Capture 2,000 total towers.
Plays for Keeps Capture 1,000 total keeps.
Kingmaker Capture Stonemist Castle 200 times.
Immovable Object Defend 3,000 objectives.
Camp Counselor Defend 500 total supply camps.
Keep Guard Defend 1000 keeps.
Tower Guard Defend 750 total towers.
Royal Guard Defend Stonemist Castle 500 times.

Then have reward tracks for ascended trinkets/backpacks. (Bloodstone fen / ember bay reward tracks do okay though)

Except people kill traded in OS to get ultimate dominator and excessive loot. I don’t know anyone that is even close to ultimate dominator from normal WvW even playing most evenings for nearly 4 years.

Not saying some haven’t got it legit through pressing 1 on their lootstick guards when massively outnumbering other groups, just not anyone I personally know.

I have Ultimate Dominator and theres at least 10 people with it on my server that all got it legit. We didn’t even play EoTM to do it. We played WvW normally.

Grim West.3194:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jayne.9251:

I’d much prefer if they just capped all servers at say 1000 players and then boot people off based on seniority, with a one-week heads up you’re getting evicted notice.

Then we employ the same policy you want for your battlegroup, without alienating those who value their existing communities.

There’s a reason servers have worked for four-plus years; there’s an attachment that keeps people coming back, even for years when there was zero reward in WvW. To ignore that is foolish. It still exists today, you can see examples of that when the glicko was artificially boosted recently and the resultant player rage.

booting people off based of seniority can’t be determined and a server can simply become a battlegroup if they wanted. You would be able to effectively carry your server WvW community as a battlegroup if you wanted.

Seniority would be very easy to figure out. Many players are loyal to their servers, if they were penalized for being loyal while players in big guilds that transfer regularly are rewarded then you can kiss WvW goodbye.

Do you notice how Arena Net has a section for guild recruitment. They expect guilds to recruit from off their server aswell. Thats how some guilds recruit. What about convincing your friend to play this game. Then them getting evicted. Thats way more damaging and server destroying than anything I’ve heard.

Jayne.9251:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jayne.9251:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jayne.9251:

I’d much prefer if they just capped all servers at say 1000 players and then boot people off based on seniority, with a one-week heads up you’re getting evicted notice.

Then we employ the same policy you want for your battlegroup, without alienating those who value their existing communities.

There’s a reason servers have worked for four-plus years; there’s an attachment that keeps people coming back, even for years when there was zero reward in WvW. To ignore that is foolish. It still exists today, you can see examples of that when the glicko was artificially boosted recently and the resultant player rage.

booting people off based of seniority can’t be determined and a server can simply become a battlegroup if they wanted. You would be able to effectively carry your server WvW community as a battlegroup if you wanted.

Sure they can. Transactions/consumption data will determine age of account and when movement happened.

Now you’re just fibbing to push your agenda.

My only agenda is discussion. I dont think its fair to force people off a server based off seniority. That will not only split friends, but it will cut guilds in half.

Well what happens with your system if guilds are cut in half, or they make changes in the future and want different players but you have it capped at 1,000?

You’re not being forward thinking enough. You’re looking for a quick fix, that in the end, won’t fix a thing.

Its not my system. Guilds wouldnt be cut in half because it match makes your guild too. If I were looking at a quick fix. I’d just accept what they’ve done.

Jayne.9251:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jayne.9251:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

I didn’t write this. Only Arena Net can explain it not me. But from my perspective, this is what the game needs. It would even allow downtime tournaments and proper rewards. It would allow us to keep our communities together while keeping match-ups competitive and adding variation to them as well.

I don’t think Anet wrote this either, so it would be hard to explain for them.

It repeats the same agenda that’s been pushed around here for a year now through various forms of social engineering.

And it would not let us keep our communities. It would destroy them.

But the big guilds would be ok.

I promise you they did.

Ok so now we go back to DeWolfe’s comment that you have insider info that gives you an unfair advantage. And you called him a troll for saying that.

If this is indeed generated from Anet, let’s hope it’s in the first draft stage. It’s a terrible idea and only caters to a small portion of their overall audience.

A leak is not Insider information. Obviously this information was handed down passed along and got to me. I know this is indeed written by Arena Net is because I got this information way before any WvW beta or alpha and it detailed every single change since with this information as well.

Jayne.9251:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jayne.9251:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

I didn’t write this. Only Arena Net can explain it not me. But from my perspective, this is what the game needs. It would even allow downtime tournaments and proper rewards. It would allow us to keep our communities together while keeping match-ups competitive and adding variation to them as well.

I don’t think Anet wrote this either, so it would be hard to explain for them.

It repeats the same agenda that’s been pushed around here for a year now through various forms of social engineering.

And it would not let us keep our communities. It would destroy them.

But the big guilds would be ok.

I promise you they did.

Ok so now we go back to DeWolfe’s comment that you have insider info that gives you an unfair advantage. And you called him a troll for saying that.

If this is indeed generated from Anet, let’s hope it’s in the first draft stage. It’s a terrible idea and only caters to a small portion of their overall audience.

We don’t know what it is. Its not confirmed. Nor is it happening. I posted it for discussion. No use to speculate on what it could be but instead talk about what it details. I dont think it’s perfect, but i truely believe it needs to be talked about. Regardless if you think so or not.

Jayne.9251:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jayne.9251:

I’d much prefer if they just capped all servers at say 1000 players and then boot people off based on seniority, with a one-week heads up you’re getting evicted notice.

Then we employ the same policy you want for your battlegroup, without alienating those who value their existing communities.

There’s a reason servers have worked for four-plus years; there’s an attachment that keeps people coming back, even for years when there was zero reward in WvW. To ignore that is foolish. It still exists today, you can see examples of that when the glicko was artificially boosted recently and the resultant player rage.

booting people off based of seniority can’t be determined and a server can simply become a battlegroup if they wanted. You would be able to effectively carry your server WvW community as a battlegroup if you wanted.

Sure they can. Transactions/consumption data will determine age of account and when movement happened.

Now you’re just fibbing to push your agenda.

My only agenda is discussion. I dont think its fair to force people off a server based off seniority. That will not only split friends, but it will cut guilds in half.

Jayne.9251:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

I didn’t write this. Only Arena Net can explain it not me. But from my perspective, this is what the game needs. It would even allow downtime tournaments and proper rewards. It would allow us to keep our communities together while keeping match-ups competitive and adding variation to them as well.

I don’t think Anet wrote this either, so it would be hard to explain for them.

It repeats the same agenda that’s been pushed around here for a year now through various forms of social engineering.

And it would not let us keep our communities. It would destroy them.

But the big guilds would be ok.

I promise you they did.

Jayne.9251:

I’d much prefer if they just capped all servers at say 1000 players and then boot people off based on seniority, with a one-week heads up you’re getting evicted notice.

Then we employ the same policy you want for your battlegroup, without alienating those who value their existing communities.

There’s a reason servers have worked for four-plus years; there’s an attachment that keeps people coming back, even for years when there was zero reward in WvW. To ignore that is foolish. It still exists today, you can see examples of that when the glicko was artificially boosted recently and the resultant player rage.

booting people off based of seniority can’t be determined and a server can simply become a battlegroup if they wanted. You would be able to effectively carry your server WvW community as a battlegroup if you wanted.

Jayne.9251:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Those same people who have worked together for years would in fact be a battlegroup. No matter how they split their numbers. You aren’t forcing anyone to join any guild. individuals join the battle group just the same as guilds. If you choose not to join a battlegroup you will be match made. It stops the bandwagon completely right after it’s match made. That means we dont have this problem we have now. We would be locked for a 14 week period and then instead of every 2 months we get screwed over and forced to move to a random server we really don’t want. We get the option or playing where we want in the time between and during the formation of the next season. I am talking on an individual level. Which makes this system way more flexible than anything we’ve experienced so far.

I don’t know what you classify as a defensive guild neither. I would call TW a defensive guild because they are known to sit on SMC and hold it down to just farm bags in the center. My guild use to be known for home map defense on my previous server. A battlegroup is not a guild.

No the model outlined above caters to big guilds and seemingly ignores the contributions of smaller guilds.

It will alienate the population, because it gives too much power to the playerbase in determining/gaming the system. We already have too much of this.

And how exactly would it stop bandwagonning? Your explanation isn’t clear. And why couldn’t the same rules be applied to existing servers (and subsequently keep everyone happy)?

And if you can play where you want, what’s to stop people from trolling matches to ensure a win for the “home” alliance?

If you choose not to join a battlegroup you will be match made.

So the putty to fill in the cracks if you don’t join a big group?

I think there’s a disconnect here because you’ve played in a big guild and don’t understand that not everyone wants to play that way.

A game shouldn’t cater to one set of people. It should be available to all if it wants to ensure any longevity.

It wont alienate the population. The power is already in the playerbase determining/gaming the system except there are no definitions to govern. My post above explains how it would stop the bandwagon.

You can’t play where you want during the duration of a season. You can change battlegroups, which is just a party system for guilds. I assume similar to a menu like GW1. It doesn’t place you on that battlegroups world.

I didn’t write this. Only Arena Net can explain it not me. But from my perspective, this is what the game needs. It would even allow downtime tournaments and proper rewards. It would allow us to keep our communities together while keeping match-ups competitive and adding variation to them as well.

Jayne.9251:

Also, calling something alliance or server or whatever will not resolve issues plaguing WvW. You have to resolve the bandwagonning issue FIRST. Any other change or implementation of alliance/servers/what have you, is just putting lipstick on the pig, and will result in the exact same situation as we have now. Only it will wind up alienating the loyalists in the process and lose even more playerbase.

You cant bandwagon in this system. Because it first lets players choose based off a cap of 1000. Then they match make everyone. Then they lock the worlds for 14 weeks. Then they take break and start again.

Right now what we have is a bandwagon every 2 months. With this battlegroups what youd have is balanced match making every 14 weeks.

Jayne.9251:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Jayne.9251:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Not going to say where this came from. Don’t even ask. All I’ll say is it came from someone else.

We want to create a WvW season with weekly matches during 8 to 10 weeks and a final tournament at the end of the season that will last 4 weeks.
There will be a team formation period when groups of guilds will join together as battlegroups. Battlegroups will have a max size of around 1000 players.
The system opens the door for some type of matchmaking (guild activity levels, when they are most active) in order to better distribute people and define metrics about what kind of things guilds like to do. The ultimate goal of the system is to generate great matches.
Population, we will have to move people around with the changes but the goal is to keep communities together as much as possible.
The battlegroup system allows players to create groups of guilds that will work together.
You will be able to switch battlegroups at any time but it won’t affect which world you are on until the next season for scoring purposes.
You can pick which of your guilds you want to join on WvW during the team formation phase.
When teams are formed you will be on that team for the season for scoring purposes, even if you change guild or battle group. This is to avoid spying between battlegroups amongst other issues.
Guilds will take player slots out of the battlegroup total capacity. Every guild will take a minimum of 50 slots out of the battlegroup capacity, to a max of 500.
Battlegroups are effectively a “party system” for guilds.
We will have a system to populate worlds automatically with battlegroups, guild and non-guilded players.
Current worlds won’t matter for battlegroups.
We will be adding a guild recognition system called “the guild medal system” for now.
You will do things with your guild and compete with other guilds to get the medal for that week. The activities (most kills, most defensed objectives) are a way to recognize individual guilds for their contribution on a matchup.

This sounds like someone’s wish list.

It completely ignores the bulk of players: small guilds, solo players, etc .. and focuses instead on the big guilds.

If this is done, it will dismiss a core group of WvW. A vital part of WvW.

Any evaluation that excludes rather than includes is just bad business.

Whats stopping smaller guilds and solo players from joining in on this? From someone who has built two alliances, we also recruit solo players who follow us and small guilds. Both types and all types of play styles is need in any WVW community whether it be alliance based or server based.

It’s doing the “small guilds and solo players” will be the putty to fill in the gaps between the big guild models. It doesn’t work.

Most server’s defensive teams are small guilds. They rely on each other because they’ve worked together for years. If you give random battlegroup assignments to these groups, you lose that cohesion, and then you lose the gameplay we’ve enjoyed for four years in WvW. You have to have BOTH groups (fighters/defense) in order for WvW to work.

Name one big defensive guild. Just one.

You can’t, because they’re all made up of smaller guilds and solo players.

Forcing people to join a big guild or not play is not a good business model.

Those same people who have worked together for years would in fact be a battlegroup. No matter how they split their numbers. You aren’t forcing anyone to join any guild. individuals join the battle group just the same as guilds. If you choose not to join a battlegroup you will be match made. It stops the bandwagon completely right after it’s match made. That means we dont have this problem we have now. We would be locked for a 14 week period and then instead of every 2 months we get screwed over and forced to move to a random server we really don’t want. We get the option or playing where we want in the time between and during the formation of the next season. I am talking on an individual level. Which makes this system way more flexible than anything we’ve experienced so far.

I don’t know what you classify as a defensive guild neither. I would call TW a defensive guild because they are known to sit on SMC and hold it down to just farm bags in the center. My guild use to be known for home map defense on my previous server. A battlegroup is not a guild.

Jayne.9251:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Not going to say where this came from. Don’t even ask. All I’ll say is it came from someone else.

We want to create a WvW season with weekly matches during 8 to 10 weeks and a final tournament at the end of the season that will last 4 weeks.
There will be a team formation period when groups of guilds will join together as battlegroups. Battlegroups will have a max size of around 1000 players.
The system opens the door for some type of matchmaking (guild activity levels, when they are most active) in order to better distribute people and define metrics about what kind of things guilds like to do. The ultimate goal of the system is to generate great matches.
Population, we will have to move people around with the changes but the goal is to keep communities together as much as possible.
The battlegroup system allows players to create groups of guilds that will work together.
You will be able to switch battlegroups at any time but it won’t affect which world you are on until the next season for scoring purposes.
You can pick which of your guilds you want to join on WvW during the team formation phase.
When teams are formed you will be on that team for the season for scoring purposes, even if you change guild or battle group. This is to avoid spying between battlegroups amongst other issues.
Guilds will take player slots out of the battlegroup total capacity. Every guild will take a minimum of 50 slots out of the battlegroup capacity, to a max of 500.
Battlegroups are effectively a “party system” for guilds.
We will have a system to populate worlds automatically with battlegroups, guild and non-guilded players.
Current worlds won’t matter for battlegroups.
We will be adding a guild recognition system called “the guild medal system” for now.
You will do things with your guild and compete with other guilds to get the medal for that week. The activities (most kills, most defensed objectives) are a way to recognize individual guilds for their contribution on a matchup.

This sounds like someone’s wish list.

It completely ignores the bulk of players: small guilds, solo players, etc .. and focuses instead on the big guilds.

If this is done, it will dismiss a core group of WvW. A vital part of WvW.

Any evaluation that excludes rather than includes is just bad business.

Whats stopping smaller guilds and solo players from joining in on this? From someone who has built two alliances, we also recruit solo players who follow us and small guilds. Both types and all types of play styles is need in any WVW community whether it be alliance based or server based.

Not going to say where this came from. Don’t even ask. All I’ll say is it came from someone else.

We want to create a WvW season with weekly matches during 8 to 10 weeks and a final tournament at the end of the season that will last 4 weeks.
There will be a team formation period when groups of guilds will join together as battlegroups. Battlegroups will have a max size of around 1000 players.
The system opens the door for some type of matchmaking (guild activity levels, when they are most active) in order to better distribute people and define metrics about what kind of things guilds like to do. The ultimate goal of the system is to generate great matches.
Population, we will have to move people around with the changes but the goal is to keep communities together as much as possible.
The battlegroup system allows players to create groups of guilds that will work together.
You will be able to switch battlegroups at any time but it won’t affect which world you are on until the next season for scoring purposes.
You can pick which of your guilds you want to join on WvW during the team formation phase.
When teams are formed you will be on that team for the season for scoring purposes, even if you change guild or battle group. This is to avoid spying between battlegroups amongst other issues.
Guilds will take player slots out of the battlegroup total capacity. Every guild will take a minimum of 50 slots out of the battlegroup capacity, to a max of 500.
Battlegroups are effectively a “party system” for guilds.
We will have a system to populate worlds automatically with battlegroups, guild and non-guilded players.
Current worlds won’t matter for battlegroups.
We will be adding a guild recognition system called “the guild medal system” for now.
You will do things with your guild and compete with other guilds to get the medal for that week. The activities (most kills, most defensed objectives) are a way to recognize individual guilds for their contribution on a matchup.

zhonnika.1784:

Well, if Anet isn’t going to give us battlegroups/alliances, what do you feel is the best solution to fix this giant mess? It really does feel hopelessly messy, and I’m not convinced we’ll ever be at a point where glicko OR anet can keep up with the constant changes. So, if 1u1d isn’t the solution, and we can’t rely on something they scrapped or shelved for now… what do? I mean, do we even think that more frequent linking will benefit anyone?

Maybe if they aren’t going to give us something like alliances…. we need to do it ourselves (as best we can)? Would take some doing, but it’s not totally impossible.

Yes. I personally think alliance is the way to go. As someone whose played and led MMOs for 15+ yrs and studied in game design. I also played GW1 and every single expansion and games like Warhammer online. I’ve been apart of 2 community driven alliances in GW2 and I’ve seen the rise and fall of Titan and Ascension. And of course my alliance now.

When we have a system so dynamic as WvW, we need a structure that’s just as dynamic and flexible that allows us to build healthy communities. We need a dynamic system that allows for competitiveness and balance. When all is said and done, only then can we start to talk about things like Tournaments and the proper rewards for them.

Now time to go all in… I hope I don’t get banned for my next post here. I want to point out my next post is just a leak. This information did not come from Arena Net. This information is not confirmed. If this violates any terms & agreements please remove my next post.

DeWolfe.2174:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

I don’t think I’m allowed to share full details of the leak on this forum

Am I the only one that’s having a problem with this? Someone should have been fired for giving you inside information. WTF?

Are you trolling me right now. How does details of the leak equate to insider information.

Deli.1302:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Deli.1302:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Instead of having Server loyalty, have loyalty for your alliance or Globe and the community you play with.

What is the difference between a server of guilds/players and an alliance of guilds/players other than the obvious exclusion/elitism that would be encouraged by players being able to pick their own teammates?

The difference is that you can not control your server, or it’s overall cap. An alliance would have a limit much like a guild. This limit of players/guilds would be defined and well known. Based off the limit and the mechanics, the community can pick their own team mates and be matched against another competitive teams and players. The sense of Loyalty to ones community would greatly increase, The structure of our communities would become independent of the server or globe we are on. Having loyalty for your community overall, is better and more optimal than loyalty for a server in which you have little control over. Organizing a community that wants to be organized is better than organizing a community like a server with varying degrees of opinions and goals. How do you organize which that doesn’t want to be organized.

Overall, having globes or alliances, would help things like culture shock and mass transfers. It would provide the tools necessary for the communities to depict overall balance better and actually equate it to a number. It would give birth to more strategy and tactics and allow for guilds and communities to not be separated by the constant shift in server powers and locks determined by an equation no one knows about beyond the devs.

Guild Wars 2 is unique in a way. This game’s population greatly determines how well you do. Our population effects if we win or not. Yet if we lose, or drop out of tier it literally kills servers. It kills communities. There are so many things that can kill a server community and so many things out of our control, yet Arena Net wants us to balance ourselves.. But with what tools?

I can see it already. Grand Cross 2.0 and Titan Alliance 2.0. I’m sure people enjoyed fighting them back then. I remember when opposing alliances would be formed (AA, Bloody Flag Alliance) and would fail then half those guilds will just join the winning alliance, bloating it up further. You talk about a hypothetical alliance system having a cap, that will just encourage kicking. The alliance will just kick the guilds they think are the weakest links. What will happen to those guilds? My guess is they’ll quit the game, speeding up WvW’s decline.

WvW is designed as a sandbox environment for people to play however they want. Servers allow that. I allows those who want to organize to organize. It allows those who want to ppt to ppt. It allows those who want to blob to blob. It allows those who want to roam to roam. It allows those who want to have no interaction with their server to do so. It gives people the freedom to discriminate (which I suspect is the real reason why people want alliances) and it gives people the freedom to play in the face of discrimination. If you want to control who you play with, you already can. If you want to form a de facto alliance, you already can.

You made some awesome points. The system ArenaNet designed however isnt only about alliances. You can have a guild outside of a alliance still playing for a battlegroup. Just like you can have individuals outside guilds. sadly, I don’t think I’m allowed to share full details of the leak on this forum and I don’t want to misquote what they had designed.

I see all your points though for sure. But the same can be said about guilds as it is.

Radioactive.1248:

Why is it laughable? In a 3 way matchup, it makes no sense for SMC to be something that should be maintained by one server the entire week. It should change hands far more frequently. Honestly I’m not sure how anyone could argue that T3 SMC doesn’t ruin the fights / map fluidity in EBG.

It’s being held like this in your match up due to the match-ups imbalance and NOT the mechanics surrounding SMC. JQ|FA has a lack of players compared to TC. This does not validate your reasoning for having SMC have no doors.

EBG is fluid by design. It’s intended to have blobs meeting for that keep. It’s not intended for small scale even, openfield fights and people run regardless of the structure or map. They always run behind doors and walls when they are out gunned.

Xenesis.6389:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Xenesis.6389:

Just take out the castle it’s not needed, keep the outer walls up with the open gates and just the lord and capture ring in the middle.

Heck the open space would be perfectly big enough to server as an arena too!

There multiple problems solved.

would you also remove doors on outer?

I believe, if they changed SMC to be more openfield friendly while being less blobby they would not only have to change SMC, but they’d have to change all of EBG. All the way down to how the towers sit and the keeps are placed. Thus, they mines well just make a new map because the maps design is designed off the center Castle which is suppose to be the jewel of WvW structures.

Mal:

I just edited a post

Absolutely! that also solves the problem of revenants CoR through doors!

I’m kidding of course, EBG is fine the way it is, would be nice if they can find ways to reduce the lag without having to destroy smc.

lmao! don’t take my CoR door tricks away! I’ve killed zergs behind doors!

While, I can’t say EBG is fine the way it is, because I dislike the map. However, I understand the purpose and I understand people like the map. If I were to clean up SMC being godly, I would just remove the HoT mechanics from it.. Decrease how strong the lord is. And finally, add breakable walls to Inner SMC. Because walls are easier to attack than gates in this WvW meta. SMC outer is no problem, as you can attack it from all sides. It’s way to huge to keep every single wall in check. The issue comes from getting inside inner and dealing with the keep lord under HoT mechanics.

Triggered.1850:

Xenesis.6389:

Just take out the castle it’s not needed, keep the outer walls up with the open gates and just the lord and capture ring in the middle.

Heck the open space would be perfectly big enough to server as an arena too!

There multiple problems solved.

You mean to have GvG in a game called Guild Wars 2? NEVEAH!

I think we just got to the true meaning on why you want this.

Xenesis.6389:

Just take out the castle it’s not needed, keep the outer walls up with the open gates and just the lord and capture ring in the middle.

Heck the open space would be perfectly big enough to server as an arena too!

There multiple problems solved.

would you also remove doors on outer?

I believe, if they changed SMC to be more openfield friendly while being less blobby they would not only have to change SMC, but they’d have to change all of EBG. All the way down to how the towers sit and the keeps are placed. Thus, they mines well just make a new map because the maps design is designed off the center Castle which is suppose to be the jewel of WvW structures.

Mal:

I just edited a post

Triggered.1850:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Triggered.1850:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

To be clear, I hate SMC. But I understand the design of it. I would be for the overhaul of EBG entirely.

You really don’t understand how to edit a post.

No I do. I just choose not to because you are being triggered. Your name ironic.

Just pointing out the fact that you do not understand how to edit a post.

Facts arent opinions though. Can we stay on topic? Or do you prefer to derail this thread because someone doesn’t agree with you.

Triggered.1850:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

To be clear, I hate SMC. But I understand the design of it. I would be for the overhaul of EBG entirely.

You really don’t understand how to edit a post.

No I do. I just choose not to because you are being triggered. Your name ironic.

By definition of SMC’s design

“Stonemist Castle is located in the center of the Eternal Battlegrounds. It provides 12 points towards a world’s war score every 5 minutes, greater than a regular keep which produces only 8. It is the largest objective in World versus World and placed in a very good strategic position on the main map. As such, it is a high-value target usually well defended by players and is much harder to take than a regular keep.”

“The Legendary Castle Lord is a massive, powerful guard only encountered in the Eternal Battlegrounds where he defends Stonemist Castle,. He must be defeated to take control of it. He is invulnerable and has a significant damage boost for five minutes after this objective is captured.”

You can see how SMC is designed to promote blobs and the mass right. Or how its suppose to be the hardest to take objective in WvW by design. So having no doors and no siege defeats not only the purpose of SMC, but it defeats the purpose of EBG itself.

To be clear, I hate SMC. But I understand the design of it. I would be for the overhaul of EBG entirely.

Triggered.1850:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Triggered.1850:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

TC is a Tier 1 server fighting half dead servers. Thats an imbalance problem. You are out gunned. SMC doesnt stay 1 color when a match is balanced. Stop making this about my server because you are coming off bitter.

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

TC hasnt lost Garrison in three days, I guess we need to remove the doors and have it so they cant place siege inside.

The irony, we are trying to come up with an actual solution but you are so focus on your own server that you can’t seem to see the issue at hand. You do know that a home’s BL garry is within their territory? It should be held on to for a while, you know what else? It’s NOT the highest value object on the map and is even for all home BLs. SM, on the other hand, is straight in the middle between 3 territories. It being held for an entire week shows an imbalance.

So please stop being salty and defending your server because the current state of the game favors your server.

It’s because you asked for my server I gave it to you. If I had never given you my server name we wouldn’t be having this debate right now. And my last line was extremely sarcastic.

How would not telling me your server change that? You still are thinking the same way and people would of properly of figured it out since most servers aren’t massive anymore. Sure on the sarcastic, with the tone that you have set for yourself, anyone would probably read that and take you seriously.

Edit***
Is this the 90s again? You can edit your post, stop double posting

Yeah most servers dont have the ability to deal with my servers coverage. I outlined that by explaining to you that the SMC we own for multiple days is due to an imbalance within the tier. Same as the score blow out. Hence my sarcastic response. Also, I post how I like.

X T D.6458:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

X T D.6458:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

ArenaNet balances by server and not by Tier. They use data and analyze actual numbers to determine proper links. It’s not as simple as all the lower tier servers get a link and all the higher tier servers do not. If they took this approach it wouldn’t prove to be beneficial at all. Considering people play where they want to play, every 2 months ArenaNet forces people to move and they always move to the tier they wanted to be in in the first place. Also, as I said BG doesn’t have a link. What incentive does BG have to destack?

ArenaNet also recently released a statement saying the issue with having a 1 month cycle.

I think you just seem to be focusing on one server and not looking at the larger picture, the instability this creates for upper tiers as I know you have seen in your server as well is clear to everyone. I am pretty sure I have read in other threads that you do not like the linking system and prefer the old style, would this not basically revert the upper tiers to the older system, while helping the lower tiers with the population problem which is the whole point of linking, not to mention discouraging stacking and bandwagoning? Instead of having a random and constant cycle of rise and fall each linking, why not try something a little more stable?

I’m not just focused on one server. But from where I’m sitting BG has no incentive to balance or move off their respective server to create balance. Because they don’t utilize a link for their coverage. So in fact, unlinking the higher tiers would do nothing but give BG consistent wins. Are you hoping that BG would then get bored and spread to other servers to create balance?

Each linking is going to produce the same results, imbalance, stacking, and instability as I explained above. If you were fine with the system before linking, why wouldn’t you be fine with essentially the same thing as I proposed. If you get a link and rise up, you will eventually lose the link, lose coverage and numbers and drop, it only produces short term gains for upper tier servers it is not a long term solution. One linking your server will see a rise in numbers, and the next linking, another server will rise and fall same as yours.

I never said I was fine with the system before the link. You put those words in my mouth. BG got a link and was unlinked and they did not fall. Why? Because their coverage comes from their server and not their paired server.

Triggered.1850:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

X T D.6458:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

ArenaNet balances by server and not by Tier. They use data and analyze actual numbers to determine proper links. It’s not as simple as all the lower tier servers get a link and all the higher tier servers do not. If they took this approach it wouldn’t prove to be beneficial at all. Considering people play where they want to play, every 2 months ArenaNet forces people to move and they always move to the tier they wanted to be in in the first place. Also, as I said BG doesn’t have a link. What incentive does BG have to destack?

ArenaNet also recently released a statement saying the issue with having a 1 month cycle.

I think you just seem to be focusing on one server and not looking at the larger picture, the instability this creates for upper tiers as I know you have seen in your server as well is clear to everyone. I am pretty sure I have read in other threads that you do not like the linking system and prefer the old style, would this not basically revert the upper tiers to the older system, while helping the lower tiers with the population problem which is the whole point of linking, not to mention discouraging stacking and bandwagoning? Instead of having a random and constant cycle of rise and fall each linking, why not try something a little more stable?

I’m not just focused on one server. But from where I’m sitting BG has no incentive to balance or move off their respective server to create balance. Because they don’t utilize a link for their coverage. So in fact, unlinking the higher tiers would do nothing but give BG consistent wins. Are you hoping that BG would then get bored and spread to other servers to create balance?

Great, leave the server population to anet. They need to better manage their servers and realize that this isn’t gw2 day one any more.

Yes. the mechanics that govern population are left up to Arena Net. Yes, they do need better server management with mechanics. Correct, this isnt day one anymore.

if you wanted SMC to be more balanced, then get rid of the HoT mechanics. It’s the HoT mechanics that turn SMC into this OP thing. Removing doors is a terrible Idea. Not having siege in SMC is a terrible idea.

Triggered.1850:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

TC is a Tier 1 server fighting half dead servers. Thats an imbalance problem. You are out gunned. SMC doesnt stay 1 color when a match is balanced. Stop making this about my server because you are coming off bitter.

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

TC hasnt lost Garrison in three days, I guess we need to remove the doors and have it so they cant place siege inside.

The irony, we are trying to come up with an actual solution but you are so focus on your own server that you can’t seem to see the issue at hand. You do know that a home’s BL garry is within their territory? It should be held on to for a while, you know what else? It’s NOT the highest value object on the map and is even for all home BLs. SM, on the other hand, is straight in the middle between 3 territories. It being held for an entire week shows an imbalance.

So please stop being salty and defending your server because the current state of the game favors your server.

It’s because you asked for my server I gave it to you. If I had never given you my server name we wouldn’t be having this debate right now. And my last line was extremely sarcastic.

X T D.6458:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

ArenaNet balances by server and not by Tier. They use data and analyze actual numbers to determine proper links. It’s not as simple as all the lower tier servers get a link and all the higher tier servers do not. If they took this approach it wouldn’t prove to be beneficial at all. Considering people play where they want to play, every 2 months ArenaNet forces people to move and they always move to the tier they wanted to be in in the first place. Also, as I said BG doesn’t have a link. What incentive does BG have to destack?

ArenaNet also recently released a statement saying the issue with having a 1 month cycle.

I think you just seem to be focusing on one server and not looking at the larger picture, the instability this creates for upper tiers as I know you have seen in your server as well is clear to everyone. I am pretty sure I have read in other threads that you do not like the linking system and prefer the old style, would this not basically revert the upper tiers to the older system, while helping the lower tiers with the population problem which is the whole point of linking, not to mention discouraging stacking and bandwagoning? Instead of having a random and constant cycle of rise and fall each linking, why not try something a little more stable?

I’m not just focused on one server. But from where I’m sitting BG has no incentive to balance or move off their respective server to create balance. Because they don’t utilize a link for their coverage. So in fact, unlinking the higher tiers would do nothing but give BG consistent wins. Are you hoping that BG would then get bored and spread to other servers to create balance?

TC hasnt lost Garrison in three days, I guess we need to remove the doors and have it so they cant place siege inside.

Triggered.1850:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Triggered.1850:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Triggered.1850:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Zero.4935:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Zero.4935:

+1

I’m curious to see what servers people who are -1 are from

Tarnished Coast -1 because having no doors is silly. Because Siege is apart of WvW no matter how op it is. A castle should have siege to defend it in a war. WvW isnt some openfield kitten.. Just because something is imbalanced doesn’t mean it needs to be removed. It could be reworked. Like siege for instance. Or the toughness of Tier 3 objectives.

Have you seen how fat TC runs? You can’t even break outer without trebbing from a tower and let’s say you do get into inner? You literally have 0 hope of breaking through a T3 sieged castle WITH a blob defending it.

I avoid EBG like the plague specifically because SMC promotes massive pug blobs constantly re-spawning and running to the center. This can not be pinned on 1 server in fact this happens on all the servers I fought and played on. The problem you guys are identifying is the flow of the map and general WvW mechanics like Tier 3 keeps and Arrow Carts. The issue isn’t with SMC itself but the flow of the map. It makes everyone meet in the dead center. Hence your lag..

If Arrow Carts were simply removed from game, and there were no doors at all and you couldn’t upgrade anything. I bet the same folk would be very happy.

You do know that SM is the highest value object you can get right? It should be fought for. Otherwise, the server with the high population is just going to get it day 1, fortified it, seige it up, and just get free points. Not only that, but it offers a huge advantage of being about to move around the map and capture other points without much worries.

Edit***
By removing the doors and the bs built in siege, not only do you give smaller groups a fighting chance to get SM but it also forces bigger blobs not to be as focus about it.

Nah Bigger blobs would just sit in there waiting for the fight. or the PPK bag farm.

If SMC had no doors and no defenses ArenaNet would probably lower how much it gave you because the position isn’t strategic and means little now. As a matter of fact all open doors then why are the wall destructible? It’s a Castle. It’s suppose to be extremely defensive and hard to take. The point of SMC isn’t for small scale fighting. You know this is you look at the keep lord and the scale of the structure and location itself. SMC is suppose to attract big blobs not deter them. Why do you think it’s positioned where it is and cost the most.

I do agree T3 keeps and Castles are kittened to take. I agree SMC is also insane to take when its T3. I believe that’s a huge problem, but this proposal is a terrible solution.

Excuse me sir, but are you high? Whoever owns SM right now is currently farming bags because if the blob starts losing, they just hide back in, and start firing siege. Not only that, but no one even tries to take SM once it is T3 because everyone knows it is pointless. If the doors were open, actual WvW guilds could come in and fight these blobs on a more level playing field vs people who just sit on siege, press 1, and collect $200.

Don’t be condescending by asking if I’m high, when I’m talking nicely to you. I’m apart of an actual WvW guild that has taken T3 SMCs from map zergs with siege. I’ve farmed enemies pouring out of SMC and they can only run to inner because we’ve pelted so many holes in outter. Furthermore if you wanted them to leave SMC then hit something else.

I don’t believe you are even reading your own words. Did you not admit you were in TC? Last time I check, TC has own SM this entire week. Farming people leaving your own castle? I’m sure that isn’t that difficult. I can understand why you wouldn’t want to change anything when it favors your server very well.

TC is a Tier 1 server fighting half dead servers. Thats an imbalance problem. You are out gunned. SMC doesnt stay 1 color when a match is balanced. Stop making this about my server because you are coming off bitter.

Triggered.1850:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Triggered.1850:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Zero.4935:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Zero.4935:

+1

I’m curious to see what servers people who are -1 are from

Tarnished Coast -1 because having no doors is silly. Because Siege is apart of WvW no matter how op it is. A castle should have siege to defend it in a war. WvW isnt some openfield kitten.. Just because something is imbalanced doesn’t mean it needs to be removed. It could be reworked. Like siege for instance. Or the toughness of Tier 3 objectives.

Have you seen how fat TC runs? You can’t even break outer without trebbing from a tower and let’s say you do get into inner? You literally have 0 hope of breaking through a T3 sieged castle WITH a blob defending it.

I avoid EBG like the plague specifically because SMC promotes massive pug blobs constantly re-spawning and running to the center. This can not be pinned on 1 server in fact this happens on all the servers I fought and played on. The problem you guys are identifying is the flow of the map and general WvW mechanics like Tier 3 keeps and Arrow Carts. The issue isn’t with SMC itself but the flow of the map. It makes everyone meet in the dead center. Hence your lag..

If Arrow Carts were simply removed from game, and there were no doors at all and you couldn’t upgrade anything. I bet the same folk would be very happy.

You do know that SM is the highest value object you can get right? It should be fought for. Otherwise, the server with the high population is just going to get it day 1, fortified it, seige it up, and just get free points. Not only that, but it offers a huge advantage of being about to move around the map and capture other points without much worries.

Edit***
By removing the doors and the bs built in siege, not only do you give smaller groups a fighting chance to get SM but it also forces bigger blobs not to be as focus about it.

Nah Bigger blobs would just sit in there waiting for the fight. or the PPK bag farm.

If SMC had no doors and no defenses ArenaNet would probably lower how much it gave you because the position isn’t strategic and means little now. As a matter of fact all open doors then why are the wall destructible? It’s a Castle. It’s suppose to be extremely defensive and hard to take. The point of SMC isn’t for small scale fighting. You know this is you look at the keep lord and the scale of the structure and location itself. SMC is suppose to attract big blobs not deter them. Why do you think it’s positioned where it is and cost the most.

I do agree T3 keeps and Castles are kittened to take. I agree SMC is also insane to take when its T3. I believe that’s a huge problem, but this proposal is a terrible solution.

Excuse me sir, but are you high? Whoever owns SM right now is currently farming bags because if the blob starts losing, they just hide back in, and start firing siege. Not only that, but no one even tries to take SM once it is T3 because everyone knows it is pointless. If the doors were open, actual WvW guilds could come in and fight these blobs on a more level playing field vs people who just sit on siege, press 1, and collect $200.

Don’t be condescending by asking if I’m high, when I’m talking nicely to you. I’m apart of an actual WvW guild that has taken T3 SMCs from map zergs with siege. I’ve farmed enemies pouring out of SMC and they can only run to inner because we’ve pelted so many holes in outter. Furthermore if you wanted them to leave SMC then hit something else.

Deli.1302:

SMC upgrades too quickly. That’s the problem with this auto upgrade system. Unlike keeps/towers, SMC gets up to 6 sources of yaks. That’s too much. There’s rarely ever a matchup without a stronger server dominating the other two.

See now this is the real problem here. It’s a game mechanics, Map flow and design. not the structure itself. Doors shouldn’t be removed off this structure. and if anything the number of siege you can build in SMC can be reduced. T3 objectives overall needs reduction when you have things like hardened gates and stronger guards and keep lords.

Triggered.1850:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Zero.4935:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

Zero.4935:

+1

I’m curious to see what servers people who are -1 are from

Tarnished Coast -1 because having no doors is silly. Because Siege is apart of WvW no matter how op it is. A castle should have siege to defend it in a war. WvW isnt some openfield kitten.. Just because something is imbalanced doesn’t mean it needs to be removed. It could be reworked. Like siege for instance. Or the toughness of Tier 3 objectives.

Have you seen how fat TC runs? You can’t even break outer without trebbing from a tower and let’s say you do get into inner? You literally have 0 hope of breaking through a T3 sieged castle WITH a blob defending it.

I avoid EBG like the plague specifically because SMC promotes massive pug blobs constantly re-spawning and running to the center. This can not be pinned on 1 server in fact this happens on all the servers I fought and played on. The problem you guys are identifying is the flow of the map and general WvW mechanics like Tier 3 keeps and Arrow Carts. The issue isn’t with SMC itself but the flow of the map. It makes everyone meet in the dead center. Hence your lag..

If Arrow Carts were simply removed from game, and there were no doors at all and you couldn’t upgrade anything. I bet the same folk would be very happy.

You do know that SM is the highest value object you can get right? It should be fought for. Otherwise, the server with the high population is just going to get it day 1, fortified it, seige it up, and just get free points. Not only that, but it offers a huge advantage of being about to move around the map and capture other points without much worries.

Edit***
By removing the doors and the bs built in siege, not only do you give smaller groups a fighting chance to get SM but it also forces bigger blobs not to be as focus about it.

Nah Bigger blobs would just sit in there waiting for the fight. or the PPK bag farm.

If SMC had no doors and no defenses ArenaNet would probably lower how much it gave you because the position isn’t strategic and means little now. As a matter of fact all open doors then why are the wall destructible? It’s a Castle. It’s suppose to be extremely defensive and hard to take. The point of SMC isn’t for small scale fighting. You know this if you look at the keep lord and the scale of the structure and location itself. SMC is suppose to attract big blobs not deter them. Why do you think it’s positioned where it is and cost the most.

I do agree T3 keeps and Castles are kittened to take. I agree SMC is also insane to take when its T3. I believe that’s a huge problem, but this proposal is a terrible solution.