I’ll look into this.
I’m the one with the tag.
There is a bug with outnumbered. We are working on a fix for it now and hope to get it out in the next release.
How about most of the people in this thread actually playing with the fix before condemning ArenaNet for not testing it?
If a camp really gets you 10 minutes and a sentry gets you five, that’s plenty of time to get to another objective and actually DO something.
I am curious how much killing a guard gets you as they are plentiful and do earn you WxP, not to mention credit for the objective if it’s taken later by someone else.
No it’s not working that way unfortunately. Some people are saying they are getting larger amounts of time for doing things but doesn’t seem to be doing that for everyone. Half an houra ago in EBG, I was with zerg, took tower.. ported back to garri and ran straight to SMC… by the time I got there was already in full decay.. so even tho I got credit for the tower, I didn’t get the extra time to the decay meter.
Well here’s a good one… I had almost 5 minutes left, then we took a tower… suddenly it was counting down from 4 minutes. So, if you take something that gives a lower reset time then something you just took before that you lose the benefit of the longer reset time… you get reset to the last taken/killed object. The benefit of killing someone and getting a 10 minute reset is wiped out by taking anything else with a lower reset time.
This is from personal experience a half hour ago.
oh joy…
The decay timer doesn’t show 4 minutes. It will only show the last 90 seconds before it starts decaying. I believe you were probably looking at the tick timer.
I think some people are confused and think that whenever you do something that gives participation it adds to the decay, which has not been and is not the case.
Is this supposed to have never been the case?
Because I remember a time (not in this build, a few months ago) when capping a ruin would lead to a sharply reduced delay before decay kicked in – short enough, in fact, that if you held the ruin for the time it took to get Bloodlust, decay WOULD have kicked in by the time you got it. This could happen even if you’d capped a regular objective such as a camp or tower shortly beforehand.
So it seems there might be a bug in the code such that something that grants you participation, albeit with a shorter decay timer than your current timer, will sometimes overwrite your current timer. While this wasn’t that big a deal beforehand when most things had longer timers, when you have a lot of things with short timers, there’s probably a much greater chance for that bug to come into effect.
That is working as intended. These changes are just an extension of that system.
The issue I had was mainly during slow time for my server that there were enough roamers that you could not get to a camp to take it, a sentry or a ruin etc. before it was taken so you could not keep up your participation unless you found a group to take larger things like towers.
Also repairing doesn’t always work well especially if something is being continually trebbed but the supply may be needed to siege up inner keep or a tower for the eventual invasion. It just leads to bad feelings as folk who are using up supply to repair to keep up participation take supply from those who are trying to defend. It does not lead to folk working together.
Also I went into decay just running around with a zerg finding things to do. The decay before was working just fine. It might be better if when you are done to be able to ‘cash out’ your remaining time into pips depending on what level you have gotten. It would keep folk from hanging around waiting for decay of participation and clotting up maps. Plus it would give you something for the work you put into getting to that level.
Cashing out has a lot of issues. For example, we would somehow need to make cashing out be exactly as good as the rewards you would get if you were still playing. If it does not give as good of rewards no one would do it and still afk, and if we make it too good then everyone would just constantly cash out. It is impossible to predict all the rewards someone would be expected to earn because we cannot predict if a map will become outnumbered or if your world moves placements. We also wouldn’t want people to constantly cash out so then we would need to accurately lock them out of WvW for a set period of time. The period of time would probably need to be longer than just the amount of time it would take to decay because otherwise it could still be more ideal to play a little, cash out go back, repeat. We have considered it, we just don’t believe it is a viable option.
Thanks for reply Mckenna, what about killing another player?
Oops! I missed that one. Killing a player grants 10 minutes. I edited the list above as well.
I think some people are confused and think that whenever you do something that gives participation it adds to the decay, which has not been and is not the case. For example when you take an objective, it gives you 10 minutes before your participation will start to decay; then if you kill a guard it will only reset to 2 minutes if you have less than 2 minutes left otherwise it won’t affect the timer. This is how it has always worked; the only thing we have changed is the reset time for each action.
The reset times are as follows:
• Killing a Player – 10 minutes
• Killing a Caravan – 2 minutes
• Destroying a fortification – 5 minutes
• Killing a Guard – 2 minutes
• Killing a Lord – 5 minutes
• Killing or reviving a merc npc – 1 minute
• Repairing – 5 minutes
• Siege Damage Wall/Gate/Player – 1 minute
• Destroying Siege – 5 minute
• Killing a Veteran Creature – 5 minutes
These happen on event completion:
• Defending a Caravan – 2 minutes
• Completing a Merc Event – 5 minutes
• Completing a Defend Event – 10 minutes
• Capturing an objective – 10 minutes
• Capturing a Ruin or Shrine – 2 minutes
• Capturing a Sentry – 5 minutes
It is still possible that we will tweak these numbers going forward.
(edited by McKenna Berdrow.2759)
We are looking into this.
Changes to how the outnumbered bonus is acquired is coming in the next release.
1 up 1 down is based off victory points.
This change is coming.
SpillyLily is correct. The next relinking is 6/30.
We need to update the loyalty pip description.
You need to earn at least 75 pips for 3 weeks in a row to earn the loyalty bonus. We wanted players to have to participate in skirmishes to be considered loyal.
Hello, I’m not quite clear on this.
So you need to get
75+ pips on week 1
75+ pips on week 2
75+ pips on week 3And then so long as you remain on the server, you will get the loyalty bonus?
Or will the streak reset if you miss a week, and you need to do all 3 again?
Needing to earn 100+ pips weeks 1, 2 and 3 is correct. If you miss a week you will need to do all 3 again.
*Edit: It should be 100 pips not 75. So you need to complete all of Wood Tier for 3 weeks.
(edited by McKenna Berdrow.2759)
Looking into it.
We need to update the loyalty pip description.
You need to earn at least 75 pips for 3 weeks in a row to earn the loyalty bonus. We wanted players to have to participate in skirmishes to be considered loyal.
We need to update the loyalty pip description. You need to earn at least 3 wood chests for 3 weeks to be considered loyal. We wanted you to have to participate in skirmishes to be considered loyal.
You will need to have the skin unlocked not the item itself. For example you will need to have the Triumphant Masque skin unlocked to be able to purchase the Triumphant Hero’s Masque.
The weapons will be on the vendor as well.
Our stance hasn’t changed on this. My response that Xenesisll linked is still the same.
Thanks for the development attention to WvW.
Two things;
If someone transferred today, when would they be eligible to start earning rewards when the new system goes live?
I have no idea what you are talking about with tiers of armor. Can someone explain (even take a guess) about the details of what that’s about?
You would not be eligible to earn pips until the 9th if you transferred today.
The Armor Tiers are:
Tier 1 – Triumphant armor
Tier 2 – Triumphant Hero’s armor
Tier 3 – Mistforged Triumphant Hero’s armorWeapons:
Tier 1: Hero’s weapons
Tier 2: Mistforged Hero’s weaponsHow are these going to handled? A lot of players have unlocked all the T1 skins and salvaged them to save on inventory space. Will there be a collection added for this (or tracking of skins unlocked), or will we be forced to re-complete 18 reward tracks?
It checks if you have the skin. So if you already have the T1 skin then you can buy the T2.
Thanks for the development attention to WvW.
Two things;
If someone transferred today, when would they be eligible to start earning rewards when the new system goes live?
I have no idea what you are talking about with tiers of armor. Can someone explain (even take a guess) about the details of what that’s about?
You would not be eligible to earn pips until the 9th if you transferred today.
The Armor Tiers are:
Tier 1 – Triumphant armor
Tier 2 – Triumphant Hero’s armor
Tier 3 – Mistforged Triumphant Hero’s armor
Weapons:
Tier 1: Hero’s weapons
Tier 2: Mistforged Hero’s weapons
A thought occurred to me … since I play both Edge of the Mists and The Mist War … does all of this only apply to The Mist War, or does it apply to Edge of the Mists also?
Skirmishes are only part of The Mist War and not part of EoTM. Because of that pips cannot be earned while in EoTM. However, vendors for both the backpack and skirmish rewards will be in EoTM in case of queues.
So winning pips are based on war score with the war score getting reset every two hours. I assume that this means that winning pips are awarded every two hours.
My question is whether a player has to be online, and on a WvW map, to get awarded these winning pips?
If they do then I could see some fuss about players being forced to play until the next tick to not lose credit or something similar to how players complained about rewards for the HoT maps or before that April update.
There’s also the issue of getting a d/c after playing on a map for 115 minutes and then lose out on winning pips.
You earn pips every tick, so every 5 minutes. You do have to be online, in WvW to earn the pips.
I’m aware of Tyler’s posts, which if you read them don’t ever promise a 3rd borderlands map. I just wanted to clarify that nowhere in the polls did we say anything about creating a 3rd borderlands map, even though that is stated as a ‘fact’ over and over again on the forums.
(edited by McKenna Berdrow.2759)
Guess I must be an exception, as I see people in dbl all the time when I am roaming. /shrug
So do I, so you’re not an exception.
Thanks for repeating it… it’s really a pity because once people decided they don’t like DBL, they kept at it, even though a lot got better.
If you don’t like liver, it doesn’t matter if a 5 star chef makes the best liver every done by human kind, you still don’t like liver.
The desert bl is that crappy. (though I do like liver)
Fair enough. I’d add that if you don’t like liver, you don’t demonstrate every week in front of that restaurant which serves the best liver in the world to ask it to be removed from the menu because you think liver is crap and nobody could possibly enjoy such a dish.
And yet, that’s what happens with DBL.
Lots of posters here also seem to have completely forgotten that DBL poll that was taken long ago by Anet. The playerbase decided on the current configuration of 2 abls and 1 dbl. And that poll was taken before most of the really nice changes to dbl.
If you hate DBL so much, then just don’t play it. Simple as that.
Nice alternative facts there.
Here’s the history in case you all forgot.
Players were tired of two WvW maps, complained that WvW was stagnant.
Anet brings out DBL, replacing ABL. Players hate map.
Poll #1 asks players if you want to keep DBL, or go back to three ABL maps players complained about. Voting to keep DBL would mean a third map would be done.
Players voted to keep DBL so new map would be done, which was better than three ABL maps that we’ve had since launch.Poll #2 asked what kind of rotation they would like with DBL.
The winner was two ABL and one DBL because that was the lowest number of DBL maps.Still no new map.
So the real facts of DBL is that players voted for DBL so that a third BL map would be done and the players voted for only one DBL map because it was the best choice available.
Actually, the polls you are referring to are different than what you’ve outlined.
Poll 1:
Today we’re here to ask about the future of the Desert Borderland map in WvW. Since its release, there has been significant community debate surrounding the Desert Borderlands and there’s been a vocal group of players demanding that the Desert Borderlands map be removed entirely. The question remains, is that opinion actually representative of the vast majority of the WvW community?
Since this is a change that has significant impact on WvW as a whole, 75% of the community vote must be in agreement to disable the Desert Borderlands map.
Do you believe that permanently removing the Desert Borderlands map from play would be a superior game experience compared to having both Alpine Borderlands and Desert Borderlands maps as options?
• Yes: The Desert Borderland map should be permanently disabled.
o Alpine Borderlands will forever be the only Borderlands map.
• No: The Desert Borderland map should continue to be supported.
o Both Alpine Borderlands and Desert Borderlands will remain as map options.
o We will hold a revised Simultaneous Borderlands poll again, to determine how the Desert Borderlands returns.
• Don’t count my vote, just show me the current results.
Poll 2:
Again we’re here to ask about the future of the borderlands maps in WvW. The current plan is to rotate the active borderlands map with each quarterly update. The alternative option is to have both Alpine and Desert Borderlands running simultaneously. The down side of both maps running simultaneously is the possibility of imbalance between the maps; the upside is more choice and variety of which map to play on.
How would you like to play both Desert and Alpine going forward?
• Simultaneous Borderlands is a superior option
o At all times there will be 2 Alpine Borderlands and 1 Desert Borderland
o This requires a 75% majority to win.
• Rotating borderlands is a superior option
o Quarterly rotation between 3 Alpine Borderlands and 3 Desert Borderlands.
o If Simultaneous does not win by 75% we will continue with this option.
• Don’t count my vote, just show me the current results.
Just wanted to say that this is an interesting suggestion! The team is interested in feedback on this idea and will continue watching this thread. However, just because we are following this thread doesn’t guarantee we will add it as a feature.
Like others have mentioned in this thread, we don’t think this would be a healthy feature for WvW. Many players will not participate in WvW if they don’t see a commander tag, and we try to avoid adding features that can be used to exclude players.
This should be fixed now.
We are looking into this.
We have temporarily disabled the acquisition and use of the Siege Disabler item in order to correct a bug related to the item. We will re-enable the item as soon as the bug has been corrected.
This is being changed. The jump pads inside the keep will work without owning the shrines.
Why are such changes NEVER posted in the patch notes? It’s not like you have to write a whole wall of text when it comes to wvw right.
It wasn’t in today’s patch.
This is being changed. The jump pads inside the keep will work without owning the shrines.
Using exp boosters does not affect play hours and thus does not affect world sizes.
To clarify further this is the first week we are using this new algorithm. So some of the complaints that are being brought up were problems with the old algorithm.
We use play hours to determine the size. Rank gains is tracked for comparison purposes since they usually follow a similar curve, but isn’t actually used to determine the world size.
We have simulated other algorithms to measure world size and ultimately found that player hours gave us more accurate results because we are mostly comparing active WvW play. The past algorithms weighed more heavily on individual players, so we ended up with situations where JQ was ‘Full’ because they had a lot of players, just not necessarily ones that played as much as Blackgate.
EotM does not count towards those metrics.
Yak’s Bend is among the highest worlds in terms of play hours and ranks gained, which is the primary metric we use to determine which worlds we lock each week.
We haven’t made any manual adjustments. Our last manual adjustment was during the previous World Link on 12/2.
We play on both European and US worlds.
Devs play on a lot of different worlds and move around frequently and that includes the WvW team. However, the WvW team also plays together on a different random world once a week.
Since this is a similar to the other 5-4-3 thread, here is a link to my response on that thread.
The next world link is February 24th.
Thanks for creating this thread! I’ll have the team keep an eye on it.
Like Gaile mentioned, devs play on a lot of different worlds and move around frequently and that includes the WvW team. However, the WvW team also plays together on a different random world once a week.
Why 5,4,3?
Both 5,4,3 and 3,2,1 were suggestions from the Official Feedback Thread: WvW Skirmishes (https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Official-Feedback-Thread-WvW-Skirmishes/page/2). And we have seen general interest in trying 5,4,3. If there is a different set of numbers you would like to try instead, feel free to suggest them.
How is 5,4,3 different than 3,2,1?
Since there has been a lot of debate on this, with most people being right but debating different points, there are three things that are true:
1. The scores will be closer.
2. The placements won’t change.
3. This could impact world rating used for glicko matchmaking.
This is assuming play style remains identical to how it was when 3,2,1 was in play. Player behavior may change since the scores will be closer, but we aren’t sure if they will. This was the same situation with 2,1,1. We weren’t sure if it would change WvW play style, but players seemed generally interested in giving it a shot and one of the reasons WvW is a 3 team gamemode, rather than a 2 team gamemode, is so that worlds could team up and try to take down the dominate world. This isn’t something we incentivized very much before 2,1,1 but having 2v1s in WvW was intended behavior and when it works correctly can lead to more balanced matches.
Will 5,4,3 be there forever?
As stated with the patch notes with 2,1,1 and stays true for 5,4,3: “If we aren’t happy with the results we can change the Skirmish score values again.” If we get feedback that players don’t like 5,4,3 and want to go back to 3,2,1 we can do that. If we get feedback that players want to try some different numbers that we haven’t tried before, we can do that. Changing the numbers is easy for the team, but do keep in mind that it requires a game build, and that schedule is determined by the studio as a whole.
Do we expect 5,4,3 to be a cure-all for scoring problems?
No. 5,4,3 will not make match scores dramatically better than 3,2,1. The scores might look closer, but if a world is dominating 5,4,3 isn’t going to stop them from winning. Population imbalance is the biggest factor in scoring problems and changing the skirmish score values isn’t going to change that. Population imbalance is a different problem that we are working on solving outside of changing the skirmish score values.
We are aware of this issue and are working on a fix for it.
Thanks for the feedback everyone. The response to 2,1,1 is mixed, so I thought I would inform everyone that we will be changing it to 5,4,3. This is intended to go out around the same time as Episode 4.
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.
The next link will be December 30th.