Guild Wars 2

Inculpatus cedo.9234:

Here is what I posted in another thread with players concerned about this issue:

This doesn’t affect only EU players. Anyone that logged into the game after 00:00 UTC, whether in NA or EU or anywhere else gets the first Daily Log-In Reward after reset.

Let’s say you logged in 3 hours before yesterday’s Daily reset, played for 2 hours, and logged out. You would not be able to do yesterday’s Daily if you logged back in after the patch dropped today, because it is gone. So, the game gives you a Daily Log-In reward.

Let’s say you logged in yesterday 3 hours before patch, stayed on through Daily reset, and then completed yesterday’s Daily, and logged out. If you logged in today after the patch (but before reset, and automatically got the new Daily Log-In reward), you would be rewarded twice for yesterday’s Daily.

So, to prevent some people from being rewarded twice, anyone who logged in after reset yesterday must wait until reset today (patch day) to be rewarded. Those that logged in after yesterday’s reset, but failed to do their Daily, will miss out, but it would probably take a lot to code something that checked each account to see how many tasks that account completed on yesterday’s Daily, and then award the remaining (if any) Achievement Points/Rewards.

I imagine we will know more about who gets what, when, after a couple of Daily resets.

It effects EU players less than NA players. For EU reset is after prime time when many will have already logged off for the night. For NA reset is before prime time, so most NA players will have logged in.

I’m not up-in-arms about this, and neither is OP from what I see. I am slightly annoyed, just as OP is.

Also, it’s not one laurel that’s missing … I believe the login reward for today was 2 mystic coins? Somebody else posted that, I won’t know for another hour … because for some reason we can’t even look at it but for once a day.

Of course by then, those who didn’t log in yesterday will already be on the day 2 reward.

Slightly annoyed, that’s all. Not up-in-arms, not quitting the game, just slightly annoyed.

GrandmaFunk.3052:

Nabrok.9023:

GrandmaFunk.3052:

Nabrok.9023:

Odd loyalty reward that puts people who played on the 15th a day behind everybody else.

It’s not putting you a day behind, it’s preventing you from getting an extra laurel that you would get by claiming today’s pre-patch daily AND the post-patch login reward.

No, it’s a day behind. If somebody who didn’t log in yesterday continues to log in daily they will get the 28th reward one day before those who did log in yesterday.

Yes but the ones that did log in and finish their daily will have an extra day’s worth of rewards under the old system compared to the others.

I got my 12 AP from dailies before the patch hit, I got my 10 AP for dailies after the patch hit. That’s ok, but somehow getting an extra mystic coin and being on equal footing with those who didn’t log in yesterday is not?

It’s not a huge deal, but I can’t deny I’m slightly annoyed by it.

I’m more annoyed that I can’t see the nice new achievement window but once a day though.

Southern.8973:

GuzziHero.5104:

I just have been raging in EU.

So I have 4 options. Queensdale Event, Maguuma Forager, Mystic Toilet usage, Jungle Wurm. Never done a JW, never want to. Guess I’m going to have to learn to use the Mystic Toilet >_<

I didn’t see any replies to this, so I’ll just state:

Buy 4 cheap runes or sigils off the TP. Lowest one right now is 11 copper. Throw them in the Mystic Toilet. Yer done. Cost: 44 copper. (You’ll need to break the stack of 4 into individual runes/sigils in order to throw them in the forge).

Or buy 4 light gloves with karma and you’ll actually make money.

Danikat.8537:

I logged in yesterday, and I got the daily login reward as soon as the game updated today.

But maybe that’s because I wasn’t online between the daily reset and the patch?

Yes, that’s right. If you logged in between yesterdays reset and todays patch, you miss out on the first daily reward.

You can still get the 10 AP though.

whoknows.7968:

Is there a way to manually see the cute daily ap window??, i dont want to see the daily ap pressing h—>archievements… is soo mess up !!!!! please GM fix! ty

I asked an anet person in game and he told me that the only way to view it is when you first login for the day. Pretty big over-sight there. We should be able to see this window whenever.

Iason Evan.3806:

This is really disappointing from an “information” standpoint. This should have been in the patch notes. It feels like closed communication is spreading to even post release of a feature. Unless I do my daily every day, this is a net nerf. A change this significant should have been communicated. Period. There’s no excuse for it not being included somewhere. Step it up.

No, you just have to log in every day. Or log in every second day (and have it take twice as long). Or log in every third day … just login as much as you like.

spoj.9672:

Seeing as i cant get dailies done anymore while doing my usual stuff. I wont be doing them anymore. The new daily rewards are crap and the log in rewards will get me my laurels. So i guess it really doesnt matter. I can get better rewards for less effort just by logging in.

That’s kind of the point. If you don’t care about the 10 AP, there’s no reason to do dailies unless you happen to want some of the individual rewards for each one.

GrandmaFunk.3052:

Nabrok.9023:

Odd loyalty reward that puts people who played on the 15th a day behind everybody else.

It’s not putting you a day behind, it’s preventing you from getting an extra laurel that you would get by claiming today’s pre-patch daily AND the post-patch login reward.

No, it’s a day behind. If somebody who didn’t log in yesterday continues to log in daily they will get the 28th reward one day before those who did log in yesterday.

PaxTheGreatOne.9472:

I just do not understand we need specific world bosses now, I have 2 childrena and a family, and I never do triple trouble, and very, very, rarely go to Tequatl… Just because I do not have the time. Let’s see the temple of grenth appear next… nice and random spawn, and see how many peole like waiting forrever and having noobs doing the defence event if we need the conquer event for example. that wouldn’t be outrage, it would just mean people go and play something else, and ignore dailies.

And oh now we got to do pvp and wvw so we can be whole players? Who says so.
If A-Net thinks 10 AP’s is a better incentive then actual LOOT AT THE KITTEN EVENTS… Well: They are dumber then Skritt! Maybe Ooze level and not the chromatic ones, just the plain yellow ones, with immobilize. That’s what they do, they immobilize the game .

No, you don’t. All you have to do is gather some nodes in maguuma, use the MF once, and some Queensdale events.

You don’t have to do Jungle Wurm. You don’t have to PvP. You don’t have to do WvW.

Even though I do everything, I completed the daily in PvE easily. MF’d 4 light gloves, ran around sparkfly and gathered some stuff, took a 100% map completion character to Queensdale to find events easily (use the content guide).

Very quick. Very easy. Even completed the new toy weapon collection.

Electro.4173:

It showed up for me after I claimed my first login reward. Can’t figure out how to manually look at it after closing it at that point, though.

I didn’t get a login reward. If I’m reading the patch notes right, it’s because I logged in yesterday.

That doesn’t seem right, but it appears to be what it says.

Odd loyalty reward that puts people who played on the 15th a day behind everybody else.

Electro.4173:

Nabrok.9023:

Electro.4173:

So I just checked the “calendar” in-game.

How?

Can’t figure out how to get to it separately (though I assume there is a way, at least I would think so), but I looked at it when I was awarded my daily. Once you click the chest it shows you the whole calendar until you finish claiming the reward.

I did not get that. Did you get a daily reward as soon as you logged in? I did not.

Electro.4173:

So I just checked the “calendar” in-game.

How?

https://d3b4yo2b5lbfy.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/f6f19Dailies-850x850_EN.png

How do I see this?

Any news on this that I may have missed somewhere?

I’m only spending as much time as I need to get the crests. If I get the parts within that time, awesome. If I don’t, I’ll get them with the specific extractor.

Overall, it won’t make much difference.

So, no episode 8 until January. That really sucks, was hoping it would come with wintersday, but oh well.

My question is … will the bladder extractors be available next week or do we have to wait until January?

We have to put up with this no white swords nonsense for four weeks? It was bad enough when I thought we’d just be trying it for one week.

I’d still like to hear why on earth they think this is a good idea. Even an anecdote from adopt-a-dev (which is presumably where this came from).

Jessica Boettiger.2563:

The Champion achievements are progressed by participating in rated matches. Ranked and Unranked are both rated matches, just like solo and team arenas were. This is by design.

As both are rated matches, the only difference with ranked is that it will change your ladder position? And if there is no ladder (as there is not right now), there is no difference at all?

In that case, does it just queue everybody together? If not, why not?

I agree with toning down the new item highlight.

I would also suggest that all highlighting be removed when you choose “Compact”. At the moment it removes highlighting only from items which had their position changed.

Caesura.8495:

Hmm. I see. There’s still hardly anyone. There use to be what seemed like a hundred on the map and I see maybe about 20. Is there a new central hub or has the population declined that much?

There’s no central hub in LA anymore. There’s nothing at all where the old MF was.

The closest thing when LA came back was at the south close to the WvW portals, but that waypoint was destroyed, so now people are spread all over the map. There will still be a lot of people in the south because the shortcut through HotM still drops you there, but others will be at the new MF area, on the east side of the map by the fractal entrance, and even at the north of the map where there’s a banker + TP.

Basically, they put bankers, trading posts, and crafting tables in several locations on the map and spread people out.

cheese.4739:

Nabrok.9023:

I agree that disconnect/reconnect should not give dishonor. Instead it should reduce your teams % chance of winning as detailed in yesterdays blog post.

It’d still suck if you can’t get reconnected before the match ends, but there’s no way around that.

And what about the team that had to play 4v5 for the time their ally was disconnected? Are they just meant to accept that, through no fault of their own, they have a serious disadvantage?

The disadvantage could be represented by a reduced chance to win for the match scoring calculations.

For example if you scored 300 in a match where the odds are 50/50 you lose 1 point. But, if you had a disconnect and that lowered the odds to a bit under 60/40 against, you would not lose any points. This system is detailed in yesterdays blog post.

Scoring 300 in a 4v5, especially when it’s only 4v5 part of the time, is not unreasonable.

Edit to add: There is a potential for exploit here … leave a winning game and come back to deflate your chance of winning and thus get more points. To counter that, the disconnected player should not be able to gain more than 1 point, and perhaps just 0.

I agree that disconnect/reconnect should not give dishonor. Instead it should reduce your teams % chance of winning as detailed in yesterdays blog post.

It’d still suck if you can’t get reconnected before the match ends, but there’s no way around that.

For map voting, is there a “random” or “I don’t really care which map” option, similar to Mario Kart track selection?

Aaron.2413:

Lol, it’s supposed to be ultra rare… I can buy a legendary with gems at this point… Before this update there is less than 50 people who had this type of armor

Cheapest legendary (harpoon gun) is 1,850g. You would need to buy 16,623 gems to get that much, that would be $210.

Most expensive legendary (greatsword) is 4,939g. You would need to buy 44,205 gems for that, or $560.

I guess you could if you really wanted to …

Stupendous Man.4920:

I have always meaning to ask the skill clickers: how do you use skills that require area targeting? For example, thief’s Shadowstep: when clicking on it, it casts it under the foot of my character.

I don’t skill click, but my wife does. You just have to leave it on the normal ground targeting option which requires you to click twice.

You can’t use the instant or fast with target options.

Mark Katzbach.9084:

The PvP update will not replace the regularly scheduled Living World update.

Does this mean that the policy of keeping content and features in separate patches has changed?

There was a first person mode in the beta client for EotM. It was awesome, but very buggy.

For example, if you died in first person your camera would lock in place and wouldn’t move even if somebody revived you.

For the love of the gods, please add them to the wallet!

I don’t understand the benefit you think the game will get from removing white swords?

Games are supposed to be fun right? Sentrying is the most boring job in the game mode, you should be giving us stuff such as new upgrades or guild buffs that reduce the need for a sentry, not making it more necessary than ever.

Djinn.9245:

There are many players (like myself) who are not going to become WvW players no matter what Anet wants. People don’t like to be pushed to do something they don’t want to do. That’s why, for instance, games that tried to force group play end up “nerfing” their content to allow for more solo play. Because players want to play the way they want.

Eventually enough players will get fed up with not being able to get a Legendary and quit that Anet will finally introduce another way to do it (other than spending huge amounts of gold which most people can’t do). Unfortunately the players who leave will go on to another game and won’t necessarily return at that point.

I don’t know anybody who doesn’t have a legendary for lack of WvW world completion.

Most of the people I know already have at least one. Of those that don’t, it’s because they don’t want one or they don’t have the funds.

A legendary is a vanity item that’s intended to show that the player has completed tasks in many aspects of the game, not just PvE. In my opinion, it lacks a PvP requirement and there should be one.

DarkWasp.7291:

The idea of WvW map completion was to have players drawn to WvW.

It’s not having that effect.

Wrong. I know so many now regular WvW players that only came out in the first place to get map completion.

It’s really not that difficult anyway, you just need a bit of patience.

John Smith.4610:

This is a spinoff of the economy thread to talk about RNG tactics in games in a general form.
Here’s the premise. RNG is evenly distributed on aggregate. On an individual level this means that while almost everyone falls into a reasonable range in the middle, there are outliers on each side of the distribution that are either highly rewarded or not rewarded at all. These individuals become sample cases and spotlights for experiences that maybe shouldn’t exist.

We do need to be very careful about ideas that flatten the experience entirely as that quickly becomes not fun at all.

There are two concepts that have been discussed in the other thread that I’ll briefly summarize.

1. Use a specifically non-random NG. The NRNG functions similarly to a RNG, but has characteristics that either squish the distribution so that outliers exist much less or specifically manipulate a player’s experience for loot in a more complicated way that makes it feel rewarding.

2. Implement measures that counteract low-end outlier behavior inside of game design. This would be a system that is something like: If player hasn’t received a rare drop in X time send them Y tickets for random drops.

2.5: “Add secondary reward mechanisms (ie. token based system) alongside the primary RNG system; allow progress to be made even when you don’t get the result you want.”

Obviously these are hyper-simplified descriptions, but I don’t want this to get too long.

edit: added 2.5

My vote would be for 2.5. We already have that with fractals and ascended rings (try your luck 10 times, if it didn’t pan out, well you can get it now anyway).

WalkinGoon.2408:

I always had a hard time seeing how any those statements could be anywhere remotely possible with how things are now, and have been for a looong time, at least in gold league. It was just obvious considering the large gaps between the servers, but I suppose it was easier to just slap up some matchup tiers together and call it an update or three.

Honestly, I wouldn’t mind seeing the same matchups if there was an effort to try and balance it for the sake of enjoyment between the servers.

Of course, I might just be jaded about playing on a server that was kitten upon for all WvW “tournaments” so far. But hey, maybe things will magically change on the fourth go around, right?

I’m hoping that by the next time some of those ideas about balancing worlds through alliances have been implemented, but realistically we’ll probably have at least one more tournament with the current setup.

All it would have taken to fix NA gold this time around was a bit of common sense manual intervention on the final match-up. As somebody else mentioned, a JQ vs TC vs SoS match last week would have been unique to the tournament and given an outcome that was actually representative. It would have made no difference to the other 3 servers in gold, BG still gets another win and the other two would still finish in their respective positions.

Jwoww.4315:

Nabrok.9023:

Anyway, the final result shows how ridiculous this plus the extra point for 3rd place is. SoS gets 2nd place for no other reason than they got more easier matches, despite the fact they lost every match that put them against TC or JQ.

Does it really matter when the rewards were tokens after each week, and SOS 2nd ranking did not affect that. No one with any common sense is going to think SOS did better than TC and JQ.

I guess it’s the principle of the thing.

How did my hypothetical become a Q/A question?

Anyway, the final result shows how ridiculous this plus the extra point for 3rd place is. SoS gets 2nd place for no other reason than they got more easier matches, despite the fact they lost every match that put them against TC or JQ.

Blaeys.3102:

Nabrok.9023:

Blaeys.3102:

Nabrok.9023:

Straegen.2938:

The score is a symptom of the larger population/coverage issue. Treating the symptom will not fix anything.

Do not get target locked on balancing the score when reasonably fair fights is what is important. Some previously suggested “fixes” to this include:

• Guild Alliance matches that are aligned weekly rather than Server v Server
• Allow some guilds to be unaffiliated with servers and assign them to servers that need them each week
• Create a limited amount of free transfers to specific servers each week to help balance out populations

While I agree that fixing imbalance issues will have a profound effect on scoring, we’ve already had that discussion.

I dont think we can have the conversation in a vacuum.

Especially when so many of us believe that any scoring change will be most likely be a bandaid until they can address the real problem of lopsided servers/population imbalances.

The proposed idea (which I loved a year ago when it was first proposed) would – most likely – fix it all – without disrupting server communities or in any way and let them focus on other ways to make WvW fun for everyone without having to get creative with scoring or lopsided buffs (which other games have tried and failed with – if anyone remembers WoW’s Wintergrasp “solutions” to a similar issue years ago) .

Personally I’m a big fan of the original proposal from John(?) of creating new worlds populated with alliances to form balanced populations.

Anyway, we’ve already had that discussion, I feel that this discussion should proceed under the assumption that some of the things discussed there are implemented and should be about how we would like scoring to work in a population balanced environment. If your answer to that is “The current scoring will work great with balanced populations!” then that is a valid answer.

I think the other side is saying (legitimately so) that fixing the population issues will alleviate many of the scoring issues.

That’s not saying that there arent some good ideas to improve scoring, just that they need to deal with both the disease and the symptoms – and if we get too far down the symptom road (scoring), we will lose sight of dealing with the disease (population imbalances) itself. They can change scoring all they want, but until the underlying problem of lopsided populations is addressed head on, the situation will just continue to deteriorate.

Absolutely, I agree with this completely.

Blaeys.3102:

Nabrok.9023:

Straegen.2938:

The score is a symptom of the larger population/coverage issue. Treating the symptom will not fix anything.

Do not get target locked on balancing the score when reasonably fair fights is what is important. Some previously suggested “fixes” to this include:

• Guild Alliance matches that are aligned weekly rather than Server v Server
• Allow some guilds to be unaffiliated with servers and assign them to servers that need them each week
• Create a limited amount of free transfers to specific servers each week to help balance out populations

While I agree that fixing imbalance issues will have a profound effect on scoring, we’ve already had that discussion.

I dont think we can have the conversation in a vacuum.

Especially when so many of us believe that any scoring change will be most likely be a bandaid until they can address the real problem of lopsided servers/population imbalances.

The proposed idea (which I loved a year ago when it was first proposed) would – most likely – fix it all – without disrupting server communities or in any way and let them focus on other ways to make WvW fun for everyone without having to get creative with scoring or lopsided buffs (which other games have tried and failed with – if anyone remembers WoW’s Wintergrasp “solutions” to a similar issue years ago) .

Personally I’m a big fan of the original proposal from John(?) of creating new worlds populated with alliances to form balanced populations.

Anyway, we’ve already had that discussion, I feel that this discussion should proceed under the assumption that some of the things discussed there are implemented and should be about how we would like scoring to work in a population balanced environment, bearing in mind that overall population balance does not mean that the population will be balanced at all hours. If your answer to that is “The current scoring will work great with balanced populations!” then that is a valid answer.

Straegen.2938:

The score is a symptom of the larger population/coverage issue. Treating the symptom will not fix anything.

Do not get target locked on balancing the score when reasonably fair fights is what is important. Some previously suggested “fixes” to this include:

• Guild Alliance matches that are aligned weekly rather than Server v Server
• Allow some guilds to be unaffiliated with servers and assign them to servers that need them each week
• Create a limited amount of free transfers to specific servers each week to help balance out populations

While I agree that fixing imbalance issues will have a profound effect on scoring, we’ve already had that discussion.

Johje Holan.4607:

Nabrok.9023:

John Corpening.9847:

Someone had a question on this one from Phys that I wanted to answer:

• Break the day into scoring periods. The match is decided on the scoring periods not PPT.

Doing this would greatly buffer runaway score. If it is off hours and one world can cap most everything because of greater coverage they still just win the scoring period rather than rack up triple score all night. It means off hours play time still has value without creating blow outs. In conjunction with some of the other suggestions it has potential. I thought that was a pretty interesting suggestion from Phys.

Lots of great ideas guys, thanks for getting this rolling!

John

I posted that two years ago … https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/Queue-size-data-from-9-14-to-9-18-NA/first#post202069

I call it “Game, Set, and Match”. Like in tennis, it’s splitting the match up so one person doesn’t just run away with it.

In addition to time blocks, score it per map (the API has per map scoring data, so I know you have this). For example instead of 3 points for winning all of the time block you might get 3 points for winning EB + 3 points for the home border + 2 points (2nd place) for each of the other border maps for a total of 10 points. Meanwhile opponent 1 gets 2 points for EB + 3 points for their home border + 2 points for my home + 1 point for the other border (8 points) and opponent 2 gets 1 point for EB + 3 points for their home + 1 point for my home + 1 point for the other border (6 points).

I like the idea of different time periods separated, each with their own score. However, I would prefer it if each time period was a completely separate match. Each time period would be matched up against other time periods of similar Glicko (representing population). This would solve both issues at once – population imbalance and coverage.

The problem with having different time periods but still having all time periods in the same match is this:

A server that can tick 500+ during their time period on Saturday will not have anything to do for the rest of the week. The match will be frozen at that point and when it starts back the next day they will still be at 500+. There would have been no other time zone people to take back the stuff.

Now this might still be ok. Because it might be great fun fighting over a smaller number of objectives. Actually now that I think about it, this might be great…

Honestly, right now, I’m in favor of any change whatsoever, even one I disagree with.

John, the thing is we will not know the effect of any of these suggestions – until they are live in game. Can you all do this in such a way that it can be reversed if it turns out to be an unmitigated disaster. If you could do that then it could be put into the game so we could try it out. And you all wouldn’t have to worry about making a disastrous change. It would give you more freedom to experiment.

I vaguely remember the 24 hour match-ups they had at launch before they went into the 1 week matches. They sucked. There’s no investment in anything, nobody upgrades anything because there’s no point.

If the overall match is reduced in time, all of WvW will degenerate into what EotM has become.

John Corpening.9847:

Someone had a question on this one from Phys that I wanted to answer:

• Break the day into scoring periods. The match is decided on the scoring periods not PPT.

Doing this would greatly buffer runaway score. If it is off hours and one world can cap most everything because of greater coverage they still just win the scoring period rather than rack up triple score all night. It means off hours play time still has value without creating blow outs. In conjunction with some of the other suggestions it has potential. I thought that was a pretty interesting suggestion from Phys.

Lots of great ideas guys, thanks for getting this rolling!

John

I posted that two years ago … https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/Queue-size-data-from-9-14-to-9-18-NA/first#post202069

I call it “Game, Set, and Match”. Like in tennis, it’s splitting the match up so one person doesn’t just run away with it.

In addition to time blocks, score it per map (the API has per map scoring data, so I know you have this). For example instead of 3 points for winning all of the time block you might get 3 points for winning EB + 3 points for the home border + 2 points (2nd place) for each of the other border maps for a total of 10 points. Meanwhile opponent 1 gets 2 points for EB + 3 points for their home border + 2 points for my home + 1 point for the other border (8 points) and opponent 2 gets 1 point for EB + 3 points for their home + 1 point for my home + 1 point for the other border (6 points).

Shiren.9532:

Honestly, the only decent match ups for NA Gold League are the week 1 and 4 match ups. I agree it’s clear the original statement of no repeat matches is false, but that’s a good thing. A TC/BG/JQ match is superior to a BG/Mag/FA match.

NA Gold League is just a terrible league. The population imbalance between T1 and T2 is dramatic and the two shouldn’t ever be paired in a fair competition (even T2 has become unhealthy lately). It’s better than season 2 (ironically season 2 encouraged more surprising outcomes than season 3 did) but NA Gold League is better off the less T1 and T2 are paired up.

I do agree with this, but then I think back to season 1 when TC was still a T2 server, and yet we still managed to pull off a third place. Not long after that SoR dropped down and TC legitimately became a T1 server.

I used to think that the population imbalance sucked, but there’s not much they could do about it as incentivizing players to move down is ineffective and you couldn’t really force the issue. But, I really like the proposal a dev posted about new worlds populated with alliances to create roughly even match-ups. That has some huge potential.

Johje Holan.4607:

Anyway, TC and JQ why don’t you all 2v1 BG again? That could be fun for everyone, even for people not on a T1 server.

During season 2 the 2v1 was seen as a necessary evil by most (and just evil by some). Nobody really wants to do it again, and it wouldn’t even make sense with the season 3 reward structure giving out the majority of the reward based on the weekly placement.

Tspatula.9086:

Ok, honestly I just want things to go back to the non-tournament WvW where it just kinda sucked, not this effin zerg fest… oh well, 2 more weeks I guess and we we can go back to the good ole’ crappy.

This is the last week.

And here we are … BG vs JQ vs TC … again.

Is it really so unreasonable to have 3 WvW related dailies during a WvW tournament? You can still easily get your 5 without going to WvW or PvP, and as has been pointed out you don’t actually have to do any WvW to do one of those three.

nekretaal.6485:

2 minutes of wait time before the game is too long so people fill it doing PvE or lobby chat and load in too late for a strategy.

If people would just press the kitten “I am Ready” button …

http://www.gw2tp.com/item/39475-pendant-of-arah?full=1

Less than a month ago Pendant of Arah was 60g.

Supply only starts showing up in the past few days, and already has been undercut down to 1,250g.

As it’s nothing special as an item (ascended amulet would be much easier to get and better stats), I suspect the price will drop.

I think this idea has great potential. It means we’d have fresh servers after every tournament (and yet we’re still with the players we play with the most), a reset glicko (everybody back to 1,000) which will then rank themselves before the tournament, and a number of worlds that will allow for 9 in each league during tournaments (probably 18).

So much variety in who we face and yet we should also see more even match-ups. I love it.

Problems I see …
1. If I’m in guild A who is a member of alliance X and guild B who is a member of alliance Y, where do I fall? There was some talk of a primary guild in the guild QoL CDI, perhaps this comes into play here?
2. Players who aren’t in guilds and guilds who aren’t in alliances … where do they go? Are they just randomly assigned to a world? What happens to new players? Perhaps individuals who aren’t associated with an alliance don’t get automatically assigned but are presented with an option the first time they attempt to enter WvW, and this could be restricted to any worlds which still turned out to be a bit underpopulated.