Guild Wars 2

OP hasn’t put enmough thought into this, I say … why limit it to Long Bow ? Wouldn’t it be much better to just give every class perma stealth so we can all run around WvW auto attacking ? You know your about to fight when you become visible because you just hit someone !

This would be a great addition to the game imo !

After having the pleasure of experiencing this several times, it definitely needs to be fixed. Just ridiculous that Anet would think somehow this would be a good idea.

No, they have PvE zone’s for PvE. Let’s throw WvW into the PvE zones and see well that goes over.

I can’t believe after a year people still complain about this. Its part of WvW expect to be jumped, do not come here and whine when it happens, you just look foolish.

Your options are:

-Do not do them and don’t get the Achieve
-Learn to play your character beyond a scripted fight
-Attack them before they attack you
-Wake up at some ungodly hour and hope no one else is camping it
-Go with a group of people

Seriously, stop coming here and crying, you don’t see WvW players coming into PvE and crying because they were killed by mobs.

Could you imagine what a kitten show it would have been (more so then now) if Devon had gotten his way and made NA 2 Leagues.

DevonCarver.5370:

Ebisun.9682:

Zero impact in my opinion. The ppl would transfer on the last day and no problem. But what is the point to punish someone after a transfer? in theory, transfer to a lower server is not anything bad. I think is better to try to encourage ppl to make transfer to less populated servers.

The point is not necessarily to punish people, but more to add an increased cost to transferring. If you are switching worlds to be a spy or because you are bandwagoning, it makes a difference if you can’t play WvW after doing so for some period of time. It may not be worth doing, I was just curious what people thought.

Transfering down should be rewarded, give them a boost to WXP like the B-day boost, or a shiny new skin, no repairs for X amount of time, retain their Guild Xp, or any number of things that won’t cost Anet anything but will give incentives to move down.

Cool story …..

Brando.1374:

Smooth Penguin.5294:

JEFFARR.8163:

Why cant we duel our friends in wvw, it would be soooo fun and wouldn’t change anything. Plus it would be super fun dueling loudmouth friendlies.Yes i know we could all duel in pvp but pvp changes armor and outcome and builds can be different because they dont have access to a rune etc. Plz Anet it would make my day xD

Rent your own Custom Arena, and duel all you want.

did you read the OP?
“Yes i know we could all duel in pvp but pvp changes armor and outcome and builds can be different…”

he doesn’t want to use the Spvp amulet system and I dont blame him.

This, I have never been a big dueler it just doesn’t do it for me but, if I did want to duel it would be in WvW where I can see how my actual build functions.

Andrew Clear.1750:

Nuzt.7894:

If you transfer up you should “ride the pine” if you transfer down, there should be no penalties. This is basically what we should be trying to accomplish is it not ? To try and populate the less populated servers ? I think alot of people think there will be some sort of mass exodus from the top servers to the bottom servers mid season so thats why they feel there should be a penalty for any and all transfers. Most players do not want to be steam rolled or do the steam rolling, they want fights, your not going to see all of JQ (for example) transfer down to GoM and PvD for 7 weeks.

Just my 2 cents

Except, the mass exodus from t1 servers has happened before (dec through feb).

Should be no penalty for transferring.

True but, this is when you could climb ranks, you can’t paintrain your way to T1 during Leagues. At least not in the Silver and Bronze League.

If you transfer up you should “ride the pine” if you transfer down, there should be no penalties. This is basically what we should be trying to accomplish is it not ? To try and populate the less populated servers ? I think alot of people think there will be some sort of mass exodus from the top servers to the bottom servers mid season so thats why they feel there should be a penalty for any and all transfers. Most players do not want to be steam rolled or do the steam rolling, they want fights, your not going to see all of JQ (for example) transfer down to GoM and PvD for 7 weeks.

Just my 2 cents

Soren.9316:

DevonCarver.5370:

Sticking to the lines of transfers, what are reasonable restrictions to place on players after they transfer? No WvW for the rest of the match? No WvW for 24 hours? Would that help any or would it actually exacerbate the problem?

IMHO the rest of the match -> 1 week of no wvw will definetly make people think twice about jumping ship and server hoping to get the wins.

But are we not trying to get people to spread out ? All this would do is prevent people from transfering and thus spreading the population which make the whole concept pointless. Now if they imposed something like this for people moving UP then maybe it would make sense but the people moving down to help … well its just idiotic to punish them.

DevonCarver.5370:

Sticking to the lines of transfers, what are reasonable restrictions to place on players after they transfer? No WvW for the rest of the match? No WvW for 24 hours? Would that help any or would it actually exacerbate the problem?

This would make the problem worse, the reason people are transfering is to WvW. I wouldn’t be a very happy customer if I transfered down to a low rank to help balance the population and couldn’t participate. Putting any form of restriction on participation defeats the whole purpose of the transfer imo.

LostBalloon.6423:

Kraggy.4169:

DevonCarver.5370:

So, if prices for server transfers were based on WvW population, what would a fair distribution of costs look like from the lowest population servers to the highest? Keep in mind that making it completely impossible to transfer to a server puts a burden on other players. That doesn’t mean that you couldn’t have an incredibly high price, just that completely blocked isn’t an option.

Sorry, but have I got this right?

In order to deal with a WvW problem you’re considering restricting non-PVPers’ freedom to play where they want?

Really? Yet more negative experience to PVEers to pander to PVP problems?

^ see, you will get a lot of this from your PvE community while i can promise you that on the other hand, you will not have achieved anything to solve the WvW populations, there is no incentive for us to move.

Reducing map caps will most likely create an exodus to the games to come more than to the lower tiers. Or just longer queues…

Again, I know its a major change (but they need it – there is no simple hotfix that will fix this mess) on page 16-17, I put a block of text explaining how alliances could be viable showing the numbers and even how ANET can continue making money the same way they would’ve with transfers…

Its sounds crappy to say but, the PvE folks can suck it up, servers have being dying a slow death in WvW for a year now because our costs were based mostly on PvE more than WvW. The person you quoted can’t really be taken seriously by any WvW players either when they say things like “Yet more negative experience to PVEers to pander to PVP problems ?” I’m not even sure if this statement is a troll tbh, if we listed the amount of PvE fixes/new content vs. WvW, well it would be a laughable statement at best.

But back on topic, I really don’t believe transfers will fix anything either but at the very least its a step in the right direction.

DevonCarver.5370:

So, if prices for server transfers were based on WvW population, what would a fair distribution of costs look like from the lowest population servers to the highest? Keep in mind that making it completely impossible to transfer to a server puts a burden on other players. That doesn’t mean that you couldn’t have an incredibly high price, just that completely blocked isn’t an option.

For NA I’d say something along the lines of these prices

Ranks 22-24 = free
Ranks 16-21 = 800
Ranks 10-15 = 1200
Ranks 4-9 = 1600
Ranks 1-3 = 2400

There needs to be a large increase when considering the top three servers, their population doubles that of the next 3 closest servers with the only exception being TC.

You would also need to provide incentives beyond lower prices though, as many people will not see moving even if its free worth while if the server is “dead” in their opinion.

I admire your toying with the idea Devon but its almost a case of to little to late to just give reduced pricing. Of course I could be wrong /shrug give it a whirl see how it goes.

I could see them doing a countback, whomever won the match prior between the two wins.

Skroo.1560:

IRONBREAKERS ON THE STAIRS! SPAM HEALS.

FPS: .25

Playing an IB in 10v10 was a kitten blast though.

Indeed it was, but that FPS in large fights …. absolutely painful.

There is definately bugs that would need to be worked out theres no question about that. I’ll try to answer sopme of your concerns imo of course.

Organized guilds stacking : they typically like to fight each other it presents a challenge for them, also I said in another post if Anet didn’t release which server would be each color until say an hour before reset they would be playing a guessing game unless they all went to one server in which case see the first part of this answer.

Spying/Griefing: This is already rampant and a moot point its going to happen in any situation.

VOIP: It would be up to the players to govern this just as it is now, I’m sure each server has its procedures to do their best to avoid your concern.

Commanders: Would work the same as it would now, most Commanders that have a clue realise having multiple tags on a map creates Chaos and I would like to think they would avoid it. I am also willing to bet many Commanders wouldn’t mind a break and letting someone else tag up. It might happen but I think its a little far fetched to suggest all commanders would refuse to tag down. Also if the Commander tag issue’s that players have been asking for were addressed such as only visible to guildies or party or the other hundred suggestions this wouldn’t be as much of an issue but thats another issue on its own.

Playerbase willing to wait: I’m going to venture that anything Anet does is going to take time, they haven’t been the speediest company at implementing/fixing things, so whether its 3 months for a PPT tweak or 3 months for the cross server matches doesn’t really matter, 3 months is 3 months regardless of what they do. Also they have guesting now, it really shouldn’t take them all that long to implement it now that its a functioning part of the game.

Its not a perfect system and its not the only good suggestion in this thread but, it is a suggestion that gives solutions to several problems all at once.

Solstice.1097:

You have to realize there is more than 1 school of thought.

I personally enjoy more than anything a close PPT game and playing macro map strategy rather than micro fight strategy. In the last 3 weeks I have been involved in 2 matches where the winner was not determined until Friday, and they were the most fun matches I have ever played.

Any relatively competitive game should have lead changes sometimes.

The biggest thing that makes matchups fairly even is when all 3 servers are fairly close

The biggest thing that ruins it is when 2 close servers have a 3rd who is way above or below

With a much higher or lower server in the mix, it completely ruins the balance of the matchup. The only server in all NA that could not easily be put into a competitive matchup is Tarnished Coast because the server above them is way above and the server below them is well below.

Other than TC the old “tier” system would have worked great if it weren’t for the glaring flaws in the glicko system. If you KNOW for a fact that 300 people left a server, it shouldn’t take 6 weeks of blown matches for the rating to even out. If you KNOW for a fact a server received massive influx, it shouldn’t take 6 weeks of blown matches to reach the actual rating.

I get what your saying but, the PPT being close does not mean the match is close, it does in terms of who is winning/losing but if the numbers were tweaked to favor the lowest population, you would still be getting spanked on the field in a lopsided matchup. I would rather come in third in a close matchup then first in a matchup that was handed to me because I was so severly outnumbered Anet took pity on me. It’s aparent not everyone feels this way and thats fine, but if they tweaked the scores you would still have servers coming here saying “ya we came in first but we couldn’t get out of our spawn for 7 days” (exagerated of course but to the point). And what happens when your underpopulated server comes in first and is moved up the ranks to fights servers that have even more numbers then their previous matchup, they win again because of pity PPT so they move up again, until you have a server like AR fighting BG. (again I’m exagerating but doing so to explain what could happen)

Aside from collision detection causing horrendous lag, there are abilities that prevent forward momentum on different classes, use them, even with stability negating the affect you will still prevent a chunk of players from moving forward.

urdriel.8496:

Warhammer online have Body block and is a “old game”….

It did but as I recall the collision detection created massive lag in large battles, do we really want more skill lag ?

I would say no to collision detection, there’s a very good reason “most” MMO’s avoid using collision detection.

Jaytee.9513:

Cactus.2710:

Nuzt.7894:

The people who keep suggesting a handicap system or giving ppt bonuses are not gettingit. The score means nothing if your not having fun, getting steam rolled constantly by far superior numbers to the point where logging off is more enjoyable than playing is what needs to be fixed. Don’t kid yourselves you didn’t win because the ppt was tweaked, you still got your kitten handed to you by 2-5 X the number of players. Would it really make people happy to say " we were spawn camped for 7 days, but we won because the numbers up top said we did".

^this^ … and it discourages me immensely that so few posters here seem to get it. If the PPT and score adjustment advocates got their way WvW would still suck and they’d be back here again in a month to complain about how this server or that was manipulating their populations to affect the PPT, or how the score adjustments didn’t account for something, or some other such bullkitten. The ONLY way this game gets back to its premise of a large scale open world strategy-based PvP mode where the winner is determined by team work, communication, strategy, guile, cleverness, and skill is if ANet is willing to implement some scheme that balances the actual player populations during the majority of the match.

I have rather little hope that ANet will have the conviction to fix this, but even less so given the number of misdirected posts focusing on PPT bandaids instead of the surgery that’s really needed.

Not to sound argumentative but what are your suggestions for addressing the situation?

You have been pretty adamant about being against ppt adjustment saying that it could be manipulated (How if its based on a running average each hour?) or how its doesn’t change game play (You are still outnumbered….etc.).

The people making these suggestions are not looking for instant answers but long term solutions. Read my post above with an objective view and make points to why its bad or good, this is what this discussion is for: Idea generation and player input on suggested fixes.

Every suggestion will have positives and negatives to it.

Please remember that major changes require major re-work in coding (eg. may take months to implement) which I feel is too long to let slide but that is just my opinion.

I have posted my suggestion, I’ve put up the video to my suggestion and while it may not be what everyone wants it does address all the issues in WvW and doesn’t mess with PPT at all. Sure its not what everyone wants, the suggestion everyone agrees with will never happen. I think my part of his quote was pretty clear, PPT does not make unbalanced matches fun for the server(s) getting steam rolled. PPT is just a number at the top of your screen, it doesn’t make fights more enjoyable, it doesn’t make all sides even, it doesn’t prevent 1-2 servers dominating the actual battles/fun factor. Your entitled to your suggestion I just don’t see how it will fix the real issue, which is the lack of enjoyment that comes with 1-2 servers preventing another server from doing much more then killing yaks do to population.

I’m not trying to be argumentative either, just trying to point out the flaw in tweaking the PPT, which does not change anything when it comes to enjoying your playtime.

I guess some people might enjoy dying every couple minutes to a huge zerg that they cannot pull enough numbers on the map to compete with as long as the score tells them they won.

Butter.3024:

Nuzt.7894:

Butter.3024:

Well I’m in SoR and most of us are still fighting hard in NA prime time

But between the 2v1, and knowing that tomorrow ZD just gonna flip all of our T3 and lose the PPT by another 10k, it’s very discouraging.

But still SoR still fight, if you want good fight come to SoR BL or EB BL and sometimes SoS BL, especially NA prime time

Its has been some fun fights, but lets not bring up 2v1, thats the last thing anyone from SoR should mention when in a matchup with SoS.

Uhh, I state facts, not opinions, so no. Need I to say both SoS and BG attack SoR keep in EB yesterday while BG wait at spawn stopping reinforcement? Need I to say Agg and CNB and JINX all attack hills and garri in SoR BL continuously for 4 hours? If not for the great leading of our commander and scouts we would have lost everything already

Do we really need to bring up the SoR/SBI/SoS matchup and remind you how karma works ?

I don’t think we should …

Butter.3024:

Well I’m in SoR and most of us are still fighting hard in NA prime time

But between the 2v1, and knowing that tomorrow ZD just gonna flip all of our T3 and lose the PPT by another 10k, it’s very discouraging.

But still SoR still fight, if you want good fight come to SoR BL or EB BL and sometimes SoS BL, especially NA prime time

Its has been some fun fights, but lets not bring up 2v1, thats the last thing anyone from SoR should mention when in a matchup with SoS.

Its really no different than before leagues, now you know who’s going to kick your teeth in ahead of time.

And here I thought people kept saying they moved to one of the top 3 for the competition. Other servers may put up a bit of a fight but make no mistake JQ/BG/SoR will walk all over everyone else and I’m sure that would be fun for everyone involved …….

The people who keep suggesting a handicap system or giving ppt bonuses are not gettingit. The score means nothing if your not having fun, getting steam rolled constantly by far superior numbers to the point where logging off is more enjoyable than playing is what needs to be fixed. Don’t kid yourselves you didn’t win because the ppt was tweaked, you still got your kitten handed to you by 2-5 X the number of players. Would it really make people happy to say " we were spawn camped for 7 days, but we won because the numbers up top said we did".

That is what I was getting at, I know on Ar at its lowest point when we were struggling to just have a small force fighting back it wasn’t uncommon to see almost everybody log off while the enemy was still storming around. So if both had 100 and 80 of Team A logs for the night and Team B retains its 100 then its pretty clear what would happen to Team A. I don’t think players would be happy if they started getting randomly booted to balance or if a re-log occured, this would only happen so many times before players decide to leave and find a new home higher up the chain that would allow them to play.

Radakill.3469:

I believe a “variable que” could be a solution to the problems of numbers imbalance. For instance, if team A had a total WvW population of 100, and team B had a population of 150, then team B’s que would drop down to equal team A’s until a balance was achieved.

Basically, the que would reflect the lower populated teams numbers, unless the teams balanced out by a given percentage.

When both teams balance is equal, the que for both teams would then be upped by a set amount, letting players from both sides join, until a mismatch occurred again, bringing up a que for the overbalanced team.

This would of course have to be a universal que for the entire realm, as individual map ques would not solve the problem.

Just curious what would happen when both teams are even, we’ll say 100 each side, then Team A has people start logging off while Team B retains its population ? Does Team B get to keep their 100 or do people get randomly booted out.

I’ve seen this happen on lower ranked servers, Commander lets everyone know he/she is tagging down and calling it a night, there is no Commander to replace him/her so players start logging off rapidly while the enemy is still going strong.

Basing Transfers off of rank and possibly closing transfers to server that should be full (instead of increasing the cap as per usual) would be a start. That doesn’t address how to populate lower ranks though, even with cheaper costs why would someone want to move down ? There needs to be an incentive to do so or a rework of how seasons play out such as the one suggested several times of combining score from all Green servers/red servers/blue servers while allowing players to guest within their server color. This would mean unfortunately that servers would have to be stuck with 1 map color for the entire season which may upset some players, but if it was rotated so the following season it might not sting as much.

Allowing players to guest within their team color would promote players to move around because scores on lower servers directly impact their score.

Gamadorn.2659:

gidorah.4960:

JonathanSharp.7094:

Keep in mind that weekends are a thing. Now that we’re all back in the office, caffeinated and ready to go, we’re gonna jump back in the threads.

Having said that, when you guys get going and are having good discussions, we sit back and make sure we give you guys room to debate/discuss. Just because there isn’t a dev response every X posts, it doesn’t mean we’re not watching the thread.

weird the other 2 threads the dev’s have had no problem posting throughout the week. Maybe you can read the other collaborative development threads see the amount of interaction and see why people think the wvw is being ignored.

Maybe we can back off and be thankful they are even acknowledging and responding at all to these issues I know I am thankful!

But their not responding to the issues, the thread is about WvW population issues not PPT issues. Without a response this is just a discussion that is going to get out of hand real quick as it already is. We can discuss all these issues and solution with other players until our fingers bleed but, not one of us has the power to implement anything, we don’t work for Anet, I have a feeling once everything is said and done we’ll get some patch notes along the lines of “the players asked and were heard, the upcoming WvW patch will now include Elephants that can be used instead of rams” followed by the player reaction of …. WTF ?

Cactus.2710:

Hickeroar.9734:

Population issues could mostly be solved this way:

Your server’s historical performance should set an expectation/goal for the next match based on who you’re fighting (their ranking/performance). A winner will be picked based on the percentage of the goal that they reach. The goal calculation should be based on probably the last four matchups or something along those lines.

Ex: In BG/SoR/SoS this week, it could be said that BG will have a 250k goal, SoR a 200k goal, and SoS a 100k goal.

Now if BG gets 300k, SoR gets 160k, and SoS gets 130k, SoS would technically be the “winner” because their percentage of goal was 130%, as compared to BGs 120% or SoR’s 80%.

This way every server has a relatively even chance of winning, and you end up playing for a goal that is achievable for your server. You can still “win,” even if you’re the underdog, two tiers out of your league.

Winners for a particular week get a prize of some kind. Bonus WXP or ranks, Karma, gold, and/or something like that. You will also see that the winners will change from week to week, because servers that do exceptionally well one week will have a higher goal to reach for the following week. Then, because it’s percentage based, the less populated servers in their matchup will have a better chance at getting a higher percentage and will probably fight harder for it.

You don’t “win” if you’re the undermanned server and all you are able to do is cap camps and kill yaks … and that is exactly what happens even if your score says you were “competitive”. Returning the enjoyment to WvW requires that populations be more or else equivalent so that everyone has roughly the same ability to engage in all those aspects of the match that the game design calls for.

Agreed, I want fun, I don’t want to be steam rolled for 7 days at every turn just to be told I won because I showed up and the Dev team felt bad for me.

Cactus.2710:

JonathanSharp.7094:

Sure, those devs are free to post on the weekend if they want to!

Keep in mind that some devs have families, or may have prior obligations/plans on a weekend, while some other devs may have a lot of free time on a given weekend!

Well, OK … but that just tells me that many of us here have a stronger interest in fixing this mess than they do. The great majority of players who post here have busy real lives as well, but somehow we find the time to scan the thread and post an input or two.

More than just the lack of participation from Anet’s side, though, is the apparent lack of awareness and buyin to the issue itself. The core problem is that WvW populations are fundamentally and woefully unbalanced (hence the title of the thread), yet read carefully this last relevant post from Devon on the issue:

“The way that we try and find answers to the types of problems raised in this thread are by trying to get to the heart of the issue. Saying things like ‘populations aren’t balanced’ doesn’t lead to any productive solutions because they all involve things like drastically redistributing the populations of the game. Finding the core reasons for that like ‘score momentum is overpowering’ allow us to attack the actual problem. What I hope to get out of this is a sense of why people think that the population causes the scoring issues, because that is something we can find a solution to. As part of that it’s important for us to more clearly explain why we’ve made some of the decisions we have made so that we talk about the reasoning behind those and how they’ve been in practice.

These threads are intended to be a discussion about the design of various aspects of the game and how the team and the players view them. Our decision making in terms of what actions we take and what we are already doing have to take a wide range of things into account including available resources. So it was never my intent to imply that we would jump to do the things mentioned in this thread because some aren’t feasible, some require resources we don’t have, and some might already be in progress."

There are three troubling aspects to that response:

1. Devon doesn’t really accept that population balance is achievable or even desirable.
2. Devon prefers to focus on score balance, which as I and others have stated several times does NOT make WvW more fun. The severely undermanned side will still be squeezed out of much of the enjoyable game play even if the score is comparable by granting them point bonuses for their restricted subset of play.
3. Devon has already started hedging on what remediation will occur as the result of this “collaboration.”

After all those many frustrating months of being ignored we saw some promise by the creation of this thread … only to find that it’s headed to the same limbo that we were in before. I would have thought that you folks would have gone overboard to make sure that didn’t happen, but you haven’t at all held up your side of this “collaboration.” If you can’t recognize that, there is no hope for us at all.

Well said, I think this is what many of us who weren’t so politically correct with our posts were trying to say.

lordkrall.7241:

Maybe you guys should start thinking a bit about what/how you write?
The kind of posts we see here right now is most likely a sure way to get them to shut down this initiative and not do it again in the future.

Your not wrong but your not right either, would it matter at this point if it was shut down ? The WvW boards would just fill up with all these suggestions just as it did before and they to would be ingored just like they are now. There is no point in a Collaborative Disscusion without the Collaboration part.

Its fine he doesn’t work weekends, thats his choice to make and is deserving of his free time to do with as he chooses. It still doesn’t help that it took him days to reply the first time and then dissapeared, the fact that your here now Jonathan instead of Devon is just compounding our beliefs that Devon does not care. I applaud most of your Dev’s for their compassion for the game, and yourself for having to put up with us and doing some good preventative maintenance before things blow up but, it really should be Mr. Carver here.

It has been posted that they are aware of the issue and working on it, take that as you will.

I’m thinking most will say Ranger, of course this question depends on what kind of Game Play. Ranger is not bad at roaming but thats pretty much it when compared to other classes for larger scale WvW.

Kilger.5490:

Arenanet: Hopefully pride doesn’t stand in the way of reason. Not every idea works in practice.

Are we playing the same game ? ;p

Of course pride comes before reason.

lordkrall.7241:

Funny you should mention that because Devon made a post about 2 hours ago

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/Updated-Obsidian-Sanctum-coming-in-November/first#post3149053

The thing is that IF he would just drop in and say: “We are still looking” people would whine about him not saying anything useful.

Of course we wouldn’t like to have him say were still looking but many would settle for the fact that he is at least participating. His last post in this thread was 5 days ago, I understand maybe he probably doesn’t work weekends but its still unacceptable. Look at the posts following his replies (in which he really didn’t say much of anything) the posters mood changed to positive for the most part. Currently this Thread should be named “A place for all you WvW players to post suggestion so we can read them to our staff on fridays for a good laugh at your expense”. If you think any of Devons other posts were anything more then “were still looking” you need to read between the lines.

lordkrall.7241:

shagworth.5017:

Pretty disheartening when you see the number of Dev replies in Living World thread compared to this one, but not surprising.

Quite logical though.
They have WAY more people working in the Living Story teams than they have in WvW, thus it is much easier for that team to get some time to read and post on the forums.

While this is true, when was the last post by Devon ? It would be nice even if he popped in every two days to say “hey folks still here and gathering data, keep the suggestions coming” as it stands he comes off like he really doesn’t give a kitten and is only participating because some evil over loard came in and said “your going to do this”. Its sad that this is the guy who is suppose to be passionate about WvW. Chris was warned that Devon would be less than cooperative.

Devon wanted Variety over balance, while balancing would never be perfect it could have been alot better if he had listened to the payers. As it stands the Collaborative Development thread seems to be a flop, Devs are all over the other sections, while ours is ignored. So in short, why is anyone surprised that leagues are a joke with the current setup and complete lack of attention to what the customers are asking for ?

geekanerd.4123:

Nyx Xox.3540:

LOL who what guild? Tell us please. Quit your kittening. You guys came to many guilds on SOS last week asking if we wanted to team up with you against BG. Get over yourself. As I’ve said the MAIN sos guilds have no deals and intend not to make one.

I have a few screen shots. I’ll PM them to you. But I don’t really feel that this is a conversation that needs to go much further. SoS is confused whether they’re double-teaming or not, SoR are a bunch of whipped dogs, and BG are conquering kittens. I think we’ve established the current modus operandi.

Have to agree, the majority of SoS is just playing although it is ironic that double team QQ’s come from SoR … SBI anyone ? Karma, is there anything it can’t do ?

It will be funny when the winner opens their super first place chest of awesome and receives 3 blue items, 10 badges, a regular AC, and a BL chest.

Keiel.7489:

Staff Ele’s aren’t really that readily replaced. the bring good water fields and static fields, possibly still the best wall siege clearers. I won’t deny people saying that warrior hammer train are powerful, but warriors have been heavily used since forever even before the heavy Hammer Meta. But saying whoever has the most wins is simply untrue, it’s almost as bad roamer vs zerg arguements where roamers claim that zerglings only mash 1 to win (of course they also say that it has to be a hammer train that mash 1 to win, since we all know the #1 is the highest DPS skill of any class, especially warriors, since it stuns, immobilise adds 25 stacks of vulrn, and grats AoE might.)

I think alot of ppl say they only mash #1 because its true to a degree, not because they are skilless or bad or whatever but quite often depending on the size of the zerg or zergs when they clash the only ability that fires is #1.

Engineers would be a decent Staff ele replacement if they weren’t so clunky with their fields and had some lightning. I don’t know what it is but the Ele is just so much smoother when laying down the fields, Engi’s water fields almost feel like a chore.

IDarko.4709:

But primetime players ARE already getting punished! Playing outside of primetime if way more profitable. Why do people not see how this is already unfair?

Arenanet is seeing a dilemma that is really not there. It’s fair to cut down point profit during the nighttime because it’s already TOO good. It’s more effecient than primetime.

And i understand that they want it fair for every player but night time players will still net points for their server and even if their points are halved or something based on the fact that they outman enemies, they STILL get the same atmounf of points during the peopel from primetime. It’s fair and much more balanced overal.

The problem with this is there are servers who have a stronger night presence then “prime time presence” So while they may dominate at night they still lose more points then gained during the day. This would kill those servers, the bottom line is the population needs to spread somehow or someway whether its via implementing WvW guesting or transfers. PPT is not really the problem, losing a week matchup doesn’t sting nearly as much if it was fun and fairly even, losing a weeks matchup after getting stomped into the ground at every turn because your not capable of Queing 1 map while your opponent(s) can Que 2-4 maps is simply not fun, is the game not suppose to be fun ?

Heinel.6548:

DevonCarver.5370:

akanibbles.6237:

Allisa Wonderland.8192:

IDEA: auto teamups of the two trailing teams

When leading team score > (2nd + 3rd) / modifier then 2nd and 3rd become automatically allied and/or gain bonuses for attacking the leading team.

I like this idea. Too often the 3rd place team drops off and has no effect on the game other than to stop the 2nd place team be competitive to the 1st place team.

This is an intriguing concept. The original idea behind WvW was that this would happen of its own accord, but I haven’t seen that in practice. I think it could be much more of a part of the game if there were a way to do this. Would it make more sense to provide increased score from this or to increase the individual rewards? I would lean slightly towards the latter. I also wonder if it would work to be really heavy handed about it and actually put the two losing servers on the same team. Of course, that presents numerous problems including score tracking at that juncture. But I would think we can find some sort of system that encourages servers to work together to defeat a bigger server.

The problem with this is that in the more competitive matches, breaking the other servers’ morale is the point of the game. Fights are generally long drawn out and causes a lot of fatigue for everyone, until one side decided that enough is enough and gave up.

The game mechanics does not allow for one side to be defeated until the match ends, so winning and losing depends on morale management of each server’s leadership. That’s what’s holding the game mode together in T1 IMO.

Therefore, if you are going to introduce mechanics that minimize the morale management aspect of the game, I hope you’d also consider implementing a defeat mechanic together at the same time.

While this is true for T1 thats where it ends, there is a difference between breaking morale when matches are close, it is completely different from a server being outmanned 24/7. When fighting back becomes hopeless because for every one person you can field they field 5 its no longer a case of morale being destroyed by defeat, its a case of morale being destroyed by game mechanics.

As I’m sure you have expierenced now Devon being on NSP, getting stomped on for 7 days and then repeated over several weeks is not fun, people get discouraged and either transfer up, stop playing, or a very stubborn and brave few just ride it out and do what they can. I won’t post the video again because its been posted several times in this thread and I’m sure you have seen it. It addresses more than just the population issue which isn’t relevant to the topic but there does seem to be some really good ideas in there that may kill several birds with one stone (ok its more like a machine gun but hey whatever works) are any of those suggestions possible or something your team would be willing to play with ?

DevonCarver.5370:

akanibbles.6237:

Allisa Wonderland.8192:

IDEA: auto teamups of the two trailing teams

When leading team score > (2nd + 3rd) / modifier then 2nd and 3rd become automatically allied and/or gain bonuses for attacking the leading team.

I like this idea. Too often the 3rd place team drops off and has no effect on the game other than to stop the 2nd place team be competitive to the 1st place team.

This is an intriguing concept. The original idea behind WvW was that this would happen of its own accord, but I haven’t seen that in practice. I think it could be much more of a part of the game if there were a way to do this. Would it make more sense to provide increased score from this or to increase the individual rewards? I would lean slightly towards the latter. I also wonder if it would work to be really heavy handed about it and actually put the two losing servers on the same team. Of course, that presents numerous problems including score tracking at that juncture. But I would think we can find some sort of system that encourages servers to work together to defeat a bigger server.

Well this is better, I’m glad that I’m wrong its great to know your working and discussing ideas with us. I don’t fully understand how the two teams servers would be thrown together but the increased score for attacking whom ever is in the lead is a good start.

gidorah.4960:

i think its about time for anet to come here there isn’t much of a discusion without half the parties.

I agree, I hope Devon and his team really read all of the suggestions and think about them, sure were not always right but there is nothing wrong with admitting that some of the ideas are really good and worth investigating. This would probably bump Devon up a notch or two with the players if he came here open minded and ready to work together. I can see why he might be a bit reluctant, were not always the easiest people to please and one wrong sentence could mean the wolves are snapping at his ankles.