They may be OK in small skirmishes, but WVW is primarily a mass combat game mode, small stuff is secondary, ternary or even below that in priorities, hence so are any players who build themselves around that.
Bobbers and blob commanders are much more fungible than havokers, havok commanders and roamers whose individual skill is much more determinative on the outcome of an engagement. I place much more value on a player that havoks or roams than I do a generiblobber.
Not that mass combat isn’t part of the game, but the exaggerated importance of blob combat in comparison to the other phases of the game mode is propaganda from blob commanders seeking to make themselves more important.
Don’t get me wrong, it can be fun, I sometimes hop on my mes or engi to roam or havoc a bit, but that is just no where near as fun as organized and semi-organized large scale fights.
Large scale fights are tedious compared to the excitement of havok sized skirmishes. But that is a personal preference, I’m not stating it as a fact.
Personally, I would def take a well played Renger/Druid and Thief/DD in a roaming/havok group. This is where they seem to shine.
Well, it seemed obvious that pairing 4 servers together would be a disaster. Break off one and move it somewhere else.
They already stated they don’t won’t change links except every 2 months.
It’s about time anyways.
Also, perhaps it needs to be more flexible. Emergency changes should be a thing if the situation really gets that bad. Setting things in black and white when things are still murky is unwise.
This would be a good solution, I still think if they had given DH the first or second most populated of the links with CD, YB the smallest of the links and let CD keep the last it would have been a lot more balanced. Maybe SF would have been out of whack at that point though.
Sirbeaumerdier, you seem to be under the impression that Nuzt is in CD. Nuzt is in SBI and complaining about being in T4. Their criticism of the T3 matchup is “CD sucks, we should have had that spot”, not “T3 is unfairly crushing CD”.
CD does not suck but they do not belong in T3 is more accurate. You even have new responses confirming from a CD player that although T4 was unfair, CD isn’t pulling their weight in T3. As the server that came in first the week before we got dropped, yes we absolutely deserve to be there. If the following weeks we got dominated by YB and or SoS then perhaps we would have been deserving of the drop but I guess we won’t find out, we are already bleeding rating so even if they do move us back up the numbers put us below the others.
No offence but DH is a non factor, T4 is literally SF vs SBI with all 4 DH players as cheerleaders. No matter how we spin it, this latest linking was a complete disaster for T4 and should not have made it to live. You’re going to get destroyed by SBI/YB/SoS/or CD, CD is the server with the weakest population out of the 4. The only reason they are even scoring points in T3 is, once again, due to the poorly managed latest linking, even with 4 servers they are losing. All the excuses in the world do not change the fact that they are still losing a match that SBI came first in.
What Anets should have done is manually adjust the links in T4, but because they didn’t then yes, they should have left it as it was. T3 was a decent match up, YB could have used a few more people but aside from that, all three of the T3 servers were relatively close as far as competition. It’s not fair to T4, I don’t deny that but that is on Anet not SBI.
and this site flooded with crycry threads.
It’s already flooded with SBI tears of being on T4 anyway…
Of course it is, everyone is well aware of what happens to servers that get tossed down the crapper to T4 (or T8 before linking), regardless of server health, SBI will die a slow death because even winning nets you negative rating. SBI endured the Mag blobs, once Mag moved up SBI started picking up traction and was doing quite well. There is nothing more demoralizing then coming in first only to be thrown into this cesspool of boredom which really is only SBI and SF because DH isn’t even a thing. T4/T8 is where servers should go to die when they can’t compete in the other tiers, this was not the case at all. Anet already manually adjust CD who by all intents and purposes was where it belonged and only became an issue because of poor linking choices. I see no reason why SBI should not be moved up manually this reset to where we belong, servers from other tiers should not be being punished for Anets lack of attention in regards to linking.
This was brought up and pointed out at release, I believe there has even been Dev’s confirm that it was not the best of choices for scoring. They don’t want to get rid of it now because of the work required to find and insert a proper scoring system for this type of match making. It’s easier for them to adjust and tweak Glicko, basically when asked not to long ago they said.
“Since alternate matchmaking systems require some of the same peoples’ time as the scoring improvements we’re currently working on, Glicko alternatives or adjustments may be options in future polls once the scoring improvement work is done”.
They won’t, if they did how could they BS us and fall back on the “our metrics show” excuse.
Of course they are, everyone is double teamed when they are losing, didn’t you know? It was more competitive when the first place server was in that tier, I’ll also point out its taking 4 servers to even have a chance, instead of you know, 2 or 1 server. When they relink and CD loses the quad server CD will drop like a rock.
Don’t be so blind to the illusion Anet created for CD.
ThroPut CD back in T4 then delete it and and all the linkings followed by a what they should have done, server merges.
T4 isn’t going to get any better regardless of who the third server is, judging by how CD is getting rekt in T3 and SBI won T3, it’s only fitting/fair that they should be part of the delete.
The reality is CD does not deserve to be where it is, they were placed there, manually adjusted which was wrong on Anets part. They literally threw a healthy server into a dying matchup so a dying servers could get steam rolled in a tier it did not earn which is quite apparent from the current scoring. The quad server should have never happened, we all know this, it was common sense and every player in NA was smart enough to see this was an error. Anet dropped the ball and as usual the community is paying for their ignorance.
(edited by Nuzt.7894)
Actually I’m assuming the linking was random and not monitored at all because it’s common sense that this was a bad idea. If they are using their “metric” they really should stop because they should have figured out by now their metrics are so off base they’re flat out wrong.
The problem is not that Anet artificially caused CD to move up. That was the right thing to do. The problem is that:
- They took too long to do it.
- Should have just moved them up with 1U1D, not make up some artificial “match Glicko”.
- They stopped there and didn’t make sure another server wouldn’t be stuck in Glicko hell.
Trading one server’s Glicko hell for another is not the answer. Taking too long to see the issue and take action is part of the problem (but this has been going on forever, Anet is glacial in their decision making and changes).
I’m on SBI and I can deal with 1 week of this type of bad match if it means other servers get some variety. But leaving us here is just wrong. Anet you should just alternate CD, YB, SoS and SBI in and out of T4 until the next relinks. Problem solved.
The problem is the linking to begin with, CD should have kept the most population server of the 3 linked to it, DH should have gotten the middle populated of the 3 and YB should have gotten the least populated. That would have prevented this whole mess.
No point in replying it’s pretty clear OP doesn’t want to hear any answer that’s not his. It’s been pointed out several times in this thread why Rangers often get kicked. It’s been pointed out by those of us who enjoy the Ranger and by those that do not.
Suck it up OP, if you won’t run a Ranger in a zerg then what was the point of making this thread? Just a reason to whine and cry? This is a forum, people will respond to posts because … gasp …. that’s what people do on forums.
It has to be a random thing, I honestly can’t believe for a second that if they were actually monitoring it that some of the current linking’s would have been finalized. If it is monitored …. I don’t even …
portals are op though lets just face the facts. They pretty much completely determine the outcome of a zerg fight. A zerg that can teleport is a winner pretty much all the time if you outnumber the enemy….and if u don’t outnumber the enemy its pretty much ur trump card for dealing w ith superior numbers.
And it can be used to unlimited numbers of people at any given time….compared to every other skill that alone makes it op as hell. And the amount of time u have to place the opening of the portal….is stupid. And the amount of survivability of a mesmer…and mobility of a mesmer..and stealthy….and illusions and everything makes it stupid neigh impossible to prevent them from portaling allies over a wall or wherever.
Make portals have longer kitten cooldowns and restrict the free movement and time mesmers have between placing the exit and the opening of the portal.
was expecting op to be complaining about quickness sharing mesmers….most op thing in pve. make might sharing warriors look kittened.
Not
sure
if
serious
…
Ranger discrimination goes on since day 1.
It’ s not the person who plays ranger fault.
The fault lies in who didn’ t make ranger decent and viable in 4 years.
You got it backwards, the class itself is fine, but it’s the players who play it that bring it down. Rangers encourage poor discipline and selfish gameplay habbits that aren’t welcome in any serious group. It’s easier to replace all rangers for other classes than explain to a group of selfish rangers why one particularly good ranger is allowed to be on a ranger and that the group would benefit from more of another class. Usually the good players will switch classes upon request anyway.
I’m sure we’ve all heard these come out of engis/rangers mouths, especially when you ask them to either run a different build or class:
- “I am the best ranger in the game!”
- “I’ll beat you 1v1”
- “I run this really tight build that is the best at ____”
- “I have more experience than ____”
- “My wvw rank is higher than ____”Second time I’ve heard that I am selfish… Please enlighten me.. what is it that’s selfish about a person playing a Ranger? Just curious… at this point I have no interest in joining any zerg with my Ranger so you can go into relax mode now… but I really still want to know what you mean by selfish..
Well, Zerging and large group is team play, bring something that helps the team not what you want to play that does nothing for the team. If you want to play what you want how you want when you want, play solo.
It’s not the other players fault that Anet has been incapable of adding some useful large team utility to certain classes. All classes should be viable and wanted within the large team setting, that should be the goal, it’s just unfortunate that the Dev’s can’t wrap their heads around that goal.
You know what would have helped Rangers a lot? If they had given druids some waterfields that could rival Ele’s that could be cast from a distance. That #5 staff is pure garbage and has no circumference, the healing spring has no range and requires you to be in the middle of the frontline, and the celestial #4 also has no range and require you to be stationary where it’s being cast which = dead Druid. They could have given them some viable boon stripping options, there’s a ton of things that could have done but didn’t. HoT was kind of a reset button that could have been used to correct some of the class balance issues and somehow they still completely missed the mark.
No, the current state of balance is to out of whack. They can’t even grasp the obvious when a linking happens that is clearly not healthy so, no they really shouldn’t try and do a tournament. I could see it now, T1 SF/DH/BG, followed by excuses about how their internal numbers suggested this was the most balanced match up for a tournament.
Basically this entire mess is 100% on Anet and they really should accept responsibility. All of this could have been prevented with common sense, the second CD received it’s linking it should have been manually adjusted.
Now they have created another ghetto, SBI should not be in T4 what so ever, CD deserved to be there and only became dominant because of stupidity with the linking. In the end a server that won T3 by a reasonable margin get’s the shaft because someone can’t see the obvious.
Just when Anet had a chance to somewhat balance tiers, they become the direct cause of the imbalance.
If you have played since almost release, you should be aware of this situation. It sucks if you really enjoy a Ranger but you need to realize, anything you can do another class can do better.
It is a game you’re right about that but games are not fun if you constantly lose fights because of a few classes. If you like Ranger that much, run small group roaming on it, or scout, or solo. Honestly just make something else to play with the zergs, whether it’s right or wrong is irrelevant, you will most likely continue to be kicked on a Ranger.
Delete T4, if you insist on continuing with this linking garbage instead of merging like you should have then you need to just Delete T4 and link the bottom 3 servers. As your doing this pay attention, don’t link 4 servers willy nilly, put some effort in and figure out a balanced linking process.
I still think you should just scrap the whole linking idea and merge servers to avoid this new mess you have created from continuing.
Snip
I would rather see Anet work on updating some of the older runes which are completely garbage to make some more viable options for the player base. There’s like 5-6 rune sets I like personally, I’m sure most have about the same they use… out of what 70 or so?
This is one of the most logical suggestions, people always cry for nerfs, then Anet being Anet over nerfs and completely guts the target nerfed item because it’s less work then the alternative. Durability doesn’t need to be nerfed, the vast majority of the other runes available need to be buffed.
Durability should be like most other runes in the game and look something like this (not exactly but similar):
+25 Toughness
+35 Vitality
+50 Toughness
+65 Vitality
+100 Toughness
When struck below 50% health, gain protection and regeneration for 5 seconds and resistance for 1 second. (Cooldown: 30 seconds)With the stats above, it is still a solid rune choice. Boon Duration should be removed from the set.
There are plenty of runes that do not follow that format, just because you can’t figure out how to beat some players doesn’t mean Anet should start nerfing things into the ground. Here’s the thing, even if they did nerf them (which doesn’t need to happen) all those players would STILL be losing and looking for their next excuse. Next will be, “oh QQ all gear needs to be generic, nerf everything to soldier stats because the new stuff has different stats and that is clearly the reason I am losing”.
L2Boonstrip/focus damage on the right targets.
It wouldn’t work because ?
Because people would quit ? They wouldn’t be bandwagoning.
It really would work, those who don’t like it would leave, those who stayed would be locked on whatever server they chose for the rest of time. Conclusion … no more bandwagon.
There is only 1 method to stop it and the community would be outraged.
Delete all server names, make everyone choose between 9 servers, lock the server selection once they get to a certain population forcing people to go to the other 8, keep locking them until populations are relatively close. When it’s all done, do not allow transfers ever again.
And what if x players of server y decide to have a break, if x players of server z quit and so on. You can’t solve population issues by blocking transfers. I would have quit altogether had I been forced to stay on any server I didn’t want to be on anymore. We could replace players who quit the game with npcs though.
There were some good “solutions” here. Locking guild upgrades to the server the guild was created on would be one – but after a while each guild would have multiple fully upgraded guilds on several servers, but then again most guilds have a rather short lifespan. The other thing is, make skill count again, that should happen anyway, in my opinion.
But I have to add that I’m glad one guild left us. I still kind of like them but they were just too huge and blobbed/blocked everything. And no one was allowed to run with them.
Did you just decide not to read the last thing I typed ?
There is only 1 method to stop it and the community would be outraged.
Delete all server names, make everyone choose between 9 servers, lock the server selection once they get to a certain population forcing people to go to the other 8, keep locking them until populations are relatively close. When it’s all done, do not allow transfers ever again.
That is the only real way to stop it.
Edit: Before anyone freaks out, I am not suggesting this happens, I’m not suggesting this is a good idea, I’m only pointing out that this is the only true way to not only stop bandwagoning but also fix the damage done.
(edited by Nuzt.7894)
Honestly, I’d take this over the Pirate Ship meta any day of the week. At least it’s not a just a bunch of mexican stand offs that go no where for an excessive amount of time.
At least on pirate ship people had to watchout or they would die to enemy pick team. In this ridiculous meta it’s just two balls clashing which each other as if both were wearing full minstrel since no damage seen to occur.
A proper comp takes care of this, we’ve been doing just fine at demolishing people, damage occurs on a regular basis. There are comps that can easily take down a boon blob, people need to stop being lazy and be a bit creative.
Is a pug going to kill a guild group, no, but that’s been the case 99% of the time. Pug vs Pug is not even remotely organized enough to make a judgment on what does or does not need to be nerfed.
Honestly, I’d take this over the Pirate Ship meta any day of the week. At least it’s not a just a bunch of mexican stand offs that go no where for an excessive amount of time.
What specifically are the problems with one up, one down? I don’t remember what was said in the 1000 other threads.
Here is a 3 pages thread on this exact subject from 2013 for example :
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Implement-Winner-Moves-Up-Loser-Moves-Down/first
Let’s look at the situation :
1. Our current system is too stale, which means that servers get stuck in the same match up forever because they can’t move up or down.
2. One up, one down is too volatile, which means that you will get a lot of very unbalanced match up because server that shouldn’t move up / down are force to.If you want to design a good ranking system, you need to aim somewhere between the two.
As opposed to the current balanced match ups?
Just saying, that’s a pretty lame excuse.
If a 20 man zerg couldn’t damage an Ele beyond a quarter of it’s HP … the Ele really isn’t the problem.
BG could also crush the others if they chose to do so.
Mag – “We’re awesome guys, KDR, KDR, KDR, Place that AC right here we got this”.
BG – “ins’t mag cute, maybe we should let them win this week because wtf not”.
SBI queue’d every map ……….
Maybe the goal is to get ppl to quit, because I seriously have no clue wtf is the purpose of this. Sounds like fun for the rest of T4 …..
Yes it is, SBI in T4, literally in chat, “group of 8 hitting X” “just roll them over with the 70 ppl that are not AFK”
GG Anet, a chimp could have done a better job
I’m not saying your Idea is wrong, I just think keeping players in their separate tiers would go over better than just mashing us all together even if you did have more maps. Personally I would like to stay where I am, if I felt like defending my true server home BL I could decide if I felt that was more important then jumping to xyz tier and helping there. I could also say, “you know, I’m kind of sick of fighting X server, I hear they have some good guilds running up in Y Tier, I think I’ll go there and check that out tonight”. Or maybe its a slow night for the guild and we only have a few members on so now we decide to go to another tier where we have heard all the good roamers run and do that for the evening.
Maybe people get greative and start game wide events, maybe one of the T1 commanders gets together with the other 3 tiers and says, on X date we are going to run the largest offensive this game has ever seen across all Tiers.
The possibilities are endless.
The biggest road block for either idea is Anet and their greed, they would see a decline in gems sales for transfers, but, I would imagine they have already seen this decline when the “Fight Guilds” left the game because they were the ones jumping around the most. It seems Anet will always choose wealth over the health of the WvW game mode.
(edited by Nuzt.7894)
Well, with your proposal server pride will be dead so that doesn’t matter. If scores are combined ie: all four green servers points go to one pool, you will want to ensure all 4 Green match ups are not dormant. And lastly that 33% of potential fights could be found somewhere else if you really want them.
Throwing everybody into one giant blobby match up sounds excruciating and not in the least bit fun, at least if you had separate matches and allowed colors to assist one another you’re not locked in to the blob fest that only T1 seems to enjoy.
I’m all for trying something new as far as match ups go, my fear is with your purposal we’ll get a poll and those that do not want that type of WvW will be forced into it. I think my proposal gives the bast of both worlds, if you want blobby epic siege infested battle you can guest on over to T1, if you want to find 20-30 man fights without worrying about the omni blob you can go to a different Tier, and lastly if you just want some small skirmishes you can jump around until you find a quieter match up.
I wasn’t the one concerned with server pride, that was one anti faction excuse by jim hunter.
My suggestion is to have 1 realm with more maps into play, and that’s a cleaner way to do it instead of server 1 – 4 EB, ABL, DBL.
These are RvRvR maps designed primarily to host mass combat gameplay. If players want 20-30 vs 20-30 vs 20-30 then go to OS. If players want quiet small skirmishes then go to spvp…
This is incorrect, as stated by Anet way back in the beginning, the WvW maps are there to cater to all forms of play, whether it be zergs, guild groups, or roaming to solo. This mentality that they are only there for large blobby battles needs to go away because it’s not even close to the intent. You can play however you like but you should expect others are playing differently and if you happen to get steam rolled by a blob because of it … welcome to WvW. Having the separate tier match ups would allow for more variety, not only in enemy but also in play style, and yes you could still be steam rolled by a zerg. The idea is to have healthy match ups AND fun, not everyone has fun in the same manner so I see nothing wrong with trying to achieve the goal of catering to everyone’s enjoyment.
If your worried about 4 matches spreading things to thin, then maybe Anet should open their eyes and do a proper (<< keyword) merge or linking to balance out populations. I have several accounts, I can say that every tier except T4 which is due to a stupid linking is healthy at the current moment. Those large epic blob fights would spread through all tiers if they don’t want to lose. All it will take is for one blob to say, lets go hit T4 tonight and the enemy blobs would follow to ensure they don’t lose their precious PPT.
Well, with your proposal server pride will be dead so that doesn’t matter. If scores are combined ie: all four green servers points go to one pool, you will want to ensure all 4 Green match ups are not dormant. And lastly that 33% of potential fights could be found somewhere else if you really want them.
Throwing everybody into one giant blobby match up sounds excruciating and not in the least bit fun, at least if you had separate matches and allowed colors to assist one another you’re not locked in to the blob fest that only T1 seems to enjoy.
I’m all for trying something new as far as match ups go, my fear is with your purposal we’ll get a poll and those that do not want that type of WvW will be forced into it. I think my proposal gives the bast of both worlds, if you want blobby epic siege infested battle you can guest on over to T1, if you want to find 20-30 man fights without worrying about the omni blob you can go to a different Tier, and lastly if you just want some small skirmishes you can jump around until you find a quieter match up.
(edited by Nuzt.7894)
Aside from Burning why do condi’s even do damage to siege ? Let’s buff siege, only burning dmg applies because its realistic and stuff.
Since conditions have been around from the beginning and resistance has not, I think it would be no problem whatsoever to nerf resistance without touching conditions. Nothing ties the two together.
And people have been complaining about condi’s from the beginning as well.
I don’t understand any of this. I’m just going to wear exotic stuff and play the game.
You can get easy rings and amulet from playing solely WvW. Just because you’re not interested doesn’t mean others may not be… Showing these people that they can just spend some minor time in PvE and get a upgrade is a good thing.
Stop scouting for the other side, PvE is bad, PvE is the devil. It will give you herpes, don’t do it.
No harm in trying, at this point if we’re willing to accept more siege and other nonsense that I feel is truly not needed then why the heck not. Worst case scenario, it sucks for a week, we survived Golem week (kind of) so I think after that failure we can survive just about anything.
It already has been tried, it’s called eotm. It failed drastically. It is boycotted by the majority of the WvW playerbase and used as a karma train by pve players.
There would be plenty of harm in trying to test this in real WvW because it isn’t as simple as flipping a switch. How many months would it take to implement this in the game? That’s time taken away from things that would actually help like a decent balance patch so the game is actually fun to play again.
No there really wouldn’t at this point. All this crap we’re voting for lately could potentially do more damage. So why not, might as well go balls to the wall with lawl features.
I don’t think it should be set up quite like EotM though, you are right about that being terrible. Keeps servers and allow colors to server hop/guest. So green could go to any green, blue to any blue, red to any red. If you have queues you can hop to a different matchup, who knows it might even help out that T4 kitten show.
Do it for a week, who knows it might be refreshing to have some variety, just make it so players of X server get priority in Queues over guests. Combine the scores of each color or don’t combine them. In all honesty I could careless what they do with all these new polls, it’s quite evident Anet’s blind to the real issues. So as long as our guild can get some good fights, that’s the only real “fun” left.
imo of course.
Now that is something I’d be down for trying out. That’s a much better suggestion than the suggestion to force everyone into 1 stale blobby match up.
It’s been suggested in the past so I don’t it would ever happen, but I don’t think it would be all that bad. It could also help make up for the deficiencies in Glicko, again the variety, and Queues (though not really an issue) would never be a problem. Of course they would need to keep the 4 tier system instead of 8, 8 would be to much and spread everyone to thin. Colors are random now (correct me if I’m wrong) so you would have new allies/enemies every week. I know our guild would bounce around looking for fights, hopping down to T4 could be fun depending on who else was bouncing around.
Also if it was ever an option, don’t over complicate it, just keep it simple.
No harm in trying, at this point if we’re willing to accept more siege and other nonsense that I feel is truly not needed then why the heck not. Worst case scenario, it sucks for a week, we survived Golem week (kind of) so I think after that failure we can survive just about anything.
It already has been tried, it’s called eotm. It failed drastically. It is boycotted by the majority of the WvW playerbase and used as a karma train by pve players.
There would be plenty of harm in trying to test this in real WvW because it isn’t as simple as flipping a switch. How many months would it take to implement this in the game? That’s time taken away from things that would actually help like a decent balance patch so the game is actually fun to play again.
No there really wouldn’t at this point. All this crap we’re voting for lately could potentially do more damage. So why not, might as well go balls to the wall with lawl features.
I don’t think it should be set up quite like EotM though, you are right about that being terrible. Keeps servers and allow colors to server hop/guest. So green could go to any green, blue to any blue, red to any red. If you have queues you can hop to a different matchup, who knows it might even help out that T4 kitten show.
Do it for a week, who knows it might be refreshing to have some variety, just make it so players of X server get priority in Queues over guests. Combine the scores of each color or don’t combine them. In all honesty I could careless what they do with all these new polls, it’s quite evident Anet’s blind to the real issues. So as long as our guild can get some good fights, that’s the only real “fun” left.
imo of course.
No harm in trying, at this point if we’re willing to accept more siege and other nonsense that I feel is truly not needed then why the heck not. Worst case scenario, it sucks for a week, we survived Golem week (kind of) so I think after that failure we can survive just about anything.
Durability runes are sub par imo and need a buff.
They won’t nerf them, common sense dictates the next nerf will be something meaningful like Underwater helms having stats reduced by half.
Tanky and thief? We have people left and right feeling outclasses by high evade uptime thieves. Evade is the thief version of block. We can evade for ages. The only thing that front line thief needs is some respect and perma-fury uptime.
Because I really expected anyone to take that comment seriously? I figured the “Make it so” part would make it pretty clear how serious of a post it was.
Glad stuff like this is a priority for Anet “North Keep: One of the village residents will now flee if their home is destroyed.” Now I think I know why the glicko system is so bad and they couldn’t predict this problem in week 1, they have morons running WvW development.
To be fair that NPC live in WvW 24/7 so technically they are catering to the most hardcore WvW player in the game.
What about dem tanky Vigilant/Soldier frontline thieves, their sole purpose will be to add extra cheese.
Make it so!
But you’re fighting a lot of AI opponents for camps/towers/keeps…
Where’s my Raid Boss currency!!!