7:26-16 Anet said, Let there be ratwells; they willed it, and at once there was ratwells. Oh, the power of the word of Anet! And in the new creation, the first thing that is wrought in the soul is ratwells:
Some Dev, somewhere, earlier this week.
Did they at the very least refund the currency that was spent on infusions ?
I seriously hope they didn’t over look that part of the scenario while bending us over and going in dry.
Nope. They just gave you the infusions back. That’s it. I now have a pile of infusions I can’t sell, salvage, or use.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL rekt, gg Anet.
Did they at the very least refund the currency that was spent on infusions ?
I seriously hope they didn’t over look that part of the scenario while bending us over and going in dry.
I would vote for merges personally.
I think asking transfer penalty to be increased is ludicrous, not everyone transfers for the sake of bandwagoning so it’s pretty unreasonable to punish people for the actions of some. If our guild transfers we don’t choose the highest population winning server, we usually go to the under dog server because the reason to move in the first place for us is new enemies and the under dog server is where u will find that more often then not. It also wouldn’t be fair to those lower population servers, if it gets to the point of completely dull and boring they shouldn’t be penalized for seeking out fun in a game they paid for, more so after paying more for the transfer.
Vote or not, merges should have happened instead of this half way measure, imo it was an unneeded feature, linking is basically merges with the possibility to be linked with another server at some point. Variety right? Wrong, variety should come in the form of a scoring system that not only works but encourages variety. Servers get stacked typically to encourage movement and tier change ups (tournaments are a whole different beast) which would happen on it’s own with a proper scoring system. In fact I would go as far as to blame Glicko and the refusal to abandon it as one of the largest reasons stacking and transfer happen.
Hax, must have been hax, everyone knows you can’t take an Anet claimed objective without hax.
Wow, just stop you’re getting more and more ridiculous, next you’ll be saying they can fight but can’t have weapons or armor, or they can’t man siege, maybe the mouse they use is better then yours so maybe we shouldn’t let them use that either.
Just put the tin foil hat back on, this way Anet can’t read your mind and relay your plans to the enemy in the name of favoritism.
@Nuzt
ANeT – Company who created and administers game – has guild for employees – employees represent company – employees reflect on the company – Devs can judge any player in the game – employees are suppose to support game play – picking a side shows lack of impartiality = favoritism(conflict of interest if you want).
So you’re contradicting yourself is what you’re saying. They are supporting game play by, you know, playing the game. How exactly do you expect them to support gameplay without picking a side? They just like you and I have to choose a server to play on. This is exactly what I’m trying to get across to you, your entire argument is illogical and contradicts itself all over the place.
The problem is plain and simple. Favoritism. If you can’t see that a company who administrates the game should not play favorites you don’t understand what favoritism is.
ANeT, as stated is an admin guild. They have special privileges that normal player guilds don’t. They may have the same effect as a normal guild but it tells the other servers that ANeT favors the other server.
I come from a military background where I could not show favoritism due to my position. To do so would tell the other lower ranking people that I will chose someone over them. This is very similar. The ANeT devs represent the company. This means that if the claim an objective for a particular server they have chosen that server above the other servers. i.e. Favoritism. And unprofessional in the business world.
Good lord. This is anything but favoritism. A player who happens to work for ANet came across the keep and saw that it wasn’t claimed yet, so he claimed it to help his/her world out. What the hell is the problem here? Its no different, literally no different, than if any other guild had claimed that keep.
Its not favoritism. And there is literally nothing you can say that will make it favoritism because it just isn’t.
Um, your argument makes no sense. You offer no proof or logical reasoning as to why it can’t be considered favoritism. And has been stated by someone who was there, the ANeT Dev was with them when they took it. He just didn’t wander in and see an unclaimed keep.
As Thorfinir and one other did point out “conflict of interest” might be a better term for it. At least their posts were logical. I for one just want an official stance by ANeT. Once an official policy is established, as any good business always does, I will live with it.
There is no logical proof because the argument in general is illogical. Please give some logical proof as to how this is different from any other guild. This is nothing more then complaining for the sake of complaining. Your whole argument is illogical, the only time this argument would be relevant is if it somehow unbalanced the matchup, which it did not, a keep was claimed who claimed it is irrelevant.
Come on! We were having fun in WvW. So sad you weren’t with us that night. We did not have to ask Anet to claim ANYTHING. We Never need to send a message to anyone. You have no idea what you are talking about. You would have known this if you would have asked or if you were in our squad/party.
Do you have any idea the amount of crap Devs go through? For the past few weeks they have been having fun! If they want to claim, let them.
I am actually really angry at HoD because of this thread. Good way to muck everything up. Guess what everyone’s going to be talking about now.
Thanks
Lock this thread down please.~Milly
It’s not going to be a hot topic of discussion, this isn’t the first or last thread that will pop up about Anet claiming an objective. It’s a silly thread, nothing more, it will have zero affect on Anet claiming things in the future.
The bigger question is: Why did SBIHoD and SoSNsP let that stand since reset?! Get out there and take that thing down.
I know its hard to take down a defended YB fortification but this is a perfect opportunity to play the game as its meant to be played. That’s why its WvWvW, 2v1 that sucker. SBIHoD and SoSNsP should both attack it in tandem. Those are some of the most fun fights where all 3 servers are in a keep trying to take it down. I wish that would happen more. And if Anet claiming keeps leads to it then I say, Claim more stuff Anet!
One does not simply walk into YB hills. Its gates are guarded by more than just Superior Arrow Carts.
To be fair, one does not simply walk into YB anything. You can bet your kitten they have it sieged up as much as humanly possible and have at least 1 scout if not more in every structure they own. Anyone who has faced YB should no this, they could have a population of 2 people and would somehow managed to have those 2 people in every objective they own.
The T4 match is egregious leaving players that are looking for less blobbing nowhere to play. It might be OK if CD wasn’t so stacked but at the very least they should have moved up after the first week.
I’m not even in T4 and could forsee what would happen, as I’m sure the rest of the community could as well. It’s disturbing that either Anet didn’t notice this or couldn’t figure out the imbalance it was creating.
I guess I really shouldn’t be shocked either way.
Makes me want to attack. The battle for Anet Hills.
Pretty much, it’s like another poster said in this thread, Anet claiming something makes that tower/keep/castle target #1. They should claim more stuff imo, nothing like seeing a zerg stop in it’s tracks, do a 180 and B-Line for an Anet controlled object.
It’s interesting YB was T1 with no partner server and without one it has slid to T3. At the rate they’re shedding Glicko points they are likely to stay in T3 and lock Maguuma in T2.
Which of course does nothing to help resolve the stale matchup in T4.
How true this is I’m not sure but, it’s rumored that YB either lost a bunch of people or they purposely lost to move tiers. I’m thinking they lost people because their population doesn’t seem T1ish.
Who would replace CD T4?
SBI?
YB? (seems to be the least populated)
SoS?
Haven’t played YB enough to say what kind of population they have, but, the other two would probably dominate that tier as well.
Obviously this is a question for those servers facing CD, not for the CD pop that want to get out of dodge.
Well this thread is pointless.
They claimed a keep, get over it.
Glicko is really great for helping find matchups when there are plenty of fights and plenty of opponents. It is a stretch to try to make it work with such a limited number of both.
On the other hand, the high glicko worlds will wipe the floor with the low-glicko, so it is illustrating something meaningful.
However, what I’d rather see is a way to make it possible for the worst-rated, lowest-pop alliance to be able to engage in a fun match up against the top-rated, highest-pop world. The ‘Season’ competitions were relatively meaningless, because the outcome in Gold|Silver|Bronze was exactly what was predicted except when a lot of people went to a ton of trouble — it shouldn’t be the case that in a game that one team dominates all the time.
However, for all my criticism of using glicko, of asking ANet to work on making things more truly competitive, it’s hard to offer constructive suggestions that will allow it to happen week in and week out.
tl;dr I don’t think there is any easy or simple way to generate the kind of matchups leading to great fights we want (even assuming we all want mostly the same kind of things).
It’s not really great, it wasn’t even designed for this type of scoring, they’ve tweaked it numerous times and it STILL doesn’t work. They refuse to learn from their mistake so unfortunately the players are the ones who suffer from their ignorance. There are a plethora of other scoring systems out there that would do what you’re suggesting Glicko is good for that would do a better job and wouldn’t continually create the disparity that’s impossible to overcome without Dev intervention that you see between the tiers.
It takes to long, or to much effort, or any other excuse they use is unacceptable, in fact if one of my employees wanted to take a short cut because it was easier for them, they wouldn’t be working for me very long. The Dev’s should be taking pride in what they do, they should strive for the best product, if that means they put in more time and effort then that is what they need to do.
If it’s a case of their hands being tied by the powers that be, they should be looking for a new company to work for that hasn’t forgotten that it’s about making the best product, not the easiest one.
Take away the AoE cap for a day.
EotM is to big to be put in the rotation imo. That and the fact that its available 24/7 if you like it that much, no need to add it. DBL, personally not a fan of but if it was only 1 map vs 3 and rotated out after a week I think it would be bearable.
This is what Glicko brings to the table, it’s been said from day one and even now when brought up they just reply with something that amounts to “we don’t want to put in the effort it takes to upgrade to a proper scoring system for this type of game play”. They would rather keep tweaking a broken scoring system that in the end won’t solve anything because it’s easier for them.
This is by their own admission.
Run them over, it’s WvW, their constantly picking silly spots to duel and then cry when they get ran over. If you play on the highway eventually you’re going to get ran over.
Just ignore their whining, or bring a mug and fill it with their tears and enjoy a satisfying yet salty beverage.
Sounds like a pretty valid idea but gifting would have to be an option, they could have
Bronze Ticket = low pop transfer
Silver Ticket = Medium pop transfer
Gold Ticket = High Pop transfer
each one costing the corresponding gem price for server population.
Another Idea would be, allow us to gift gems.
Ranger/Druid can be a lot of fun for Roaming and Solo and it does well in these areas. It’s still a bit of a red headed step child for Guild raids, not as bad as it was, Druid can bring something to the table at least but still in the grey area of is it worth losing another class within the raid to bring a druid. For pugging, people play whatever they want so you’ll be fine there.
As for the Ranger forums, most of that is PvE banter, there are better classes for larger group play in WvW but when it comes to roaming and solo, It’s a pretty solid class.
(edited by Nuzt.7894)
After making x amount of ascended it’s easier to make Exotics because of the nature of WvW. What I mean by that is, depending on what exactly you are doing your gear could vary in stats quite a bit. Set for solo, set for roaming, set for guild runs, set for pugzerging, set for condi and so on. Even if you don’t run multiple toons that’s a lot of different sets of ascended you would need to make for each playstyle.
I would imagine a large number of WvW players have at least a couple sets of Exotic for different occasions.
Anyone who has paid for the game should be allowed to vote in the polls, imo. If they’re not a wvw’er, so what? Doesn’t mean they won’t play wvw at some point. They paid for the game just like those that scream about wvw here on the forums, so they should be allowed to vote.
To put it in perspective, lets say everyone game wipe received a poll that asked “How do you feel about all PvE zone including instances now allowing for unrestrained PvP” Most of the PvE players would lose their minds, and yet, most WvW and PvP players would vote yes because, why not. In this case we will also say that WvW and PvP are the majority population so it’s more accurate to what you’re saying.
Hope this helps.
That’s not even remotely similar. For one, the WvW polls are about adding new stuff to the game mode, the “perspective” you give is a theoretical poll about removing an entire game mode. Please explain how you think those are even comparable in nature. The theoretical poll you propose shouldn’t ever even be a poll, it should be an internal company decision if it were to ever happen. I’m also astounded that you think you can speak for “most” WvW and PvP players despite the previous polls clearly showing that opinions like yours are in the minority. The devs have even spoken up about who votes and how much WvW they do, if it was only “regular” WvW players that voted, the results would be unchanged. Your opinion is in the minority man. Learn to live with it.
It is completely similar, imo adding full out PvP to PvE zone would be adding a feature to them, it wouldn’t be removing anything, thus it would be an addition. More PvP/WvW players would be in the PvP zones if this was a feature. So while it would create all sorts of QQ from the PvE crowd it would spread the population throughout the game which would be healthy.
The Dev’s have spoken holds zero Value, the Dev’s have said A LOT of things over the years that were complete BS.
(edited by Nuzt.7894)
So if the few people who remain in WvW abhor something, it shouldn’t be added even if it would bring in many new players who normally abhor WvW?
That’s kind of like a dying restaurant refusing to update their menu because the 4 customers that they do have all rave about how great the day old soup is.
Those “few” people (you really should educate yourself on just how many people actively WvW) are the ones who have supported the mode through thick and thin. Yes, their opinions on the matter should take priority.
Enjoy your “priority” while your game mode circles the drain then.
I will thanks.
Enjoy being oblivious.
So if the few people who remain in WvW abhor something, it shouldn’t be added even if it would bring in many new players who normally abhor WvW?
That’s kind of like a dying restaurant refusing to update their menu because the 4 customers that they do have all rave about how great the day old soup is.
Those “few” people (you really should educate yourself on just how many people actively WvW) are the ones who have supported the mode through thick and thin. Yes, their opinions on the matter should take priority.
Most PvE players don’t vote on WvW polls because it doesn’t even affect them at all.
ANet already doesn’t tell PvE players that there is a poll up for WvW whereas you guys get a mail telling you there’s one.
Stop blaming PvE/non WvW players for the ‘bad votes’
Your reading comprehension is astounding, PvE players are not being blamed for bad votes, what some are saying is they shouldn’t be included in the votes. Which makes sense if they never WvW. I have no issues with WvW players voting one way or another, I may not agree with one of the options and will debate it, but I can respect others decisions so long as they are active WvW participants and not some dragon slaying nerd who doesn’t even know how to get into WvW.
I don’t even ….
It causes more harm then good. Each mode is essentially a different country, just because I vacation there once in a blue moon doesn’t mean I should get to vote. It should be sent out for 4-5 days to only accounts within the WvW zones. If a casual PvE person happens to be in there when it’s sent then yes they can vote, once an account has voted they cannot vote again. This way it will give a better picture of what those players that actually WvW want instead of stacking a poll with votes of people who will be affected very little if at all by the poll.
Anyone who has paid for the game should be allowed to vote in the polls, imo. If they’re not a wvw’er, so what? Doesn’t mean they won’t play wvw at some point. They paid for the game just like those that scream about wvw here on the forums, so they should be allowed to vote.
To put it in perspective, lets say everyone game wipe received a poll that asked “How do you feel about all PvE zone including instances now allowing for unrestrained PvP” Most of the PvE players would lose their minds, and yet, most WvW and PvP players would vote yes because, why not. In this case we will also say that WvW and PvP are the majority population so it’s more accurate to what you’re saying.
Hope this helps.
(edited by Nuzt.7894)
Player vs Siege is not fun, there is no valid reason to add more siege. We have plenty of it to do what it’s intended to do. You can sit here and say people shouldn’t complain before its in game and the likes but their track record speaks volumes to anyone who doesn’t want to put their head in the sand. We didn’t need to see Golem week to know it was going to be a disaster, and that’s exactly what it was, a complete disastrous failure.
Imo there is no valid reason to add another piece of siege, even if we ignore that player vs siege is not fun and just think in terms of large scale sieging, there simply is no reason for it.
Well I had quite a bit of fun driving my alpha golem around faster than a Kenyan, but that’s not the point here… You can sit here and say people hate player versus siege, but in a pool that arena net is asking if they want to add more siege you have over 50% of the votes going in favor of adding more siege. The opinions of the loudmouths on this forum does not represent the opinions of the majority.
Do I like to fight under siege fire? Honestly, no. But I hate to see large blobs going unpunished because defensive siege is nigh useless since everything breaks in seconds to the multiple meteor showers that cover entire walltops. Will deployable cannons solve this? Problably not, but it’s another piece of siege that I can try to use against orange popping zergs while I have the outnumbered buff in my bar on all 4 maps.
Once again, there is no valid reason that we need more siege added. What exactly do you think another piece of siege is going to do vs. blobs that the present siege isn’t doing. It’s also wasted Development time, even if it takes 5 minutes, that’s 5 minutes worth of bugs that still haven’t been addressed.
This game really doesn’t need anymore cancer, it’s like they are actively trying to lose players. If cannons were never implemented they wouldn’t lose anyone, if they are implemented they will lose people, even if its only a few. There are more important aspects that could use that time spent implementing an unnecessary addition.
I’d much rather see something new like deployable barricades than cannons, which already exist.
Well, we had barricades in DBL and people hated them. People here hate everything in WvW tbh…
Player vs Siege is not fun, there is no valid reason to add more siege. We have plenty of it to do what it’s intended to do. You can sit here and say people shouldn’t complain before its in game and the likes but their track record speaks volumes to anyone who doesn’t want to put their head in the sand. We didn’t need to see Golem week to know it was going to be a disaster, and that’s exactly what it was, a complete disastrous failure.
Imo there is no valid reason to add another piece of siege, even if we ignore that player vs siege is not fun and just think in terms of large scale sieging, there simply is no reason for it.
No but its like doing a kitten job. they should have used population or the pitiful excuse of a scoring system to determine which servers should have been merged with others and then done a full merge instead of this kittenized version of god awful.
Actually no, dead air would be better.
We will just have to agree to disagree on that… four years in and only now they realize the only way to get anything through in WvW is to throw it on live and see what happens. The PvP community in GW2 is so averse to changes that it is this only way for any progress to happen.
Either way I would rather see developers actively pushing for any change, good or bad, than not see any activity at all… the fact is we don\t know what is good or bad before we have played with the stuff.
This topic is a prime example of that, people assume cannons on the field would be identical to cannons on the walls (which is reasonable assumption, given nothing else has been said), however, cannons on walls have been designed to be static siege, ergo their numbers reflect that… a cannon on the field would likely be different, and even if it isn’t right now in their design/implementation it has the possibility to be.
Just to point out, we are not game designers… before you say that they have lost it you should for a moment consider that these people have been at it for a while and they do this for a living… they have no incentive to poll the community on changes that they believe will be bad for the game type. Now, if what they believe WvW is diverges from what the community believes it is or what it should be is a different matter entirely.
Edit: besides we knew this poll was coming from Tyler’s post way back, so lets not act like this poll existing is somehow news for people who have actually kept up with the forums.
Remember Golem week, that worked out well for them.
Good to see Linked servers working so well.
Unfortunately this ship has sailed a long time ago, it’s not even a case of having a small window to capitalize, they literally had years to capitalize and just kitten ed right out. They basically threw a winning lottery ticket in the garbage, took a crap in it, then lit it on fire before tossing it into the ocean.
I disagree. The larger playerbase, and therefore, more money, is to be made with casual players.
The hardcore wvw playerbase is a much smaller niche, imo.
It doesn’t matter who is hardcore, who is not, and who has the larger playerbase. WvW has lost both Hardcore and Casual players, the populations make that pretty obvious. Now take into account the games on the horizon that will cater to these crowds and you get the ship has sailed.
I don’t know why people have to try and turn everything into a hardcore vs casual debate, if casuals make up the majority then it’s pretty obvious that we have lost an enormous amount of them compared to the first year and a half.
Unfortunately this ship has sailed a long time ago, it’s not even a case of having a small window to capitalize, they literally had years to capitalize and just kitten ed right out. They basically threw a winning lottery ticket in the garbage, took a crap in it, then lit it on fire before tossing it into the ocean.
The whole GH system and upgrades is flat out stupid when it comes to WvW. Guild size isn’t even really an issue, no guild should be forced to dump whats required to get the WvW upgrades you already had no matter how many members you have.
- Will Glicko ratings be adjusted before or after a match?
Glicko ratings are temporarily adjusted at exactly the time of matchmaking. The adjustment will never be visible. We’re not actually modifying any world’s rating, just preventing matchmaking from letting worlds drift away from the others.
- Why not just change the links again?
World links change on a schedule to maintain some stability. Among other reasons, those who maintain voice chat servers don’t have to redo permissions every week. We also wouldn’t want to start shifting world links around on a subjective whim. The frequency of the schedule was previously determined by a public poll.
- Why have Glicko ratings?
Strictly on the functional side of reasoning: matchmaking. No doubt within the space of all possible ways to calculate matchups in WvW (both pre-existing and unwritten) there exists one or more better solutions. Matchmaking in WvW is a very different scenario from what any matchmaking system I’m aware of aims to solve.Other matchmaking systems, such as 1-up-1-down, have been discussed in the past. We’ve not previously been convinced that they’d be significant enough improvements to prioritize them over other work. One of the bigger problems with 1-up-1-down is that at natural barriers, two teams would commonly swap week after week, leaving three teams (the one that went up, and the two that remained where it was) getting steamrolled every other week.
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.
Thanks for replying instead of just having it deleted, the 1 up 1 down was only 1 suggestion. I’m all for any scoring system that works for this type of a match system. I personally have found Glicko to cause more problems than solutions and has been the root of many issues from day 1. I guess what I’m trying to say is, use something simple that does the job appropriately, K.I.S.S. I would rather see a 1 up 1 down system that brings variety (even if it’s only every other week) than watch Glicko continue to destroy morale and matchups.
Currently some worlds, such as Crystal Desert, are stuck in what’s come to be referred to as “Glicko hell”. This is where a few worlds’ Glicko ratings drift off from the rest of the group, leaving a wide enough gap that those drifting away won’t be matched up against the rest.
To help prevent stale matchups, we’ll soon be able to artificially adjust Glicko ratings solely for the purpose of matchmaking.
For example, if we use this for NA’s lowest tier of worlds (T4), bumping them up to be just below T3’s ratings, they’ll have a decent chance of being shuffled into T3 during matchmaking. Given the ratings today, an adjustment we might make for July 29th could look something like:
T3:
- Maguuma: 1,838
- Sea of Sorrows: 1,777
- Stormbluff Isle: 1,767
T4:
- Crystal Desert: 1,512 (plus-185) = 1,697
- Sorrow’s Furnace: 1,398 (plus-130) = 1,528
- Darkhaven: 1,366 (plus-100) = 1,466However, note that this artificial adjustment is invisible to anything but matchmaking. So if a T3 world doesn’t beat a T4 world significantly, the T4 world’s actual Glicko rating will increase more than usual, while the T3 world’s actual rating will decrease more than usual. Both worlds will also have increased deviation and volatility after. This is all because the T4 world’s lower rating means to Glicko “this world is expected to lose significantly to that T3 world”. So in an upset where this doesn’t happen, Glicko both makes larger adjustments to rating, since it was shown to need change, and increases deviation/volatility, to tell itself on the next round that these worlds haven’t settled into their most accurate rating yet.
EU’s lowest-rated world is still within its deviation of the lowest-rated world in the next tier up, making EU much less likely to receive artificial matchmaking adjustment on July 29th.
Why not just get rid of Glicko, this isn’t Chess, it’s nothing like Chess, so why create more work for yourselves. Do first up 3rd down, or any other scoring systems that have been recommended over the last few years that have fallen on deaf ears. You guys just refuse to acknowledge that this is not the type of scoring that Glicko is intended for, quit trying to bend it to fit when it clearly never will.
It’s like watching a child trying to force the Square through the circle hole. Glicko is not a circle.
(edited by Nuzt.7894)
Bump
Recruiting is coming along nicely, still looking for a few more who are sick of pugging or K-Training. Come join us on SBI !
It’s possible, part of the issue is so many people are slaves to the norm and metabattle. Just need to get a little creative, find the kitten in the armor and beat the crap out of it.
There have always been Meta’s that evolve, even if just slightly that give someone the edge. Stop drooling over metabattle (half of which is outdated) and boon sharing and find the counter. Eventually people will catch on and everyone will try and run that comp but then you just get creative again. This is exactly what those HC guilds did constantly and is part of the reason they remained on top aside from just being good at what they did.
The glicko wall is awful.
Honestly the pairing for that match up should have been like this:
CD + BP + ET
DH + EB + K
SF + FC + GOMReally was no reason to put 4 servers together. Glicko needs reset, I’ve been saying it since the first server pairings.
Why does Glicko need to be reset when its plain that the actual issue in this regard is putting the 4 servers together? As I’ve been saying it calls into question anets whole linking system and how they decide the linkages. It appears to be an absolutely abysmal decision. How was it made?
Simple answer, it should be reset and then thrown out with the trash because it should ave never been used as a scoring system to begin with. Glicko has cause so many issues from day 1, it was never intended to be used in this fashion, tweak it as much as you want, it is still not going to function correctly for scoring in GW2.
Other than that resets would make sense, servers would end up in the appropriate placement in accordance to the present state of the game. In fact a reset every 6 months wouldn’t hurt.
Some very large mistakes have been made in WvW, they say we’re hostile, and they are right but we’re hostile with due cause. At any given time you could come onto the WvW forum and pick out 5-10 great ideas that would have been good for WvW, those ideas were ignored completely by the ego’s at Anet. Remember those CDI’s … LOL seriously what a waste of time.
In it’s current state the team needs to be careful, because of the mistakes of their predecessors we are jaded and volatile, I think there is still hope but it’s not going to be easy.
Those that are now gone (staff) were moronic, they couldn’t see the pot of gold sitting in front of them.
A good start would be to stop this linking nonsense and just merge already, it’s not like it’s going to be aby different.
Still looking for a few more committed people. Fell free to send a message here or in game!
WvW will continue to be a mess as long as skilled groups keep migrating to servers with more skilled groups.
From my understanding, all the skill groups are more or less gone.
It would be nice if they added a server chat, sorta like /map but specific to the server you are on for the purposes of recruiting if nothing else.
As much as I loved the old stab and hammer train meta, I think they found a nice medium for once with the current stab.
Clearly Maguuma is the worst, a once proud server of trolls had been reduced to map blobbing lemmings.
Dark days my friends, dark days.
Honestly, they should probably make boon sharing easier.
Why?
If it was simple everyone would be doing it and thus it would negate the benefit of it.
Edit: not suggesting it’s hard now but for your average casual Pug it’s complicated.
(edited by Nuzt.7894)