Guild Wars 2

Dayra.7405:

PabbyGaul.9682:

About dynamic scoring

Dynamic objective scoring based on number-defending/attacking could also work but on the other-hand completely does not give experience for feinting, one of the most valuable tactics in a commander’s tool box. So…just because someone isn’t defending an objective shouldn’t determine its value…But how many people COULD defend it does. Why should you not get the points if you tricked the enemy commander into leaving t3 SMC undefended because you attacked their Garri about 30s earlier for the sole purpose of getting him to move? Good tactics deserve good rewards. BUT in this case the Population is still their…just on a different map.

You don’t want to keep and defend an keep you acquired via feinting, do you?
You want to reset something to wood is my experience with feinting. So the score this objective have afterwards is quite irrelevant. Important is that the WP, walls and it’s former score for the opponent is destroyed. All this you can achieve with any scoring.

Concerning rewards: I really thing that taking a keep after an 1 hour fight should be equally rewarding than taking N keeps and X towers via PvD. Currently PvD is far more rewarding and thats why EotM is as it is and a lot of “feinting” is only karma-train in reality (oh they defend this, lets try there).

Feinting is not a Karma-training tactic. Karma training is not about fighting and is simply always being where the enemy is not and to put all your resources into capping the next objective which is either paper or forget it, next objective.

Feinting is used to gain the advantage IN a Fight. In this case is used to get a head-start on papering a t3 objective. My server is perpetually an underdog and so we use feinting a lot. Will we keep the structure? Sometimes. But as you say mostly to make it easier to take in the future, requiring them to use resources to retake…ect. I could prolly write atleast several more paragraphs on the billion uses of feinting, via viels, siege, and everything else.

I don’t disagree with dynamic rewards, fighting outnumbered, length of fight, enemies killed, objectives won or lost, upgrade tiers ect…all good metrics to add spice to rewards and we submitted similar stuff.

BUT… I think the rewarding part, should be a benefit directly to the players, in the form of WxP, Exp, Loot….ect. The relative value of the objective hasn’t changed because the two opposing forces…even if they are on different maps, are still in contest over that objective and therefore is still worth something to the current active population and therefore still has value. However, if the server population is at like 0, so no opponent on any maps anywhere that’s when I think PPT should be adjusted.

Necessitating active defense for the enemy to get points means the best way to defend against your opponents is to abandon it before they get there. Please explain to me that Im wrong here. Because if Im correct that would mean that not only does it encourage karma training, but in fact becomes the only way to actually win. Never defend (so enemy gets the least points) and always attack, hoping someone is at your next target to defend so you can finally get some ppt. Now of course we could add…all kinds of If/Then statements to this situation (well if someone was there in the last 3 min….if someone is within a certain distance….if…the cap was 0 then after a few minutes it will be back to normal or slowly increase ppt contribution……), and go back and forth about how our 4 nested If/then statements interact or don’t to achieve some strange effect. Dunno, sounds like it would force the karm-train to become the new meta for all wvw….Clearly your idea is worser….lol sorry I couldn’t resist

Cletus Van Damme.2795:

[SFD] Starfleet Dental presents

- Adopt a Dev Progression Diary – Pat Cavit Edition

Week 1 With Pat in tow we Immediately set out to EBG to prep an attack on Maguumas arch nemesis, the Ghost Grub.
http://i.imgur.com/B4qvJEs.jpg

Sea of Sorrows struck from behind a tall hillock. Pat popped his anet tag in defiance.
http://i.imgur.com/Zx6gmIo.jpg

We failed, surely this was because Pat didn’t have a commander tag! So we decided to start a fund raiser which lasted 97 seconds, Pat recieved over 300g, 2 swim boosters, the flag backpack thing and 27 stacks of black lion chests.

Pat was short a few badges needed for the tag so we decided on a trip to the source of all badges, EoTM.
http://i.imgur.com/Z58IDVl.jpg

We got them in no time.
http://i.imgur.com/IIsnFn3.jpg

Pat joins the ranks of SFD’s elite commander club, member size: 500
http://i.imgur.com/ehsDJhH.jpg

Commander Pat, cake gun in hand leads a small squad of llama owners on a kill mission. Result: 7 dead to fall damage, 2 survivors.
http://i.imgur.com/sshncvJ.jpg

Victory.
http://i.imgur.com/7Ghtxoc.jpg

Next Week, we aim to get Pat his Diamond Legend rank.

http://www.starfleetdental.com/about/
Starfleet Dental.
Maguumas oldest and largest WvW guild, #1 NA Guild vs GvG.
Inventor of culling era stack-n-go-invisible and lord room siege fest.

Haha…see…knew it…Best Troll Guild NA

Vote
http://www.gw2wvw.net/content/how-would-you-change-wvw-server-populations

Lurock Turoth.9085:

The only reason people are advocating do nothing, is forcing population normalization will ruin wvw for large groups of players.

Either you force everyone into T1 population levels, which players who prefer more chill wvw will understandably hate.

Or you cut population so all wvw is more T2/3 level which any one in T1 will hate.

I have yet to hear a solution (to population imballence) that fits all players better than doing nothing.

There are very large group fights in the lower tiers….

There will be no solutions that everyone will like because it will require a force in the opposing direction…so maybe we need to choose an option that everyone will dislike the least:)

Lurock Turoth.9085:

Now altering point gain based off of the out manned buff or other changes to the point system are a totally different subject.

Agreed sir! But buffs need to be separated into “Low Server Population Buffs” and “Low Map populations Buffs” and they needn’t be the same thing. The former would be to incentivize movement and balance, and the latter to offset possibly unbalanced situations in matchups.

munkiman.3068:

PabbyGaul.9682:

I don’t think high-population servers are the root of the problem. I think the imbalance is simply human nature, playing the game against the rules they are given. Its all artificial. If you want it function in verisimilitude yer gonna have to simulate it.

Again, my point to balance things out has to be centered around the design of the game mode. Tier 1 players have noted they typically don’t queue more than 2 maps during seasons, so lowering the cap (unless it’s brutally lowered) does very little to influence movement. What about the people that like playing on BG JQ TC and aren’t there simply to win? It’s basically a punishment to those folks.

PabbyGaul.9682:

Well “punishment” is necessary in any balanced system. Pick any naturally balanced system and you will find that something pull in the opposite direction, generally something that directly counters that which is pulling in the other direction and is related to the consequences for doing so. Just how it is. rarely do things people want come without a price, there are natural consequence for practically everything worth having, doing ect. In essence we are really just taking the “bonus” from the higher tier servers and giving it to the lower tiers. So, it snot just a punishment, someone gets a Bonus! And the point would not be to force anyone, simply put the stuff in place and let it work itself out.

As many have mention, Overpopulation, Coverage, Rewards, Tournaments, all related. We submitted about 20-30 different changes. Its like 7 pages of stuff…If people are interested I could post I suppose.

Lowering map caps doesn’t do much more than institute frustration, but as John mentioned it’s a suggestion that is the least amount of work, but it’s also one of the least effective methods. Which falls right in line with your natural balance example.

I understand why PPT is what we have, it’s very likely a more death-match type scoring system has overhead and tracking issues. It also would cause scores to vary wildly, higher pop servers could have quite a bit higher points than lower pop, but if you score on averages via a max point count, say to win you need more than 33% of the total score, then you solve that problem. I mentioned before that PPT has been a bad idea since almost a month or 2 after release, which is why we keep having these conversations. The mode needed a restructure before it even made it to the design table.

Im not sure you are responding to my post….miss click maybe?

Map Caps, I don’t mention except to say they wont help….and averaging PPT is not something I discuss either.

Dayra.7405:

PabbyGaul.9682:

Regarding PPT scaling…PTT wouldnt necessarily be scaled by ranked population. Rather PPT percent increase or decrease would be capped at a specific percent…maybe 20%, and would be based on a moving average of the current server population. This way PPT is entirely related to coverage, and coverage being in this case the ratio of current server populations as measured and adjusting the moving average at some randomly determined point between Ticks.

This is clearly worser as the dynamic objective values I proposed above, as conquest and tick happen at different points in time and need very different amounts of man power.

Assume the superior server A runs over the map with his 50 people zerg to conquer it, and goes to next map or even EotM. Now the de facto inferior serve B tries to get its stuff back with 10 people, A left a few people to defend the map, but as currently more B than A are on the map the superior A even scores higher scaled than B.

Not based on MAP population…Based on current Server WvW population, meaning all WvW Maps. So they can move to which ever map they chose, they will still be counted.

If they leave, then they wouldn’t be counted for that tick, but that is why a MOVING AVERAGE is used, so even after they leave the effect of them having been there will persist for several ticks. And if they are gone, the other server can work to get their things back ect. Scaling would work in both directions. If yer outnumbered you get a bonus, if you outnumber, you get a penalty…ect. So at the most extreme the difference could be as much as 40%. With moving average, and never really knowing when the count will happen(random sampling) you cant really map hop to get away from the counter, unless of course you don’t play…which also solves the problem for the server with less coverage.

But, the POINT of scaling PPT is not to make the server with less numbers beat larger servers. So in the above situation I don’t see that as a problem. PPT scaling would offset much of that damage that will occur, reduce the tendency/payoff for outnumbering server to play-off peak, increase the tendency for outnumbered server to defend off/peak.

About dynamic scoring

Dynamic objective scoring based on number-defending/attacking could also work but on the other-hand completely does not give experience for feinting, one of the most valuable tactics in a commander’s tool box. So…just because someone isn’t defending an objective shouldn’t determine its value…But how many people COULD defend it does. Why should you not get the points if you tricked the enemy commander into leaving t3 SMC undefended because you attacked their Garri about 30s earlier for the sole purpose of getting him to move? Good tactics deserve good rewards. BUT in this case the Population is still their…just on a different map.

Regarding PPT scaling…PTT wouldnt necessarily be scaled by ranked population. Rather PPT percent increase or decrease would be capped at a specific percent…maybe 20%, and would be based on a moving average of the current server population. This way PPT is entirely related to coverage, and coverage being in this case the ratio of current server populations as measured and adjusting the moving average at some randomly determined point between Ticks.

Therefore MF%, Loot Drops, ect based on server population by rank…Where as PPT % increase/decrease would be determined and constantly changing during the matchup based on how each server’s total WvW population (all WvW Maps) relates to their enemy. During Primetime…Numbers might be more even so PPT scaling may be negligible, unless enemy server is stacked in which case the underdogs get a ppt bonus. During the night a Server (maye not the same one) might have group of 50 that go and destroy everything, and the other servers dont. Therefore their ppt would take a hit because they have more numbers.

Why is it fair? The points are arbitrary and merely relative. However! They are MEANT to represent an instrinsic value similar to reality. Keeps are better than towers…ect. But In reality objectives dont necessrily have a score attached (unless you work on COA and MDMP)their value may change based on the overall goals or strategic maneuver. If Everyone abandoned the battle field, and you take over the area how much value did the abandoning team assign to that objective….0. They left (they went to sleep) because they nolonger valued the objective. From their perspective the value is now 0, trash. The fact that it adds to the score of the one holding it doesnt represent reality, its an artificiality and static value coded into a virtual environment.

SO. If POINT Values are meant to be a relative indicator of difficulty (otherwise all the obejectives would be worth one point)then point total should represent the cumulated difficulty overcome to achieve such points. If Points are just points then make em all 1. But if the Points have any corelation to the Challenge of the objective, then yes…capturing points when there is no or low enemy population in WvW should be worth far less. A 20% decrease in value is more than adequate.

titanlectro.5029:

Svarty.8019:

titanlectro.5029:

PabbyGaul.9682:

Apparently, there aren’t any ecologists that play/program in this game.

The slow polarization of WvW servers is inevitable because the system doesn’t mimic reality and is being played by real people. There is NO incentive to move to lower populated areas because right now More Population = More Kills = More Rewards. Its not rocket science…….its ecology.

Scale Magic Find, Drop Rates and Experience based on simulating a limited resource (Bags) rather than an infinite one (because its computer game) and the problem solves itself.

The result would be that high population servers have a severely impaired Magic Find, Drop rate, and Experience bonus in WvW. WHY?….Because in reality bags don’t drop out of thin air, they are a limited resource. So if there’s only a thousand bags to be had, I would much rather be after them with only 50 ppl rather than 2000. Making these stat bonuses inversely proportional to population mimics the reality that when you have lots and lots of people good stuff is harder to find. Exp would scale also because fighting on lower populations is simply more challenging. If it wasn’t people wouldn’t be leaving. If yer always the underdog why shouldn’t their efforts be considered more difficult? Isnt experience related to the difficulty of the task…ect.

So….the solution is really simple. Limit rewards in a way that mimics the consequences of actual population size.

The details of this idea were already submitted via Adopt-A-Dev. Would welcome some criticism.

This is perfectly inline with my analysis also.
(for reference :https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/Solution-to-fix-the-population-imbalance/4438581)

I propose a test! Lets give this idea a try for a few months.

This is one of the least disruptive ideas. It will not break server communities or server coordination or large group combat or any of that stuff. It is not overly complicated. If it works, then we can be done with all of these crazy “remake everything about WvW” ideas. If it doesn’t work, then there is nothing stopping Anet from doing something more drastic later.

This idea has a lot of potential benefits, and very few risks. Most of these other ideas come with huge risks and sacrifices (including the one Anet proposed); some might even completely ruin WvW and turn it into EotM. Before we try anything drastic, lets give this simple but powerful tweak a try.

His suggestion is the Outmanned buff by another name. Look how well that works as incentive to move to an Outmanned map (i.e. it doesn’t). Scale it to server size. Personallly, I don’t see it having the desired effect.

It could also be abused by the “server riding” effect where swathes of people transfer to a low server and ride it up the league, then repeat.

This suggestion is significantly different than the Outmanned buff.

Outmanned is a minor buff (1.3x loot) that effects a map only so long as it has 4v1 odds.

The suggested change will effect the loot for entire servers. Every server in T8 would be getting a massive loot bonus relative to T1. Before the population begins to balance out, that difference could be more than 3x the loot. That bonus would not go away just because a guild group switched maps.

If a large group of people transfer to a server, then that bonus would decrease (assuming that it is tied to man-hours as it should be). They could not cheese the system that way. They only way to “manipulate” the system would be to constantly transfer to underdog servers, which is EXACTLY what we want to have happen.

Here is the best part. We could try it and see who is right! If the naysays are correct, then we can try something else, no harm done.

Haha…excellent….SEE HE^ Gets it!

SO….After reviewing the majority of this thread I see 4 main types of choices.

1. DO nothing (lol…mostly suggested by upper-tier servers)
2. Mergers, whether permanently or temporarily (Battlegroups, Alliances, Mergers)
3. Map Caps (limit player #s on a map by population size)
4. Scaling Bonuses based on server population bigger=less (Wxp,MF,PPT,Bonuses….ect)

I think future posts should compare and contrast all these basic types because this thread is becoming rather splintered.
Personally:

1. Doing nothing is how we got here. If 900 posts in a few days suggests something is broken, that might be it.

2. MESSY, Can-of-Worms, Pandora’s Box. Same Problem..Alliance Stacking…ect. Solutions shouldn’t potentially create more problems than they fix.

3. Limits, scaling or not certainly solve the fairness problem, but to me its a potentially crippling limitation to even low population serves. That ONE opportunity they get to rush and smash the Green server’s keep because they FINALLY have enough people to carry enough supply and then….sorry level cap….go back to defending with your already limited resources and continue to be forced into a battle of attrition which we are more likely to lose anyway….Haha..rage quit.

4. Simple (meaning least complex) solution, scaling by population to increase buffs, Wxp, MF, defense, PPT…ect seems far Easier to implement, easier to adjust, and far more transparent. And of course this was the concept I also suggested so of course Im biased but that’s because being a biologist, I tend to work with balance, whether enzymatic reactions, chemistry, ecology, evolution, or WvW. Balance requires a continuously dynamic adjustment by 2 opposing forces i.e Supply/Demand, Cost/Befefit, Risk/Reward, Positive/Negative…I could go on and on. Currently there is Only one force in WvW regarding population…More = Better…. So until an opposing force is applied to get people to lower population servers, the stacking will continue.

5. Kinda related….Global GvG (not requiring them to be in your match-up) would seriously reduce SO much stacking and population polarization. Pls give these people the means to compete whenever wherever. It will be better for everyone.

People keep saying that there is some kind of reward besides loot and experience for being on a high population server….I would challenge you to try an uncouple that from gold, money, karma, experience,…..ect. Good luck…..It cant seriously be the chest thumping for that Pug that zerged his way through tournament. I doubt his sense of server pride was inflated to such a degree it would dissuade him from the other rewarding aspects of the game…like loot.

Who had that idea…a “Megaserver” for GvG….Awesome Idea…Seriously awesome idea.

munkiman.3068:

Limiting rewards is completely counter-intuitive to the goal of this game type, but it’s typically ANets answer to things. We would actually want to bring more players to the mode and in turn not isolate higher pop servers “as the root problem”. More than anything, the migration has a lot to do with the modes design, there is simply more action and balance when maps are populated, not to mention people typically enjoy winning. It doesn’t have to be that way. I’m vehemently opposed to “punishment” as a tool to force people to move. You limit things you introduce, not things that are already there. It highly uninspired to simply nerf one system, while neglecting others.

While there is a time when something needs to be lowered (exploits, high yield farming spots, etc.), rewards in WvW are definitely not one of them. While i agree, EotM is a bit to out of balance vs WvW, it’s really a design flaw, more than a need to purge EotM of rewards (not that you’re particular post is speaking to EotM). Players want rewarding content (rewarding can mean more than just loot, you know). The reward in top tier has far more to do with the design of the game mode, then the mostly junk that drops from loot bags.

I’d actually argue that top tier servers aren’t getting near as much champ bags as mid tier, since there’s more contest when they roll to an objective, slowing the income, I certainly don’t know this for a fact, however.

I personally would like to stop thinking terms of imposing limits on an already tightly monitored, fairly unrewarding (besides winning good fights) system. Caps that cause longer queues on highly pop servers, things that focus on high pop servers rewards, in order to “force” balance are simply crappy solutions, they are “one click fixes”. I think most of us are growing tired of those.

I don’t think high-population servers are the root of the problem. I think the imbalance is simply human nature, playing the game against the rules they are given. Its all artificial. If you want it function in verisimilitude yer gonna have to simulate it.

Well “punishment” is necessary in any balanced system. Pick any naturally balanced system and you will find that something pull in the opposite direction, generally something that directly counters that which is pulling in the other direction and is related to the consequences for doing so. Just how it is. rarely do things people want come without a price, there are natural consequence for practically everything worth having, doing ect. In essence we are really just taking the “bonus” from the higher tier servers and giving it to the lower tiers. So, it snot just a punishment, someone gets a Bonus! And the point would not be to force anyone, simply put the stuff in place and let it work itself out.

As many have mention, Overpopulation, Coverage, Rewards, Tournaments, all related. We submitted about 20-30 different changes. Its like 7 pages of stuff…If people are interested I could post I suppose.

You are correct in that the number of bags is only limited by how many people you can kill…that’s why I used the expression More Players = More Kills = More Bags. And yes the bags come out of thin air, electrons I suppose. Where exactly was your character storing all the bags he has dropped over his time in WvW? Quite the warehouse that would have to be and so the problem is that the source of the loot is infinite. The bottleneck is simply population size, which doesn’t require a genius to figure out that if I make the bottleneck to the infinite source of loot wider, I will get more bags. So the fact that an infinite source exists and is only limited by population it drives people to higher population servers, not just BG. Its simply. More Players (not just on Blackgate) = More Kills(Not just on Blackgate) = More Bags(Not just on blackgate). I understand that IF BG went against ET there wouldn’t be enough bags for BG but that’s because the bottleneck would still be tiny (source would still be infinite), servers are matched by bottleneck naturally because scoring is largely a function of population.

It would be silly to transfer to BG for the purpose of gaining Xp, since like every other server (not just blackgate) EoTm is far easier to level in. The increase in Wxp could be an incentive for some but really it just represents a natural consequence of being on a lower population server. WvW is simply more difficult down there. Not sure that’s up for debate. Everyone knows that WvW is not a great place for making money. Most commanders barely support their commanding habit and profit. I have no doubt that many people would still play WvW even if ther was No Drop or Experience. The point is not to EMPTY the top servers, that would be silly. Its to provide incentive to adjust population. Because the Majority of people want to get Rewards WHILE they Have fun. If it was just loot/rewards we would all be playing PvE, doing champ trains. So after the dust settles the kind of players I would imagine be in the higher tier servers would be people that are > 2000 wvw rank, have mostly ascended gear on all their toons, have their legendaries, and could care less about getting bags. Those are the kinds of people I would think would end up at the top, where people that want stuff while they have fun will be in the middle, and people that want lotsa stuff and be rewarded for the challenges will be in the bottom tiers. This diversifies the population and should spread out the population unless people really hate bags, exotics, ascended drops, ect as much as you think they do. In which case at least the lower tier servers will have more reason to enjoy WvW.

“the population difference in WvW at the moment are based on people moving around looking for a competitive environment that they enjoy (large-scale, small-scale, easy-wins, underdogs, etc) and/or people not moving for the sake of server-loyalty or simply wanting to stay put and play with their friends.”

True people move for those reasons. So, the current situation (5 full Servers out of 24) suggests that the majority of people flooding the upper tiers are looking for what? Underdog situations and small scale fights?

Imposing some reality to let people make their own decisions is far better than forcing people to join with other larger servers in EoTM like matchups or directly scaling map caps in lower population servers. Rather than continue to add unjustified artificiality, why not take a page out of nature’s book. After-all its been doing it quite well for a very long time.

There are a number of other changes, about 30 we suggested and submitted, many of which are related that deal with coverage and tournaments ect.

Apparently, there aren’t any ecologists that play/program in this game.

The slow polarization of WvW servers is inevitable because the system doesn’t mimic reality and is being played by real people. There is NO incentive to move to lower populated areas because right now More Population = More Kills = More Rewards. Its not rocket science…….its ecology.

Scale Magic Find, Drop Rates and Experience based on simulating a limited resource (Bags) rather than an infinite one (because its computer game) and the problem solves itself.

The result would be that high population servers have a severely impaired Magic Find, Drop rate, and Experience bonus in WvW. WHY?….Because in reality bags don’t drop out of thin air, they are a limited resource. So if there’s only a thousand bags to be had, I would much rather be after them with only 50 ppl rather than 2000. Making these stat bonuses inversely proportional to population mimics the reality that when you have lots and lots of people good stuff is harder to find. Exp would scale also because fighting on lower populations is simply more challenging. If it wasn’t people wouldn’t be leaving. If yer always the underdog why shouldn’t their efforts be considered more difficult? Isnt experience related to the difficulty of the task…ect.

So….the solution is really simple. Limit rewards in a way that mimics the consequences of actual population size.

The details of this idea were already submitted via Adopt-A-Dev. Would welcome some criticism.

Fluffball.8307:

Did any devs wind up on FA? I think we’re in a rather unique position with the whole T2 thing. Half way between glory and complete misery.

Lol. Even the Dev’s know that yer the only server that has to pay people to like you.

Pat Cavit.9234:

I signed up with Starfleet Dental [SFD] on Maguuma, I hear they’re very professional.

/slowclap

SFD has taken their trolling to a new level. I am impressed.

HEY NSP!….WE FOUND YOUR DEV!!!

I think he got lost….Looks like he got in a fight with a wild ram in the wilderness…he didn’t make it…..You should take better care of him.

Zera Allimatti.2541:

I’m not sure if this has been brought up before. Frankly, I’m not going to dig through the refuse that is the forums to see if there is another thread on this already, because man there are a lot of cringe-inducing threads here.

…….and the rest of it….

Hate it. Why does everyone need to get a medal? Why does this have to be the special Olympics where everyone wins? Your idea would honestly make me stop playing Gw2 all together. Lol, your post makes me cringe. Sounds like turning WvW players into welfare recipients.

If there is no one in WvW move to another server if you cant handle it, pay the money because you gave up. OR organize your community to suck less and enjoy fighting in your tier even if that t8. Fighting up from the bottom is the fun part. I transferred DOWN to have fun and fight difficult battles and learn to command vastly outnumbered. Seven ranks later I cant say that I feel proud of the server that Im on even if we aren’t at the top. A lot of people worked really hard, trained really hard, and we (the server) measure our successes several nights a week. It makes a strong wvw and a strong community.

You want to turn WvW into a ktrain! You must be a PvE’er, cuz I don’t know a WvW’er that would say such things. Blasphemy!

I think the t1 serves don’t have enough people…So if I were you I would transfer back up there.
Otherwise if Silver:

If you are into hacking I suggest: BP
Pug Blobs: GoM
Drama Queens: CD
PPT Tryhards: IOJ
Live in towers: YP/BP
Bandwagon: DR

But do not come to HoD>>>we will beat you to death with the red carpet.

Choose option
3) Go back to PvE and save your gems for a new Char Plush Backpack cover:)

spvp?…not WvW…not even close.

I feel sorry for any bandwagoners that come to HoD for season 3…they will get beat to death with a red carpet.

HAHAHA IOJ…We aren’t Lagging wondered why you deserted our keep in our BL?

Gw2 and most other MMOs are about community. By trying to integrate all these communities, servers, guilds, and groups we have effectively destroyed the very thing we play for….community. What is the point of going to a map to play with your guildies when it ques, or you end up in a different map. Human beings are wired to be communal animals. Take it away and we will find it elsewhere.

Sure, you can do Teq and some other mega-bosses…..but what about the other 99% of the time? Who wants to deal with different trolls, gold sellers, and bots? With the megaserver there is always another one to take its place, you cant block it and therefore you wont stop it.

As a primarily WvW player I enjoy the presence of the PvE community. They are a rock, when I come out I enjoy mingling with my PvE server mates and perhaps embarking on some unique adventure while discussing the battlefront stories. But alas….no more. I feel that my home, my sanctuary has been invaded my other-worldly griefers and I don’t even talk to ppl in LA anymore, I cant count on ppl being there, I cant check in to see how things went for the day. “So join a guild”….There is a lot of Inter-guild community…like the entire server. We can only have so many guilds. I used to enjoy my server but now I and so many others are so isolated. There was once a community, which, the megaserver effectively destroys.

Honestly, I am unsure how much longer I will play Gw2. It saddens me that such a wonderful and beautiful game has had the heart and soul of the MMO ripped out of it.

Good thing those lower pop servers got to kill Teq though right? Was it worth it?

Roll it back ANET!!

Gw2 and most other MMOs are about community. By trying to integrate all these communities, servers, guilds, and groups we have effectively destroyed the very thing we play for….community. What is the point of going to a map to play with your guildies when it ques, or you end up in a different map. Human beings are wired to be communal animals. Take it away and we will find it elsewhere.

Sure, you can do Teq and some other mega-bosses…..but what about the other 99% of the time? Who wants to deal with different trolls, gold sellers, and bots? With the megaserver there is always another one to take its place, you cant block it and therefore you wont stop it.

As a primarily WvW player I enjoy the presence of the PvE community. They are a rock, when I come out I enjoy mingling with my PvE server mates and perhaps embarking on some unique adventure while discussing the battlefront stories. But alas….no more. I feel that my home, my sanctuary has been invaded my other-worldly griefers and I don’t even talk to ppl in LA anymore, I cant count on ppl being there, I cant check in to see how things went for the day. There is a lot of Inter-guild community, which I think the megaserver effectively destroys.

Honestly, I am unsure how much longer I will play Gw2. It saddens me that such a wonderful and beautiful game has had the heart and soul of the MMO ripped out of it.

Good thing those lower pop servers got to kill Teq though right? Was it worth it?

Tanked Up Support Staff Elementalist

Tanked up, I’m a good middle ground…So I know when its too tough for the zerg…Tankier classes will still be yelling ppl forward when the majority of the zerg won’t survive.

You can stand in the fight dropping AOE right on yourself.

You can range with the best to AOE ACs Mortars or that Strategic static to cut the enemy zerg in half.

I can drop most fields and blast them myself if needed.

Spells such as Meteor Shower, Static, and Walls allow you to shape the battlefield.

Mistform, Burning Retreat, or Teleport to get you out of tough Spots while still being visible.

Attunement bonuses dropping to everyone around you every-time you change. Yer like a boon machine, the right attunement for the right situation.

And on-top of all that….Everyone is amazed your an ele:)