Guild Wars 2

Pinko.2076:

Clearly Calvin was carrying DB, and without him, there’s a large coverage gap before the SEA can log in. How will DB cover the Calvin gap?

Is Calvin really gone? Can we finally come out from our hiding?

If Devon destroys GvGs instead of simply changing the content of the new Bloodlust buff, he’ll be the most stubborn developer I’ve ever seen.

Ogre.1750:

Hello Devon, welcome to the thread. Thank you for stopping by. The paste, although a bit vage, mildly suggests we should be worried about the continuity of our practices, at least short term. It’s a bit unsettling, but I understand the logic behind your decision. I only ask you guys to consider something on the lines of this:

Jinks.2057:

Ask for option to turn off orb bonuses ala commander tags

This not only solves GvG but FC duels as well.

Now get me my GvG forums

Seems rather easy to me, but of course I know nothing of your struggles. Just hoping you see to ours.

Oh god you quoted Jinks again.

nytehex.3267:

LAD Infinitum.1675:

So … any interest in starting a pool for how soon this thread reaches Lock-able proportions?

hey kyle, didn’t you quit this game? as i recall, you left calling me an kitten despite the fact I did nothing wrong. Many BP feel this way though, and to be honest, I couldn’t give 2 kittens about it.

So far as the match up goes, good luck to DB.

Well, that was quick. Off to a good start.

saiyr.3071:

Evalana.5480:

saiyr.3071:

Hi Evalana, prepare to be hunted :O

Can you hunt me and give me a hug rather than stab me in the face with a sharp pointy object? I’m already going to have to be concerned with getting bashed in the face with hammers and other silly things.

Oh I’m soo excited – going to be lots of good fights this week (if the guilds we are facing ever break off and do their own things – DAT ZERG)

I reinstalled GW2 and it’s still telling me that my archive is corrupt, so no. I’m throwing my computer out the window.

It’s retribution for you breaking Google the other day.

Well, I imagine Duke is happy.

Coldtart.4785:

A guardian with exotic armour as its only source has 2127 armour. At 3000 that means effective hp is 141%. Add a judgement signet and it’s around 157%. That means your armour is effectively 3333.3 or 3000*10/9.

So it’s just a 10% bonus to armor, then.

Thrumdi.9216:

Asudementio.8526:

Bailey.6892:

Mystery.7392:

So….

No new map.
Nothing about GvG
Adding sPVP into WvW
No Golem Mastery (hehe)

Well done…. good way to kill the WvW.

No new map does blow
Nothing about gvg is as it should be
adding spvp into wvw just plain stup er a mistake
no golem mastery…that seems golemist

What is wrong with adding an spvp element to WvW? More open air un-walled objectives that can make a difference is a good thing as it will draw players into the field.

I think at this point we all have to understand WvW is not going to be DAoC II. That just isn’t how they designed the game, and it’s too late to change it now.

The nub: WvW is an Arena for zergs.

By adding sPvP to WvW, they are providing an Arena for 5 mans and roamers.

Under the circumstances, that is the best that can be hoped for.

I feel like the new capture zones will be dominated by zergs.

Can someone here calculate the effective armor of a guardian with 3k armor running signet of judgment? It gives a flat 10% direct damage reduction.

I’m extremely happy that there were no concrete details revealed about the buff. This means that there is a possibility that the dev team is reevaluating the actual stats or lack thereof on the buff. If so, this means that they are actually listening to the community.

I am cautious, but I have hope for Devon, yet. Be patient and polite, guys, and we might just get something we can all agree on.

This is actually a very interesting thread. I’m bad at math, though, so some more prosey examples would be appreciated.

Cymric.7368:

All I am reading in this post is ppl crying about siege stopping their wxp train, which they justify as “good fights”. Sorry no, defending an objective already have crappy reward as it is. There is no need to nerf siege such that people are even less inclined to defend.

I think you misunderstood. I don’t really care if we take the keep or not, I just miss utilizing the relatively unique terrain and layouts of keeps in fights. It was fun to fight inside outer of garrison. Now it’s just a death trap of red circles.

So, guys… Idea. GvGvG.

Boom.

Mif.3471:

ParaldaWind.4523:

Devon Carver

Holding a tower against all odds with some smart siege placement and a bit of luck may be one of the most fun things I’ve ever done in a video game.

Maybe for you, Devon, but not for all of us.

Your retort basically boils down to “Speak for yourself, I speak for everyone”.
Here’s an idea, how about you speak for yourself too.

I didn’t say I speak for everyone… I was specifically speaking about myself and my guild. Hence why I didn’t say something like, “You’re the only one who feels this way.” I’m sure there are people who like using arrow carts to wipe zergs… I’m just not one of them.

SHAKA ZULU.3128:

LilMcGinley.3890:

SHAKA ZULU.3128:

LilMcGinley.3890:

Give Arrow Carts limited ammo.. problem solved. You want 20 ACs? congratz you just blew all your supply when you have to rebuild them

That’s interesting. Would you figure all projectile-based siege should have this? Do you think there could be a mechanic to feed it more ammo, but it would cost you?

For other projectile based siege.. it’s iffy. They don’t hold the same “lock down” power that ACs do. It would be really interesting to decide.. upgrade Garrison or treb Bay? Now you can do both really easily.

If there was a way to “reload” them, take it from available supply in the Keep but only after a worker upgrade. You upgrade your workers to “Ammunition Mechanics” for 300 supply and they will reload X number of AC every Y minutes.

The spammability of ACs puts them in-line with thieves, thus creating problems.

I like this. I would also think it could replace siege timer. There would definitely be a steep learning curve for pugs not to just fire ACs willy nilly, but I get kind of tired of catering to that end of spectrum when it means throwing away would could be an interesting tactical change. The option to reload in a tower or keep would also keep them out of the open filed fights more. Hmm. You are right, as it stands now you don’t have to choose between sieging a nearby objective and upgrades, you get the whole shebang which doesn’t require a lot of thought. So maybe over time this encourages upgraded keeps before sieging surrounding towers and that, I do like.

This is a bit complex, but anything would be better than the crazy godlike deathmachines that arrow carts have become.

saiyr.3071:

So uh, is it bad that I never noticed individual match views could display group comps? That’s pretty cool. Not that anyone uses it, I guess.

I think I used it once. Maybe.

EDIT: Yep.

http://www.gw2gvg.com/match.php?id=438

dreztina.4820:

It may be that siege weapons aren’t the problem, but rather you have simply gotten sick of the less competitive nature of objective fights and are just wanting more skill based combat.

I’m sure that’s part of it, but I used to have some really fun fights in keeps, now I avoid those as much as possible.

Edeor.9720:

Beyond the excellent arguments of the op, in my opinion it would be sufficient to submit the acs to the laws of physics.

Right now the acs can shoot through walls and ceilings, and this is just absurd, and to be honest even the skill cd is ridiculous. Come on, just a couple of seconds to reload a weapon that shoots dozens of arrows, are you kidding me?

I’ve long said that this would be an appropriate fix, as well. Make the spell have an actual cast time, like a ballista, require it to have psuedo-LOS, and then maybe make the projectiles blockable with spells like swirling winds or wall of absorption.

SHAKA ZULU.3128:

ParaldaWind.4523:

That’s a good point, and I think you’re right on a lot of things.

The siege buff, in my opinion, was intended to allow small groups to have a counter to larger groups. It makes sense, on paper, but I feel like it’s effectively just changed the rules of WvW. Now people don’t attack keeps for fights, and don’t try to siege with even numbers, they just kind of zergball things down because they have to. While it is great for 5 people to be able to defend against 20, those 20 just come back with 60 and steamroll through. It hurts only the 20-30 man groups, which, while large, are a lot more fun to run in and run against than the 60-80 man blobs we see so regularly now.

It’s true, instead of it being a hard counter it just buys you another defense tick pretty much. With the new golem meta ACs are little less effective on the initial push, at least. I also think instead of players thinking “siege is buffed, now I will be more strategic with my placement, less is now more!” it turned into “siege is buffed, let’kitten the siege cap in one keep alone!” I am starting to think this mentality also actually undermines the effectiveness of long term, solid, keep defense, and pushes the karma train/zergballing harder, since you’re pouring hundreds of supply into siege and basically none into restoration if you manage to push the enemy out. They’ll just return in full force, manmode the gate down that wasn’t repaired, and the neo-keep siege/defense cycle continues until attrition by AC happens. I am rambling and that’s moving off topic a little though. Sorry.

Your rambling is good, though. I think it shows that there are a lot of unintended consequences that accompany such sweeping buffs without much testing. I know the devs didn’t intend for this to happen, but I think that they need to at least sit down and talk to us about the effects that the changes have made, because, as you noted in your post, there are a LOT of really complicated consequences to their actions, especially when the changes are so drastic.

MartyPartys.9187:

Has anyone taken into account that if you get blown off the cliff you’re out of the match?

Oh and my apologies to Lion, the leaderboard has been fixed.

It’s far enough away from the cliff that I think it wouldn’t be a problem.

Also, unrelated, I’m really looking forward to your changes to the GvG site!

Excalibur.9748:

It’s still too easy to take a tower. Siege needs to be buffed more I think.

I don’t think that it should take a long time to take objectives, personally. Taking objectives makes fights happen. Fights are fun. Siege makes fights not happen. Therefore, siege is not fun.

This is just my opinion, but I think a lot of other guilds share it. We like the PvP aspect, not necessarily the score or points. Before the AC change, we could get the PvP aspect by sieging keeps or towers, but now it doesn’t feel the same way.

I want to contribute to my server’s score, and I think that I mostly do, but I would play the game as intended a LOT more if ACs didn’t completely invalidate most strategy. My guild can only really raid for 3-4 hours a night, tops. Do you really think we want to spend half of that on one objective? If we roam open field, we can get 5-6 fights in that same amount of time. We used to be able to get good fights in keeps, but we can’t anymore, because of the overpowered arrow carts and other siege.

saiyr.3071:

I think the place he’s talking about has a lot of unsteady ground that requires jumping for straight line movement.

No, it’s pretty flat. It’s basically right underneath the chest, at the very bottom. If you assume that the water is level 0, this is basically level 1. Then level 2 is above it, with level 3 being the chest at the end. It’s beside the random stairs that go nowhere.

There are a few places where you get stuck autorunning, I think, but they’re pretty few. If I could get in game now I’d go there and take screenshots.

SHAKA ZULU.3128:

Oh, a post not insulting half the player base while making cohesive arguments. I knew I ♥‘ed Maguuma for good reasons. I feel like I can respond to this without being eaten alive. You’ve given me some things to think about, I think I am on the fence.

On one hand, the AC changes have been gr8 for small groups to defend against larger groups and even the field a little, for which I am grateful as I run in a 5 man 75% of the time, on the other hand, you’re right, I am also getting tired of sieging things for 2+ hours only for it all to end in an unbreakable choke, and now I also have to worry about getting my supply taken from trebs (different argument I guess).

I think it’s getting to the point where instead of feeling like a long siege was a good investment of my time (like it used to be when it ended in an explosive throwdown in the lord’s room) I know I’ll just regret it in the end since it will have taken a sizeable %age out of my night where I could’ve been having a great actual pvp fight w/o siege elsewhere. Meat grinders used to be rare and a rallying cry for an outpopped server, now they’re expected in lieu of even fights. You can’t realistically expect to take keeps with anything less than 15 people anymore, whereas I feel like I did this much more often in the past. I don’t dislike siege at all, I do think it has turned into a crutch though.

That’s a good point, and I think you’re right on a lot of things.

The siege buff, in my opinion, was intended to allow small groups to have a counter to larger groups. It makes sense, on paper, but I feel like it’s effectively just changed the rules of WvW. Now people don’t attack keeps for fights, and don’t try to siege with even numbers, they just kind of zergball things down because they have to. While it is great for 5 people to be able to defend against 20, those 20 just come back with 60 and steamroll through. It hurts only the 20-30 man groups, which, while large, are a lot more fun to run in and run against than the 60-80 man blobs we see so regularly now.

Thesilentflute.8761:

Listen I used your guys proposed numbers even though they are most likely under the actual number. If your guilds use more than 20 people there is no documents to support it. You gave me a incorrect estimation incorrectly I gave you the proper numbers and the proper totals; I am sorry you don’t like the answer. I was just doing the math for fun anyway.

What? Every guild cycles in more than 20 people for their GvGs. Do you think that any single guild uses the exact same 20 people for every GvG they’ve ever had?

Your outspokenness on GvGs contrasts pretty highly with your actual knowledge of them…

Hickeroar.9734:

I think there would have to be lots of trial runs in any given location that was chosen so we could determine if it’s fair. Teams switching sides, etc. I don’t think anyone would be willing to just permit a new location without any real trial period and lots of scrimmages.

I think that’s fair. I played comp Tribes Ascend, and some maps weren’t symmetrical, and it lead to some fun strategies. Certain sides were better for certain group comps, and people switched it up based on what they rolled. I’d like to see something like that for GvGs.

saiyr.3071:

The proposed rules suggest an odd number of matches, so that would be an issue.

That’s a good point. I’m not sure, then.

Thesilentflute.8761:

Because they don’t “GvG” Iol did you really have to ask.

… yes they do? Almost every active player in my guild GvGs at some point. It’s the same in most guilds.

Wompage.4586:

Thesilentflute.8761:

Wompage.4586:

Thesilentflute.8761:

Lol xenn that was the reason she had to times it by two because I counted both na and eu. I think she is counting each gvg team as 75 people which is ridiculous.

Aren’t you counting each GvG guild as 20? Equally ridiculous

No I am counting each “GvG” team their guild might have 500 people but only 20 “gvg” it is after all the avg team size.

So… you’re counting the WHOLE playerbase to support your argument, but only counting 20 players in each guild?
Please, please elaborate and tell me how that makes sense, when saying GvG guilds are <1% of the playerbase, when you don’t count the members in those guilds?

Exactly, this makes no sense. My guild doesn’t use the same 15-20 people in EVERY GvG. We all jump in and out over time. I’d say we’ve had at least 50 different people in our GvGs.

Hickeroar.9734:

Wompage.4586:

Hickeroar.9734:

Wompage.4586:

Hickeroar.9734:

Also, maybe abandoning the “flat, even terrain” could be good for GvG. Fighting in the ruins while having to deal with cover, terrain, etc, could make for some very interesting fights.

It needs to be even, no matter what side you start from though.

Sorry, even as in “fair,” yes, absolutely.

Even as in “square and (mostly) flat” just happens to be the present meta, but that doesn’t mean it has to be that way.

I mean 1 side can’t have an advantage based on which side they choose to start from. Thats what I mean by even.

Righto. I agree. One would argue that the current windmill arena is not entirely “fair” in that regard, so I think we could shoot for at least that level of “fair” and be fine.

I don’t have a problem with hazards, terrain, and structures though, as long as (as you said) the starting positions don’t give an advantage. I personally think that kind of fighting could be fun. It’s at least something to think about anyway….?

To balance it out, we could have the starting sides rotate.

CreativeAnarchy.6324:

ParaldaWind.4523:

CreativeAnarchy.6324:

I asked for a buff to siege in general so your statement that no one asked for a buff is incorrect.

Siege still needs to hit a bit harder.

I appreciate you responding, but you should read more than the first paragraph.

I don’t think siege needs to hit any harder. If you’re arguing that siege discourages blobs, I think it encourages them, because blobs can carry more supply and build more counter siege.

On my server, one of the commanders told me he doesn’t even attack keeps unless he has 600+ supply available to him. That’s what arrow carts have done to the game.

I didn’t care to read further. It started out as a complaint against siege so I’m going to ignore the rest.

If you didn’t complain, I would have read further. Since you did, I don’t care about your issue.

Whelp, thanks for adding to the discussion, I guess.

Wompage.4586:

To those people saying “go to the JP, problem solved” show me a spot in the jumping puzzle with enough room for 40 combatants + spectators, please.

I don’t want to move to the JP, but I did find a decent 20v20 spot. Right after the dome where mesmers normally port, there’s a pretty large open area. Bigger than the windmill area, I think.

Thesilentflute.8761:

20 players. if you didn’t use my number how did you come up with 10%?

I just said how I got my numbers… are you not a native English speaker?

Thesilentflute.8761:

Then you cant use my numbers ill get the na totals one sec.

I didn’t use your numbers. I estimated NA GvG guilds having 75 active players on average, multiplied by 55 guilds, totaling 4125 players.

Are you estimating only 15-20 players per guild..?

CreativeAnarchy.6324:

I asked for a buff to siege in general so your statement that no one asked for a buff is incorrect.

Siege still needs to hit a bit harder.

I appreciate you responding, but you should read more than the first paragraph.

I don’t think siege needs to hit any harder. If you’re arguing that siege discourages blobs, I think it encourages them, because blobs can carry more supply and build more counter siege.

On my server, one of the commanders told me he doesn’t even attack keeps unless he has 600+ supply available to him. That’s what arrow carts have done to the game.

Caliban.3176:

MacLeod.4208:

Towers and forts should either give the defenders a huge advantage (like in real life) or they should just get rid of them all together, imho.

I would personally like to see fewer towers and keeps on the map and a lot more open space.

But they already do. Defenders have always had a great advantage over attackers even before that AC mistake Anet made.

I also agree very much with the OP. I had an idea of going back to the old AC thread (I have a couple of posts in that thread actually) and saying that I was wrong. AC’s didn’t ruin the game entirely. The players just went out of their way to avoid the new arrowcarts. One obvious example being GvG or like you said how you just abandan objectives because there is no point in attacking them anymore. The fair fights are gone and it is no longer fun.

Thanks for making this post.

I agree completely. The guilds avoid the objectives almost completely now, and that’s just really… boring. The game isn’t ruined, just less fun to play like we used to.

We adjusted the fun meta, as it is. ACs are imba… to fun.

Thesilentflute.8761:

ParaldaWind.4523:

Whoops, 49218.75 total would be more accurate. The GvG scene still makes up about 10% of that, though.

You still have to times it by two for the eu servers because the “gvg” player total is from both NA and EU.

I only counted NA GvG guilds and servers because I felt like I could make a more accurate estimate of those servers and guilds. EU has more GvG guilds, and less total players, so I imagine the percentages for them would be different.

Achilles.2197:

what if the Outnumbered buff gave that server the ability to take reduced AC damage?

OR

the buff gave the outnumbered server the ability to deploy arrow carts controlled by an npc (assuming bugs are minimal/nonexistent [lul]).

If the new Orbs reduced AC damage I would be the happiest person on the planet.

style.6173:

@OP Long post. I definitely agree with one thing. Players want to be able to PvP without a lot of gimmicky siege or NPCs. Given that WvW is turning more into PvE every day, I do think that is helping drive the GvG scene. GvG would happen regardless but the WvW direction is definitely helping.

You’re definitely right about that. Before May, there was still a thriving GvG scene, but I think it’s growing much faster due to there being so few good fights outside of GvG.

The main point I’m trying to make is that I used to have a lot of fun fighting in keeps and towers, and now I don’t. That sucks and I wish it wasn’t that way.

Whoops, 49218.75 total would be more accurate. The GvG scene still makes up about 10% of that, though.

I’m terrible at math, but so is Flute, so let’s get going.

Assuming (we’re going to have to do this a lot) that each map queues around 100 people, and there are 4 maps, at any given time, each server can only have about 400 people playing. Also assuming that the average player that would be considered “hardcore” plays for an hour a day, and assuming (big jump here) that every player in WvW is “hardcore,” we get some pretty interesting numbers.

If a server has a queue on every map 24/7, cycling out each of their players each hour, with those same players returning to play the next day, there are about 9600 “active” WvW players per server. No servers are queued all day every day, most don’t even come close. Even NA T1 doesn’t have a queue on every map all day every day. Outside of NA primetime, which lasts about 5 hours, I don’t think there are ever all 4 maps queued for T1. I would estimate that each NA T1 server probably have 5000 active players. NA T2 averages about 75% of that, and NA T3 about half, I would say. Assuming this trend, we can poorly calculate these numbers:

T1 – 5000
T2 – 3750
T3 – 2500
T4 – 1875
T5 – 1250
T6 – 937.5
T7 – 625
T8 – 468.75

Total: 16,406.25 (we can assume the .25 is SilentFlute). I’m bad at math, try not to be mad at me. I work in healthcare. Leave me alone.

Now let’s determine how many of these players are in guilds on the Gw2GvG site! I know that my guild is quite large, able to raid with around 30 almost any day, and I’d approximate that we have between 100 and 150 active players. There are a few guilds like Agg and VII that raid with between 20 and 30 most days but have small rosters (I believe Agg only has 60 or so players). So, let’s put the average guild on the Gw2GvG site who actually GvG at 75 active players on average.

Since there are 55 NA guilds on the GvG site who have recorded GvGs, this comes out to 4125 active NA GvG players.

With there being 4125 NA GvG players, and 16,406.25 total NA “Active” WvW players, I estimate that GvG guilds make up 25.14% of all active WvW players on NA. Hardly a small, vocal minority.

Also, I’m really bad at math and these numbers are probably terribly wrong, however, at least they’re not as bad as Flute’s.

Edit: whoops, forgot to multiply times 3. So about 9% of 49218.75.

Ogre.1750:

Jinks.2057:

Ask for option to turn off orb bonuses ala commander tags

This not only solves GvG but FC duels as well.

Now get me my GvG forums

Do everything this man asks you to do. He seems a gentleman and a scholar.

Oh no. Oh god no.

saiyr.3071:

I’m willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume the EP people trying to rez the thief just didn’t know better. It’ll be pretty obvious if he’s still in the guild or not next time we play TC and there are GvGs about.

This is probably the case. Them zerging down the 3-4 PYRO after that was a bit inappropriate, but I’m sure it was just a misunderstanding.

I was impressed at Odin’s quick decision with the thief, and I’m glad he’s taking action when appropriate. Props.

Jscull.2514:

Just fyi, a real skilled open field team that wins fights with the SAME classes everyday 85+% of the time will be a better representation of whose guild is better.

Setting up your so called GvG’s is just a collection of who can bring more counter classes and stack buffs/blast wells more. Sorry, GvG isnt the comparison you all think it is. Glad to see you want to finally move from zerging to fighting people….but “Setting” up your fights to play classes not everyone runs daily is just puzzzzzy kitten.

Guy said it before in this thread, GvG helps you get better for open field, but 99% of the people in this game think GvG is where your merit makes its mark. Start winning all your open field fights with less than your 15-20 basically “counter build teams”.

Show me one top ranked GvG guild that is bad at open field…

Sabull.5670:

Niim.9260:

Lanimal.6541:

On the topic of Banners, I dislike them and would want them to be a mechanic that is not allowed or at least restricted in GvGs. Granted, there is definitely a mini-game / skill in the banner/downed/rally game within every GvG round. My biggest problem with it is that it continues to propagate a stagnant meta of heavy melee train focus. If Banners were restricted or taken out of the picture I think the meta would become creative and evolve quicker.

I agree with this.

Correct. It promotes melee heavy play, it brings death without consiquence. It removes exitement because even the best bombs can be totally removed with a single drop of a banner. It is not spectator friendly for the same reason, those times we tried to cast a match with 5+ warbanners on both sides. O, boi those were the worst ones because the match basicly only started after all the banners are gone. You know that those first kills will not matter the least bit because of such heavy banner use.

And pls, OP or viability, and “is it good for the gvg (scene)” are different things. And we are talking about the latter!
I told you this Ogro and you expressed your “AAAA ok now I understand”. But still your counter arguments in this post are “its not overpowered, I never even used it” and “SPRT lost with 12 banners, not op”. We are talking about if it’s healthy for the gvg scene, matches to be about spamming banners for large part of the match.
Just in the same way we could talk about “is it healthy for tpvp for NPCs spawned by players to be so strong” or what ever. It’s about the design.
Odd seeing downed state haters supporting warbanners anyway :P.

It doesn’t bring more tactic or skill in the match due to the Warrior already being so abundant in the match so you can use them extensively. Lanimal.6541 already did a great post about it so I’m not going to go in detail and attempt do the same, just share my /agree. Just watching FURY vs GD sparring matches, which were great and all, but seeing 9 or 10 warbanners in a single cameraview really doesn’t bring warm and fuzzy feelings to my heart.

3 warbanners per team sounds like ideal situation to me.

Any restrictions on skills prevents GvG from remaining an accurate representation and simulation of real open field fights. I use GvG to improve for open field fights, and there are no skill restrictions there.

Thesilentflute.8761:

Benjamin.6235:

Thesilentflute.8761:

20v50 all day right! /rolls eyes

You’re running over two guilds. That’s at least 40v50. Throw on top of that all the spectators that will join in and you got at least 80v50. Have fun.

Lol it’s exhausting explaining everything rationally. A third party group would most likely not attack you because they have a free map to take. One of your own factions on the other hand have enough of a reason to crash the party, but in all reality will prolly be too busy trying to carry the map undermanned with the distraction of “GvG” on it.

You act like every map has a queue 24/7 and any deviating from the PPT game for an hour will ruin it for your respective server. Look at the list of guilds on http://www.gw2gvg.com/. I bet you will see guilds that you consider to be a pillar of your server on there, and I bet you that one of their gvgs has never inconvenienced your play.

Besides, PPT is just a measure of population and coverage anyways. 20 people from each side hardly will change how the week turns out. Until the score system is revised, GvGs do nothing to hurt people who play for PPT.

You sound like a necro.

I feel like ghost tonics are fine. A good commander can pick out a backliner by the color of their spells, not the look of their character.

That being said, it is definitely an unfair advantage against groups that like to focus fire. Not a huge advantage, but there definitely is one. I feel like if we wanted to be truly fair, it should be removed from GvGs. But it’s a very minimal difference to me.

Lenador.1436:

Shoo Pyro zerg of nercos, btw the EB commanders thank you for wiping TC reinforcements, unintended double team akittens finest

Protip: we had 33 people. 25 of them were minion master necros. 25*6=150.

Yaaaay AOE cap.

Pinko.2076:

That’s not how you private message someone.

^