Guild Wars 2

Hexinx.1872:

I’m happy to buy gems to buy things that would be useful in WvW -[…] maybe using gems so a roamer can claim a camp (not everyone has some guild that they can do this on, and the mechanism for your guild halls is too hefty for less than 9 players)

I agree with this. But in a way arenanet is too much against pay to win. Don’t get me wrong, I would hate it to be pay to win, but I don’t really care about skins and don’t buy them if I don’t want to use them all the time. And probably they wouldn’t implement the guild thing, because it would also be more pay-to-win than other things you can buy for gems.

I don’t think arenanet would make a sub fee for wvw and I personally don’t play any games with sub. But I would see them implementing a gw2-shop-integrated-“kickstarter” where you can donate to the changes that are too expensive for them to implement atm. So you wouldn’t get gems for the purchase, but help to get closer to a funding goal and as soon as they reached the funding goal the change will be done. If they don’t reach the goal in the time limit, you will get gems instead.

About SBI and the queues on our home DBL: if our favorite commander is there, there will be a queue, but he could be in the jumping puzzle and there would be a queue there

I personally don’t really like the DBL, because it is too much pve for wvw, distracting special buffs/debuffs, rarely any open zergfights happening and too much running time to get to any action. But I agree that we have EBG and the ABL for this already and if people like undistracted PPTing with roamers, then it surely is fun for them. So let them have it.

I came back to wvw with alpine BL and mostly stay on EBG and ABLs unless a commander needs more people on DBL.

We should be able to chose our WvW or PvP rank title as a title below our name (like all other titles). Problem solved.

Remember: the way it is right now is just as the community voted. The inbalance in this is on us as voters.

If I were you I would try to recycle the collection events or monuments to capture bloodlust on red BL. If this is too much work to program, then I guess the most balanced option is to remove the buff from it or make it map-specific only. Just make a vote on it so we can only blame ourselves

I think it is normal that gw2 balances around pvp and not wvw and of course there are some things, where the balance could be improved, but some classes will always be better for specific tasks and I don’t think it will be possible to balance this out completely for wvw. Also atm no class is clearly superior to others in wvw.
I think they should address boonsharing though (what ironically does exactly what you want and gives you the immunity to condis) and make the new HoT-classes less overpowered when compared to vanilla, so new players aren’t discouraged the second they step into wvw or pvp.

The penalty is that the player will have less life in downstate everytime he goes down. This is still active and makes it a lot easier to kill them in downstate.

I personally have died many many times while I was ressing someone. If you play a good group, then you know you should stomp and/or focusfire the downed with unblockable AoE, with ccs and damage. Everyone that is resing a player is stacked up thightly, does not do any damage and will struggle to react on something you do while they are ressing. Just take advantage of that.

I am sure Arenanet will watch the scores this week and react and change the linkups for next week if it is needed.

If Deso can’t even queue EB, then that’s on them. They should have enough players to do that without linkup, but if those players stay away and cry instead of playing, then of course this will not help the situation..

I think it is an interesting and more or less balanced linkup this week in NA. The higher servers only got none or very “small” linkups; middle tier-servers semi-small-linkups and the bottom got 2 similarly strong servers + 1 small one. It is hard to make a really balanced system, there are always some servers that will be “weaker” or “stronger” because of the linkup or tier they land in, but from my point of view it looks ok this way and will be interesting and competitive.

Cerby.1069:

Yb ppting way harder than u guys were able to in T4. Out of the 3 (cd/yb/sbi), sbi is still the one that belongs the most in T4.

Look at the scores SBI had when fighting in T4. It was higher than what CD ever reached and higher than YB right now and is currently beating SoS as well as CD clearly. CD belongs in T4 the most and I see nobody but you that doesn’t agree with that. But it will change with new linkups anyway.

@TorquedSoul
The problem with not having enough data before the change (like 2-3 months of data) is that you cannot really compare before and after the change with enough reliability as a few weeks do not show a trend (so for example if the trend was downwards even BEFORE the updates and if so how much).

About the missing Y-axis data. This is a no-go in any “scientific” publication in the fields I have worked in. But it is of course true, that for example news-media uses this kind of style to make small changes more dramatic. But I didn’t wanted to say that you use this to manipulate the opinion of others, just that the steep drops look differently when you use the whole axis on it.

So, let me get that right: you have the hypothesis, that the changes caused a drop in activity in wvw. You define your variables for participation as kills and capture points. And then you find an average raise after the changes, so data that CONFLICTS your hypothesis. But instead of accepting that the data points in the opposite direction of your wishes and expectations you make excuses to why the data shouldn’t be accepted as it is and at the same time bring NO new data to the table that points in the direction of your statements.
1. Capture points: if those are the same as before the change with at the same time A LOT less matchups, this means every capture point has a vastly increased activity on it. If there is as you say a higher “density” on the servers then this means there is higher density of defenders as well, what makes it harder to capture stuff compared to the dead matchups some servers had before the change or what we can see as “night caps”. So this data points at an increase of activity not a loss.
2. Kills: we see 25% more kills. You may say that it is because of density but you fail to show how density causes more kills if the total number of players stays the same. And if it was density that caused more kills, how do you know the effect is that huge, that it can cause 25%+ more kills than before? It’s a raise of activity no matter what your excuses are.

Yes, I see that the variables and the data aren’t great. But I don’t see any data that points in the direction of your hypothesis. None at all, sorry.

Yea, but that everyone goes to EB could also mean, that this is the map-type and the playstyle the “average” wvw player enjoys the most and the majority of the players may want to play it. Everyone likes different things. But we cannot expect arenanet to adapt to our personal wishes if they do not represent the wishes of the majority of players.

Well, the problem may be that in the system right now there is not enough flexibility to change the linking of servers after they have been done. If arenanet were to change this fact and react on clear disadvantages of servers, then it would not be so bad. So they could have taken servers out of the CD-bunch and given them to DH or YB (when they were higher tier) for example to even it out.
But yea, I am SBI and I know exactly what you mean with DH and SF being outnumbered and we had no fun in smashing you guys to the ground just to minimize our pointloss and not getting stuck down there with you both.

I think the problem is, that nobody wants to have a disadvantage over another server if the other server has spies. So there are quite some guilds that plant spies on other servers just to be sure not to have that disadvantage. So they will say “last week they pulled our tacts, now we do it” and legitimate all actions with that.

For me it should be the honorable thing not to have spies, not to need the additional intel, not to pull tacts, waste supply or hide or destroy enemy omega golems and I would think it would be nice if commanders decided not to resort to this kind of actions even if they may be sometimes at a disadvantage through that decision.
But different commanders have different opinions about this and that is how they will play and there is nothing we can do to stop it.

@TorquedSoul
Your data is interesting:
- Do you have graphics for only kills and only caps as well? Better make two separate graphics instead of summarising variables that aren’t exactly equal signs of participation.
- You don’t have enough weeks before the changes. Any reason for leaving them out?
- When I look at this graphics, the first thing you should do is make the axis start at zero istead of at 1500000. Why? Because it should you how marginal your “steep drops” truly are. At least if you want to be taken seriously by people that know something about statistics.
- The only thing you can say from this graphics with any statistical reliability is that there was a rise in kills/caps after the wvw-chances following 4/9 and that there is a more or less stable kill/caps-sum after 5/21 on a higher level as before 4/9. Those small increases and decreases after 5/21 are in the margin of error and from a statistical view it is invalid to analyse them.
- Concetration of people has actually a negative impact on caps (defenders make it harder to cap, less objectives to take with linked servers) and there is no reason why it should have a higher impact on kills because two 2×2 fights in ds-bl would result in same death count as one 4×4 in alpine.
- A small decrease of players (1-3 % per month) is normal and is always to be expected as new games appear and old players get bored of the game. It has nothing to do with the performance of the developer and will happen in any case.

—> I would say it shows that the new changes (not only the BL, but also tracks) brought a temporary increase in kills/caps and that this increase was partially temporary (completely normal for any change, players trying out the new stuff) and partially persisted since 5/21. So I would say this data hints us into the direction that the changes were good for wvw. We cannot separate the impact of the changes though, because the changes happened to close together and were additive, so we don’t know if it were the reward tracks or the alpine BL or both that participated to the higher stable level after 5/21.

To the people complaining about Arenanets “lack of vision”: I would say their vision is to give the people what they want and they try to find out what we want through polls. The problem with this is as always and also here on the forums:
1. different people want different stuff, but most of them are a minority. The loudest are often not in the majority, because their vision is too extreme.
2. many people don’t know what they want before they could try it.

Yes, many people don’t continously support the game and then still are surprised, if they have no ressources to fix problems. Maybe there should be “kickstarter”-tracks where we can donate money to things that are more expensive to be fixed and if enough money is gathered, then the problem will be fixed and if not, then not? Then arenanet would have a reason to avoid the things people don’t want to finance and people cannot complain if they aren’t willing to participate.

Skilllag is annoying. I haven’t seen it in a while and I think I only see it appearing now, because with the serverlinking there is a larger possibility that three mapqueues fight each other in SM. It is sad that those situations get robbed of their epic potential. But it are only a few situations a day, if any. So I can live with it. I haven’t seen it happening in situations where there weren’t three mapqueues close to each other yet.

@Kurowolfe SF and DH will never be tier1 servers, if they don’t get a lot of transfers (we have seen other servers get stacked in the past as well though). But if the matchups are balanced, then they should be able to have a fighting chance to win your matchup without having to face blobs as big as in tier1. And balanced matchups is all they need to make wvw fun again, or not?

@Dawdler: yea, small servers should rather be linked with other small servers, but I am not sure if that works out if you put together more than 3 servers (I am not CD). I am sure the outcry would be very significant if permanent merges were to happen and small servers just get “absorbed” completely. Many people dislike particular servers strongly after years of fighting bloody battles against them and thei identification with their own server is what keeps many players playing in wvw. Of course this problems appear in linkage as well to some degree, but it is always temporary and you keep your server identity with it.

I think the new system will make balancing hard but it was the best choice to give the new BL to red. I am curious how it will work out on tuesday. I never liked the D-BL, because most of the fighting I have done on this map was pve instead of having “social interactions” (that’s the word HoD teached me for enemy encounters), but if it is only one map, then I can just avoid going there, so that’s fine.

I am SBI and I am also very disappointed to lose the link with HoD and all the guilds and commanders I ran with. How our communites worked together made me play a lot more wvw/gw2 again and it was tons of fun. It runs shivers down my spine that it’s possible that as of next week we may be on opposing sites of the battlefield or that one of us may be paired up with -we all know what server-.

And imagine the outcry on the forums, when servers get merged together. People and guilds losing their identity in one big smash. The linking is a termporary merge that gives the partners the possibilty to keep their own identity. It is clearly a good solution.

Transfer cost increase and more time sitting out? No. Why would you propose that? If people want to transfer, then let them transfer to play somewhere else. Nobody should be forced to stay somewhere if he/she doesn’t want to and nobody should be “shut” out of wvw just because he/she transfered.

I think the linkage worked best in situations, where both servers are equally strong and both bring something to the table. I as SBI am really sad to lose HoD as a link as it worked out great and we learned to work together better over time. I am not sure how it worked out where a lot of small servers get put together.

Like already someone proposed: if Arenanet sees a linkage not working out as intended in terms of balanced matchups (for example because a server goes down or up a tier), then it should be possible for them to change server linkage.

Sarrs.4831:

IMO better solution
Damage increase as the catapult shot is charged; 100% charged shot deals more damage than a point blank tap. […]

Lets you put your catapult wherever you like and it’ll still be fully effective, people will naturally decide to put their catapults somewhere more sensible than melee

It would be interesting, but it might affect the door>wall problem that already exists. It is faster to attack the gate, if this is implemented, then it is even better to attack gates over walls. Also I am not sure if there really will be a choice of the commander afterwards or if outside ac-reach will be the new “meta” of positioning in most cases.

I think point-black catas aren’t really a problem atm. Friendly fire and other silly ideas that break most combat situations (like having more than one ram on a gate or a golem in your zerg) are funny to think about but probably not the right thing for a game that takes itself seriously. Maybe fun for a few days, but too much work for the result.

Artaz.3819:

Nerfing Facet of Nature would break Revenant without huge class improvements though. It does come with a hefty upkeep cost and it isn’t really broken with Revenant-provided-only boons.

The perma 50% increase of boon duration for 5 other players is definately something that can be described as “broken” in terms of balancing.
Also the -2 are everything but hefty imho. I would call it “free”.
In terms of the revenant and his “own” applying of boons I would also argue that even the “vanilla” +65% boon duration of the herald make him too good in comparison to other classes in terms of applying certain boons to the party and still be effective in combat/healing. I would love to crunch the numbers on this one though if I could get the statistical data from arenanet. But yea, if facet of nature would only affect the rev himself, then it wouldn’t as bad as it is right now.

- Boonstrip doesn’t work against those zergs, because stripping boons doesn’t do damage, while the boonshare zerg will do damage in the meantime. Once the boons are applied, the zerg can just switch all their skills to damage skills.
- Corrupt doesn’t work, because the applied conditions are not taking into account the length of boons/stacks on the player and can only be done by specific classes in a very limited way (for example only 1 or 3 boons get corrupted and if it is, then it is 1 stack of burning for 3 sec for 2 min aegis; 25 stacks of might for 40 seconds will be 1 weakness for 10 seconds – it’s really bad).
But even if duration of boons/stacks would be taken into account, it wouldn’t help if the player still has resistence up.

Naix.8156:

There really is one main culprit in wvw that’s responsible for the boon share meta – its revenant and more specifically the passive boon resistance on Facet of Nature. For a measly 2 upkeep you can passively give +450 stat points of concentration to 5 players. That’s absolutely insane and not even remotely close to inline with existing with traits (eg. strength in numbers, empower allies, etc) that are similar in function. Additionally, the existing traits require you to be in combat before they activate.

The facet of nature really is out of balance by a huge margin. It is similar to if a class had a bonus that gave 450 power with 100% uptime to 5 players. I understand that arenanet wants the rev to be overpowered so people buy HoT, but this is just silly. Even if it would be reduced to 20% and reduced in uptime it still would be insane.

BUT only fixing this wouldn’t solve the problem. Many builds are already on the cap of 100% boon duration without being fully equipped with concentration gear/weapons/food etc. and could just make adjustments to get to 100% boon duration again. Some boons aren’t meant to be had for more than 5 seconds, so limiting the max duration should be a thing, just like other boons and conditions have a “stack” limit for the same reason.
Imho this should be done IN ADDITION to fixing the problems that lead to boon share zergs atm (mesmer, revenenants).

and I thought it is just me, because nobody said anything about it after the last big patch that brought this problem.
A “skipped” animation did happen before the patch as well sometimes, but the damage was still applied to the gate when the ram went on cooldown. That’s no longer the case.

Reh.5986:

Thing that bored me out of T4 is that sbi didn’t seem to have many roamers and they are a literal PPT machine compared to CD.

Almost all SBI and HoD commanders I have run with despise PPT. There were fightgroups that had to PPT, because there were no fights to find for most of the day, since there was no resistance we just had to run over a BL and then the next one like a factory line, because we didn’t want to end up in tier 4 again. Didn’t help unfortunately.
We don’t really have many solo ppt roamers (camp-cappers, etc.), but we have some smaller roamer guild groups, etc. I think most of them got bored fast, because we are used to have opponents with more people on at all times giving them fast and plentyful fights.

yea, I agree that fields should be more clearly visible on the screen for low detail graphics and the fire application stacks too fast and the field duration is too long. I also disagree that most mortars can be killed easily, as only some classes are able to take out mortars at all.

I agree that with the linking atm there are 4 servers belonging in tier 3. I also don’t understand why the matchmaking is still “luckbased” through the points system while it isn’t accurate anymore through the server-linking at all.
In such a case: Like it has been said before: just rotate one server down at at a time, so no server gets locked in tier 4.

For me that current state is a shame, because I think the SBI-HoD-link started to show great potential and now we cannot really test it against other fight-servers.

@other tier 4 servers: of course it is nice to hear, that we are better than CD as an opponent and we had some good fights for sure. The problem is that most of the day your population is maybe between 1:2 and 1:10 of what we have. SBI and HoD are then forced to run you over with 30+ people, take your BL completely against 3 defenders until we spawncamp you because the Glicko-loss we otherwise get would lock us down with you. I know a lot of people that played less because they feel bad doing this (we know how it feels), others stay away because we want to get equal fights with other zergs and there are only a few hours a day when this can actually happen.
But well.. the relinking is soonish, so we just have to go through that and afterwards maybe it is better balanced. But it is good to know that at least some on your server don’t mind the beating as much as we do giving it.

The problem isn’t the existence of the resistance, the problem is that whole zergs can have this boon almost permanently through boonshare atm.
- Boon strip isn’t available as an option for all classes atm, thus for countering this you have to totally change the composition of your zerg.
- Physical damage doesn’t “counter” this, as zergs with the boon aren’t more vulnerable to damage than any other zerg, it may “avoid” it but since almost all classes do some kind of condition damage, even if you run a physical class/build, the loss in damage will lead to your zerg losing the fight if the opponent zerg runs boonshare resistance and you are not.

Atm. it is imho better to counter it with just running boonshare better than the other zerg and abolish condition damage builds in zergs until it is fixed.
It would be easy to fix it with a max duration for boons or nerfing inspiration signet.
Corruption for example also doesn’t take into account duration of the boons it corrupts. The conditions are fixed in duration. In the same way the inspiration signet could be nerfed.

- Guild banners: Get rid of the notification when clicking guild-banners (or let guilds actually edit the text that appears when their guild drops a banner).
- Superior siege production: atm. it is possible to buy 10x siege masters guide, but it is not possible to make several superior siege pieces at the same time. Add a 10x superior siege recipe for the mystic forge (if someone makes superior siege, it is usually a lot)

Balthazzarr.1349:

After all is said and done I’m really glad that this has been a good change for many people. I have no ill feelings because other people are finding ways to ‘make it work’. But I know that when the next server re-linking happens it’s a good chance that we will yet again be moved to another host, and so on. No matter what good fun this is for some of you folks at SBI it’s still making a lot of us just feel like pugs on another server, here for the fights… and that’s about it.

Actually I am running a lot with our partner-server HoD atm, their guild groups and commanders. But maybe the matchup SBI and HoD works so well, because both servers are similarly strong. There are times in the day when HoD dominates and SBI dominates at other times, so maybe that helps for people not just being pugs for another server. Scouts and refreshing siege works better imho, because we have less time of the day with almost nobody on, but yes, it aren’t always the few people that did it every day before the linking, but I still see most of them doing it. But ok, I think SBI always was a more “casual” server that was more about fun fights than actually winning the matchup anyway so maybe our ppt-community is less big than on other servers.
I see your point and understand that it must feel differently if you are a small “+”-server. Maybe it would be a better solution, to link similarly strong servers, so all of them feel important in the matchup.

I actually don’t think the last patch has affected wvw a lot; as it left boon-share untouched, doesn’t really address the problems of elite-professions being overpowered over vanilla etc.

Minion masters are not really a good option anymore btw. Since maybe 1.5.-2 years or so.

Just some suggestions

1. To make superior runes more useful:
—> Superior rune holder: Ascended item that can be added to armor in the rune slot, you can feed it with superior runes and then freely switch between the runes you fed it.
Aquisition: 1 as reward after quest, can be bought afterwards.
Properties: If you fed it all superior runes that exist, it will unlock additional new runes or a small bonus on top of it. Can be removed from the armor to be added to new armor once it is full.

2. It is annoying to have inventory filled with minor or major runes and sigils:
—> Minor sigil collector: Small guy that sits in your inventory and snatches all minor runes that you get. Can be upgraded and then set to collect major runes and trash items as well through quests. Is an inventory cleaner.
Aquisition: Unlocked through a long quest/story or as a gem item.
Properties: Has a small chance to give you a wiggly chest with minor rewards for every item it snatches. It should be possible to put him in shared inventory slot.

3. WvW: Make it possible to see the queue on the map you are on, so you know, if you can switch characters/maps.

4. Targeting: All bosses in WvW (supervisors etc.), marked targets in groups/squads, Champions in pve, Excalted explosive in AB south, commander-tags, apple-tags: if there is a zerg around a target, it is impossible to target it. So make it so that those important opponents have a sign above their head and that we can actually click on the target-sign, the boss-sign above the head of somebody etc. to target the boss/target.

5. Open all bags: if you have a stack of bags and chests etc. make it so that we can right-click -open them all until there is no bag-space left. Others have suggested it before.

Feel free to post other suggestions and your opinion.

I am using the rune since the beginning for wvw (when it falsly said “healing power” instead of power). I understand the nerf, because it was a very good rune for classes that don’t have access to fury, for me it is just weird, that they had to wait so long before they saw that it has to be nerfed. If it was actually nerfed because of boon-share, then there might be other and better ways to do that without hitting solo-roamers.

RyuDragnier.9476:

The main problem with Boonshare is that there’s pretty much no hardcap on the timer for boons. Implement hardcaps on the boon timers, you’ve immediately cut off the head of the boonshare beast.

I agree, just add a shorter max. duration of boons and limit it significantly for resistance.
I think conditions are okay for the most part.

in SBI I am seeing the opposite. People are now organising wvw-raids because they actually are able to get players together to go to wvw instead of 3-4 people only, commanders are teaching new players how to play wvw again (something I haven’t seen for a long time, because there weren’t enougn people around), etc.

Of course it isn’t the same for all communities. But what do you think has to be done to make your BP communities better? How would a server-merge save that? Would having no link and thus a lot less wvw players really solve the problem? I think it has to do with the game being old and players leaving for other games and having more players in wvw again was exactly what I needed to have fun again and play more often. But everyone likes different stuff I guess.

But I understand that it is harder to maintain identity if you are just a “+” on the matchup and this would be an easy thing to solve by showing BP their own name on the matchup on their BL, etc.

I don’t agree at all. The server linking did allow for much more diverse gameplay, more population on small tier servers while maintaining the server-identity.
Forcing servers to merge would destroy the latter, destroy the small communities you are talking about and make a lot of people very angry.

Bandwagoning: why should this be a cause of linking? Links change every two months. The guilds leaving some servers has always been an issue and you can do it as well if you don’t care about your identity. It would obviously get even worse when marging would be done because the merged server would be linked permanently (hence more reason to go there) and because the identity that we build up for years would be gone as well.

YB will be linked next time and you will catch up again. But I agree that against SBI and HoD / SoS and NSP the lack of coverage in some timezones lead to YB losing the matchup. Not every linkage will be perfect, because there are a limited number of servers around and if you would have gotten a very low tier server it might not have made a difference anyway.

Well it is an old game. You will always see a downclimb on numbers in total over time. So every temporary influx is GREAT.

I LOVE the server linking and am playing a lot more since it has been done. Now there are bigger guilds roaming around for fights again, more tags popping up, the ts is more active. I am playing a lot more since the change. I also play more because the alpine BLs are back, and they give much more space for fights and zergs clashing while having less pve. But it is like always, the happy guys have less reason to consult the forums.

yea but arenanet can just say that a server moves up without “rolling it out”, even if a server doesn’t have higher glicko, or can they not?
I still don’t understand the advantage of a chance system over a deterministic one.

While I agree that SBI and HoD are only just picking up because of Maguuma moving up, the matchup now isn’t really fun. A lot of guildgroups on SBI and HoD reduced their effort, because there hardly were any fights and rolling over enemy BLs with a lot more people on our side feels really unfair against those servers.
Of course this will lead to less points for us and we will not win with the margin we should for the glicko because of pity-pve.

About +200/300 glicko stuff: Why does there have to be a luck-effect on matchmaking anyway? If arenanet thinks some team should play t3, they could just let them play t3, just like we had no say in the server-combinations that were done (SBI +HoD is a lot of fun btw. and a good combination imho). If a server plays another server for half a year and gets demoralized, just change it up. Why the luck? Just so you can blame the roll if people aren’t satisfied with it?

I see a lot of trappers as well. I am trying mine out now as well, as it seems to be the only viable way to play guards now.

I think the trapper isn’t the only class that should be checked for balancing issues in wvw. A lot of the specialisations seem to be a lot better damage-wise instead of just “another way” of playing the class. If the advantages of specialisation would have the same amouth of disadvantages, then it would be ok in my book.

I do.
I would be very surprised if statistics show them that the new BL are liked by the community.

- The new maps are too big. You rarely see other players, you have to run very far until you get to the action.
- Keeps are way to big for finding players that are hiding there. There is no point in looking for mesmers, as it is too easy for them to hide.
- The maps are enforcing WvE on the players, that’s not why people play WvW. Most people will play it to face other zergs.
- Since nobody wants to play on the BL, it is often just a karmatrain with nobody even bothering to defend. Nobody jumps over from EB, as you would have to stay in the empty BL until your queue for EB pops again.

Meta-event reward bug in Auric Basin happened again on a full map.

This surely has been reported before:

The meta-event in Auric Basin bugs out in 10-15% (that’s the percentage for me, twice today alone) of successful completions and this for all players on the map, so usually full maps.
After killing the octovines the players will get the chests for killing the octovines (in case of a failure they don’t) and the grand exalted chest are still accessible (also not accessible if map fails) but the map description will say, that the map failed and the event-reward-chest will only give 1 key and less materials instead of 7 keys and 75 map-specific materials. This means people do a big event successfully and then do not have the means to get to their reward, as no keys means, they cannot get their loot.
Interestingly enough the final “failure” reward chest does not include the actual participation at the moment of the “failure” but takes the percentage before fighting the octovines.

People tell me, this bug exists since day 1 of HoT. As this affects whole maps all the time in this major HoT-event, it would be good if this could be prioritized.
Sorry about the mistakes, English isn’t my native language.

and again, same place, same way of capturing sm by jumping that wall. Again maguuma.
Nobody pulled them into inner, no mesmer portal involved.

If it is a known bug, it should be fixed.

Hi,

I saw a guardian and mesmers jump into inner SM, so the zerg didn’t have to break down any gates at inner. They jumped up at nw, south of the gate there. After the zerg did that I saw some mesmers trying the same jump at the same place (probably so they are able to do it the next time around).
Is it allowed and if not, why is it still possible?

Screenshot shows location. The target is a guardian that jumped up first.

Haven’t read most of the suggestions and so sorry if things have already been said:

1. “be siege(d)” week: instead of handling/taking over siege, people transform into siege when they take over siege. This means there will be no durable siege on the map that has to be refreshed (in first minute the “owner” of the siege can change, afterwards it is fixed on current person). Siege is able to transform back to being a character at any time. All siege-people are able to move slowly and can take buffs like invisibility, speed etc from teammates (speed should be very limited though).
+Players should get more batches from champbags this week to counter more spend siege
+Add minis: walking siege as very rare drop from lootbags in wvw this week.
+ endless transformation tonics as very rare drop: only cosmetic transformation without function into paper siege.

2. The Yaks strike back week
Make all yaks champions, they should be a lot harder to take down and explode in a wave that makes players get downed around them when killed. They could be a bit faster, allowing for easier upgrade of all structures.
+ Add random “raged” groups of yaks (maybe if population in some marked spots on the map isn’t controlled) that will attack players (they will target the ones with highest rank in “yakslapper”) on the maps. Maybe have them attack structures as well, kill sentries and capture bloodlust.
+ Champ-bags from yaks can give a very rare champ mini and maybe exotic yak-armor pieces (could be a hairy armor skin)
+ All champ yak kills will count tripple for the yakslapper achievement.

Cheers

I am glad I preordered HOT, it will bring a new borderland for wvw as well and this is a game that brought us countless hours of fun while costing absolutely nothing after the buying costs. Not buying the expansion doesn’t improve anything, it makes it less likely that there will be any improvement, especially as they know what players preordered and what didn’t and thus know what players give them funds to improve and develop the game. If there are no wvw players buying the expansion, then why should they put funds back into there?
The golem week was something that seem to have been intended for bringing fun to wvw. It wasn’t successful, but it was an effort, and that is something. It is a lot of work to make such events, they aren’t made to ruin anything and I am sure they learned from it. I hope it’s fixing bugs faster and not never to try to adjust anything in wvw ever again…

That would lead to opponents totally abandoning maps to let opponents that own everything there not getting any points. If someone attacks the borderlands and takes something, people just do not show up to defend, so opponents will not get any points even if they take the whole map. Defending and upgrading empty maps would be worthless as well. Also it would lead to bullyment on your own server, because if new players or guild groups would go on a map to have fun would lead for the “home-team” of that map to get a lot more points.

My question would be: why would anyone try to adjust ppt of a low population server against a high population server. Only equally populated servers should play against each other. If a system was made, that would let low population server tick higher, then they would always face servers with more people. Would that be fun?

They could however let two low population servers team up as both green in a tripple match up and play against very high population servers.

I play mostly wvw, pve consist of mostly guild missions, sometimes world bosses if I am semi-afk, never set a foot in pvp.

it’s possible that people that play mostly wvw are a minority. But I would be quite surprised if wvw wouldn’t still be the majority of active game-hours spent in game nowadays. The ones that play are regulars, dedicated and active with 1000nds of hours just in wvw. I doubt there are many with similar numbers in pvp or pve.
It just isn’t possible to spend that much time in pve and not get bored by it (unless you also count all the hours just standing around randomly chatting with others).

But I understand, if arenanet looked at the statistics and said: ok, wvw players give us not enough money for the ressources they cost for moderation, online-time etc. we want to focus on gamers that play pve mostly and are only on 1x a week. I would like to see the statistics in detail though.

Keep in mind lots of hackers on sbi and in general WvW go around unpunished.

—> report them as well, of course they should get banned as well. I have never seen any of the things you talk about on SBI, never seen players speed-hacking or warriors using ele skills and stuff like that. Imho hacking cannot be tolerated. Bug-abusing should be neither though.

It aren’t that many different people using the bug, I have seen the same guys over and over again (but many run with other guild names now so it isn’t that obvious that they are all from the same guild) and see the Maguumas here on screenshots over and over again. They must have 100s of reports now.

They had a massive personal advantage through the weekend with lots of rewards and level-ups. I think the punishment has to be accordingly to show this guys and any other ones that bugusing should not be used next time when you are able to.
Most of us know how to abuse this bug. But we don’t do it and get punished by dieing to bugusers, losing objectives and siege to them, etc. SBI communicates to the players not to use the bug even if people are dieing over and over again to bugusers, most players are honorable. But some people may get the wrong idea now: that bugusing is ok, because Arenanet doesn’t do anything about it. If there are no consequences, why shouldn’t you do it for more personal rewards?

Imho it is really sad that there is no official response or action yet. It ruins an otherwise funny and interesting event that should bring new players to wvw and instead frustrates the long-term wvw-guys and new players just the same. And for me that’s just because the bugs do not get fixed fast enough.