Guild Wars 2

:D

you can give a comprehensive expectations from generic to details of the different types or you can just give a general expectations, is really up to u.

is just that there seems to be a number of wvw guilds using certain terms to bait new players to join their guilds while not living up to expectations of those terms and has zero intention to do so

Generic Expecations

• At least 5 days run per week.
  • Major PvX guilds are already running 3 days per week, sometimes 4. WvW guilds expected to be running more than any PvX guilds.
• VoIP expected
  • Self explanatory

High Standard Expectations
For guilds that maintain a high standard

• Disciplinary actions expected for individuals deliberately not playing as a team
• Has minimum attendance per week or leave prior notice if cannot make it or kick

Fight Guilds

• Fight Focus
• Will to fight in outnumbered situations
• Strive to win in outnumbered situations
• Has guild builds, not some cheap copy & paste from metabattle
• Holds AAR sometimes, to evaluate and improve on overall performance
• Attempt to teach individuals on their usage of classes
• Seek to maintain certain compositions
• Has roamers as roamers is part of the compositions
• Usually run tagless as pugs wil spoil their compositions and pugs boost their numbers which therefore make them lose the chance to train in outnumber situation
• 15-men to 25-men for each zerg
  • Yes, there might be really established fight guilds that run multiple zergs, I have not seen that so far though.

PPT Guilds

• Focus on PPT
• Will do anything to win, be it AC or scribe banner or outnumber, is all for the PPT!
• Has wvw builds, most likely from metabattle
• Know how to use supply traps and siege disabler
• Has some fight capability but not on par with fight guilds since it isn’t their focus

Roamer Guilds

• Excel in 1 v 1 or seek to excel in that
• Do not roam in a group of more than 3, anything more is havoc guild.

Havoc Guilds

• Create havocs by capping isolated objectives, tapping towers/keeps and harassing enemy main zerg
• Runs in a group of 5 to 10, somtimes 15 but 15 is a small fight guild size already
• Know how to use supply traps and siege disabler

Pug Guilds

• A guild for pugs, anything goes, anyone goes
• WvW builds are encouraged but not expected, most likely from metabattle again with their own stats variation.
• Just to blob around

Casual Guilds

• Not that much different from pug guilds, just have slightly higher standard than pug guilds.

completed it, no issue for me

I think I phased my title wrongly, I mean what is your expectations for WvW guilds, not players.

With world link, WvW has become yet busier again and there are many new players doing WvW now.

Given that there are many types of WvW guilds ranging from PPT to Fight to Roamer to Casual to Pug to general-purpose, what is your expectations or standards for these different type of WvW guilds, such that they deserve to be call themselves as such.

I don’t understand, you only have 5 in a party before. People can still follow your tag regardless of the squad UI.

The only difference is squad UI allow the commander to easily arrange the party, so even guilds want to use the squad UI at the risk of having pugs following them. Though they could run tagless by leaving and rejoining the squad just to remove the squad leader thing.

Squad UI or not, there is no difference now and before. People can choose to follow your tag or not, otherwise, just run tagless.

Well, your next goal could be trying to get dominator from wvw.

Oh, that works too. Now 84.1% lost! Whats the point of voting! Is this what you called democracy?!

If this is election, do you think that will be allowed?!

McKenna Berdrow.2759:

The poll has ended! After removing all votes for “Don’t Count My Vote” the final results are:

38.1% Reevaluate match-ups monthly.
28.9% Reevaluate match-ups quarterly.
15.9% Reevaluate match-ups every other month.
11.6% Reevaluate match-ups every 6 months.
5.5% Reevaluate match-ups every 4 months.

After analyzing the results we have decided to go with a 2 month world linking evaluation schedule because the majority of players voted for evaluations to be more frequent than quarterly but less frequent than monthly. Since we have decided to reevaluate every 2 months we will be reevaluating the current world links and making adjustments on the very last Friday of every even month starting this month on the 24th. Thank you to everyone who voted!

Isn’t two months same as “every other month” which is 15.9% of the vote? The 38.1% didn’t vote for that! Why are you forcing 15.9%’s opinion onto 38.1%?

What do you suggest to poll for PvP?

Hi there

Equinox Solstice [TIME] is a sg-based international PvX guild on Henge of Denravi, we have been around since launch and does a variety of activities ranging from PvE Raids, dungeons, fractals, some open-world pve to PvP to WvW.

We have a massive coverage with 20-40 people on at even off-peak hours while 50-80 people during SEA time and 40-60 during EST to PST.

If you are looking for a guild that does almost everything, looking to expand your horizon, contact SkyShroud.2865 or you can visit the guild site on my signature (below).

PS: Given our size and activities, we have rep rule.

They gonna relink soon, with the vote as it is.

BunjiKugashira.9754:

SkyShroud.2865:

You need to google what sandbox mmorpg is, to put it in really simple terms, players generated contents.

I did. All so called sandbox mmorpgs that I found have open world grieving aka PK. All attempts at defining the genre stated a lot of stuff that can also be found in a themepark mmorpg plus the open world grieving. Depending on the definition even with full player looting. Since all these attempts at defining the genre are from fansites though and there doesn’t seem to be an official definition, I wanted to know what you specifically meant by using the term.

Sandbox MMORPG design, in simple terms is also known as players generated contents. I believe what you googled is “Sandbox” itself which can means openworld design.

In sandbox design, players generated contents can be like building houses, building cities, farming, leaving persistent changes to the world, players’ request (something like players generated quests) and so on. Depending on the type of game, it can be even more. Everquest Next is supposedly the more well-known sandbox mmorpg in the making, though I am unsure how much sandbox elements it will provide.

Full players looting or players drop are not considered sandbox but more like hardcore pvp game which can be dated back to the early 2000s or late 1990s. Nowadays, is hard to find new mmorpg permitting that any more.

Just a flesh wound.3589:

SkyShroud.2865:

Not necessary, time consuming content as it names implies, are time consuming which can means short duration or long duration, subjective to individual game time. People who don’t play as much as a hardcore pve gamers do will not have the feeling that the pve contents are running out.

If PvP was that engaging then the PvP population in a game would be larger than the PvE population. In this game WvW and sPvP population is less than the PvE side, so maybe it’s not as sustaining as you might think. PvP players can get just as tired of repetitive PvP in a game and move on to another. I doubt that PvP players stay with one game for years and years doing the same PvP over and over

Not really, there are more PvE players than PvP/WvW simply because of the interest. In other words, the players base attracted to gw2 simply prefer to do PvE more than PvP / WvW. PvP contents is indeed self-sustain in nature but like you said, people do get bored and that is why we have so many games, thousands of games, because people get bored and move on to other games. However, it doesn’t change that self-sustain formula but even that formula need things to compliment it in the event things got old for the players, to retain the players. For example, wc3 and sc2 have its world editor to create custom maps.

It is very common for PvE players not doing PvP or WvW at all but it is uncommon for PvP / WvW players not doing PvE, it might be strange but it isn’t that strange. Like you said, people get bored so they can move onto PvE every once awhile afterall PvE is the starting line of most mmorpg but can you say the same thing for PvE players? Will PvE players play PvP / WvW when PvE got bored instead of coming to forums to ask for more?

High AP holders (Top 1000) are only high because they did all 3 game modes, so when they say they are running out of contents, they really mean it. Myself is in the top 1000 AP and I haven’t finish my HOT yet, so I still have contents to do. So when people complaining about lack of end game or contents, I wonder, have they really done everything or they just being really selective on things they do.

BunjiKugashira.9754:

SkyShroud.2865:

Most mmorpg end game revolve around pvp and why is that so? Because pvping is the most self-sustain design ever. Take for example, counter strike, team fortress, dota, all of those games are pvping in a sense where players fight each other.

You want a pve end game? It doesn’t exist in a non-sandbox game.

What exactly do you mean by sandbox game? Open world PK? Most PvE players would leave immediately. I’ve started BDO with a bunch of friends and everyone, without exception, left after reaching the level to unlock PK.

You can start a game as a PvP game and it will sustain itself as a PvP game. Because that’s what the players came for. However if you try to force PvP onto someone who came for PvE you will rapidly loose players. People will find other games where they can play what they want.

You need to google what sandbox mmorpg is, to put it in really simple terms, players generated contents.

Not necessary, time consuming content as it names implies, are time consuming which can means short duration or long duration, subjective to individual game time. People who don’t play as much as a hardcore pve gamers will not have the feeling that the pve contents are running out.

I think that only the top 1000 AP holders in the leaderboard will feel the contents are running out.

Whats WoW’s end game? Raid? Grind tokens to upgrade? Some super hard dungeons? Level your house? What happen after that? There is a difference between self-sustain and time consuming. Majority of pve contents are simply time consuming, it isn’t self-sustain in design.

Most mmorpg end game revolve around pvp and why is that so? Because pvping is the most self-sustain design ever. Take for example, counter strike, team fortress, dota, all of those games are pvping in a sense where players fight each other.

You want a pve end game? It doesn’t exist in a non-sandbox game.

voted monthly since there is no “no” option, monthly will make them not only evaluate the servers, but evaluate their way of doing things.

No, the question here is the definition.

Many of you are saying are saying that passive proc = things you wear (skills/runes/sigil/traits/whatever) proc. But there is a logical redundancy here, of course you have to be wearing those things in the first place to proc. It is like saying black darkness.

I guess they put the population cap back the pre-link’s size which is why all server are opened and many servers dropped to medium. Wow, HOD was high before all this and look how the locking drop HOD from high to medium.

But the problem is, even “Very High” server are opened, wouldn’t that encourage bandwagon?

dank.3680:

SkyShroud.2865:

dank.3680:

SkyShroud.2865:

zinkz.7045:

SkyShroud.2865:

zinkz.7045:

Synergy is fine, a broken OP group passive is not.

Passive? Which part of it is passive?

It’s a passive proc, have you even played this game?

Wtf? Really? LOL!!!

Passive are things like +100 toughness/vitality. Things that continuously add effects without any conditions to trigger. To call a proc that occur by fulfilling certain conditions as passive is…, lol, you really made me laugh so hard.

I guess that explains why you “argument” lack depths and don’t sound logical, more like referencing what other people are saying.

If you don’t have to use a skill or ability for it to proc , then it’s passive. If it wasn’t “passive” then you could control it.

That will be called active skill, right? Proc itself means random occurrence, you can even google the meaning and it will all say the same thing

Check out this list here of “passive skills”

http://us.battle.net/d3/en/class/wizard/passive/

Just about every single one includes what you call “proc”.

“proc” is the effect you get from said passive skill, not the label for the type of skill/trait/rune whatever.

Those passive skills isn’t random, key word is random. Those skills occur 100% when you perform certain actions. You can control those passive because it occur 100% when you perform certain actions.

If passive proc means skills that happen 100% of the time when certain conditions are met, I can relate. But if passive proc means skills that occur randomly but because you are wearing it, you call it passive, it sounds really weird.

TheBeesKnees.8391:

SkyShroud.2865:

TheBeesKnees.8391:

If you put an semi-good/average group vs a good group atm, and give the average group the boonshare, the average group will win 90% of the time.

It just means that your good group in reality is just average. A good group will quickly adapt to the best synergy that will bring them greater chance of victory.

Considering that quote was completely theoretical and in no way a testament to my groups ability to face it, I just gotta say – lol.

Any group with any dignity wont jump on the easiest specs just because it’s effective. Same reason why any decent roamer wouldn’t run condi mesmer.

You know, there is a difference between dignity and stupidity.
And no, condi mesmer isn’t a good comparison to your logic because power shatter still works.

zinkz.7045:

SkyShroud.2865:

Furthermore, you kept on saying it is OP and always end up pointing towards the resistance. In fact, throughout your replies, your focus is mostly on the resistance itself.

I pointed to stats / boon duration multiple times, which you largely ignored because you were so obsessed with defending resistance.

SkyShroud.2865:

Even if the runes is to be nerf, a logical nerf will only be boon duration. Afterall, the boon duration is the only stat that makes it mathematically more than the other runes. So, sorry, you won’t get resistance removed from it.

As I already said I doubt they will nerf them at all, and really it doesn’t effect me much anymore as playing GW2 largely consists of logging in for daily then logging out.

The powercreep since HoT of which boon spam and crap like durability runes are a fine example, has basically made the combat in this game hit an all-time-low, the game was never exactly Starcraft, but it is now so mindless, so skilless & so cheesy that is hemorrhaging long term players in WvW & PvP, I guess for casual PvP this is still a good game, but WvW & PvP are done.

I see, I was under the impression that you are implying resistance since you have switch to melee groups while referencing its boon duration and AOE effects. Furthermore, adding that the 50% uptime is ridiculous for a group of 5. Accompanied with the thoughts what really important to the melee group from this rune is actually the resistance that allow it to survive in environment where condition bombard from zerg and blob alike is a norm, likewise, OP was talking about resistance.

With reference from Runes of Pack, boons duration should change to increase one of the rune’s boon duration.

zinkz.7045:

SkyShroud.2865:

Finally, we get down to it! I will clarify what I wrote, everything is IMO. At the same time, I will add that the opinion is shared by many others which you can easily search up in reddit and pvp forums.

So yesterday it was a fact , today it is opinion, you aren’t kidding anyone.

SkyShroud.2865:

Also, it matters since you have been using that as your basis to argue that the 4th effect is too much.

It doesn’t matter in the slightest and it isn’t the basis for anything, the only basis for my argument is the bit you conveniently ignore, because you have no answer for it, so I’ll paste it again.

They removed them because in relation to other runes they provided too much, the rune was not nerfed, so they still provide too much in relation to other runes and are still broken OP, it is as simple as that.

:) Unlike you, at least I didn’t avoid and imply things like what you have been doing. Likewise, conveniently breaking up statements for your arguments.

Furthermore, you kept on saying it is OP and always end up pointing towards the resistance. In fact, throughout your replies, your focus is mostly on the resistance itself.

Even if the runes is to be nerf, a logical nerf will only be boon duration. Afterall, the boon duration is the only stat that makes it mathematically more than the other runes. So, sorry, you won’t get resistance removed from it.

zinkz.7045:

Actually what you wrote in this post https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/rune-of-durability/first#post6189676
was:

SkyShroud.2865:

it was removed from pvp because its stats is mathematically higher than other runes.
nothing to do with resistance which the OP is complaining about

If you are going to lie or play semantics, try and remember what you wrote, so do you have a source for that?

And I repeat as you conveniently ignored it:

Regardless, it doesn’t matter either way, they removed them because in relation to other runes they provided too much, the rune was not nerfed, so they still provide too much in relation to other runes and are still broken OP, it is as simple as that.

Finally, we get down to it! I will clarify what I wrote, everything is IMO. At the same time, I will add that the opinion is shared by many others which you can easily search up in reddit and pvp forums.

Also, it matters since you have been using that as your basis to argue that the 4th effect is too much.

zinkz.7045:

If you play WvW and have even a vague understanding of the game then you should be able to work out all on your own that is not the 1s by itself that is particularly strong, but that it is AOE to allies and how that works in a melee group when everyone is using that rune, I’m not quite sure why you are unable to think for yourself and need the slightest thing spelled out for you.

SkyShroud.2865:

Even if you have 5 melees with 100% boon duration, it give you 10s proc together with a cool down of 20s.

Which is broken as hell, that you think 50% uptime on immunity to conditions is somehow okay (I assume), speaks volumes… That you can then add a mesmer just changes it from broken to ridiculous.

I wonder, you can easily kill a person within 10s. If you are a PvP player, you should know. Since you mentioned that in WvW, everything is mutiplied, then surely you can kill a person within 10s. Is it still unreasonable then? I doubt so. If you still think is unreasonable, then, mind if I remind you that there are dozens of players in WvW, so having dozens of players throwing conditions within that 10s still not able to kill those people, isn’t it something wrong with that dozen of people and not the immunity itself?

If you have problem with boonshare mesmer, you can start posting in that boonshare thread.

The rune 4th effects is acceptable.

zinkz.7045:

SkyShroud.2865:

To your rune argument for PvP. PvP is structured and what is structured? Regardless, you said it is removed from PvP because it is OP due to the 4th effects and stats. Can you state your source then? To me, it is removed because of the stats being higher than average runes and nothing to do with the 4th effects.

Can you state a sources that they removed just because of stats?

I wrote “To me” which in other words IMO, well, basically I don’t try to misinform others by coming up with something anet didn’t say. Now, can you state your source since you have been saying that since the start?

dank.3680:

SkyShroud.2865:

zinkz.7045:

SkyShroud.2865:

zinkz.7045:

Synergy is fine, a broken OP group passive is not.

Passive? Which part of it is passive?

It’s a passive proc, have you even played this game?

Wtf? Really? LOL!!!

Passive are things like +100 toughness/vitality. Things that continuously add effects without any conditions to trigger. To call a proc that occur by fulfilling certain conditions as passive is…, lol, you really made me laugh so hard.

I guess that explains why you “argument” lack depths and don’t sound logical, more like referencing what other people are saying.

If you don’t have to use a skill or ability for it to proc , then it’s passive. If it wasn’t “passive” then you could control it.

That will be called active skill, right? Proc itself means random occurrence, you can even google the meaning and it will all say the same thing

zinkz.7045:

SkyShroud.2865:

Passive and Proc has different meanings, putting them together makes no sense but well, I guess people can invent new terms if they want.

And you can use old invented terms if you wish, but the fact is, the term ‘passive proc’ is commonly used in this game.

SkyShroud.2865:

Then, you go on about your deluded “Obviously I am talking about WvW melee”.

Not my fault you are slow on the uptake and need everything explained to you, it should be abundantly clear that 1 sec resistance proc isn’t that strong 1v1, but becomes much stronger in a large melee group with everyone running that rune, I shouldn’t have to explain that to anyone with a clue how the game works, but you apparently…

SkyShroud.2865:

And no, your argument indeed lack depths and often vague. Not like people who argue mathematically or making a point by using concrete arguments. All you ever did was “Oh, this is OP because sPvP does not have it.”, god, tell me how many things are not in PvP, that rune isn’t just the only rune that isn’t in PvP, neither is food or utility.

The unintended self irony is strong with this one…

My argument is fine, durability rune was removed from PvP because it provided far too much, the boon duration + protection + the amount of the stats relative to other runes was OP, that doesn’t magically change in WvW, in WvW it actually becomes even more OP, because on top of that you have how strong the resistance proc is in large melee groups.

And you have said zero to refute that, empty rhetoric isn’t an argument you know, even though you seem to think it is.

You know, the main problem here is you are reading things in parts and arguing things in parts when things should be arugued as a whole.

For example, you selectively quoted this
Then, you go on about your deluded “Obviously I am talking about WvW melee”

When the whole statement mentioned that you did not in any ways indicate or imply it to the melee group and then blaming me for slow uptake, wow, just wow. You are really good at this eh.

To your melee argument, sorry, the stack of resistance isn’t due to the runes. Even if you have 5 melees with 100% boon duration, it give you 10s proc together with a cool down of 20s. The runes itself will not give the melee class a perma resistance.

To your rune argument for PvP. PvP is structured and what is structured? Regardless, you said it is removed from PvP because it is OP due to the 4th effects and stats. Can you state your source then? To me, it is removed because of the stats being higher than average runes and nothing to do with the 4th effects.

Being a old gamer, I only know

Passive = Perma Boost via buffs, items, whatever
Active = Boost you activate via skills
Proc = Temp boost upon conditions via items or gears

Passive and Proc has different meanings, putting them together makes no sense but well, I guess people can invent new terms if they want.

And no, your argument indeed lack depths and often vague. Not like people who argue mathematically or making a point by using concrete arguments. All you ever did was “Oh, this is OP because sPvP does not have it.”, god, tell me how many things are not in PvP, that rune isn’t just the only rune that isn’t in PvP, neither is food or utility.

Then, you go on about your deluded “Obviously I am talking about WvW melee”. Oh dear, let me quote what you wrote and you can see for yourself, which part did you ever mention melee.

In the other thread that is talking about boonshare mesmer, well, at least they go right to the source of the boon distributor instead of downright blaming the 1s proc that happen every 20s, which is really silly.

zinkz.7045:

It’s broken as hell, it got removed from PvP for being OP because of the stat values + boon% was too much, in WvW what was a little extra in PvP – the resistance, just becomes another broken aspect of the rune, don’t worry though I am pretty sure Anet are aware at this stage WvW is 99% baddies, so they will continue catering to what is left of their core audience.

So I dc right before the match started, I join back the game and it was 38ish to 98ish. My team was the 38ish.

After some boring fights the end result was 500 to 206. I got desertion, I lost my winning streak.

…….

zinkz.7045:

SkyShroud.2865:

zinkz.7045:

Synergy is fine, a broken OP group passive is not.

Passive? Which part of it is passive?

It’s a passive proc, have you even played this game?

Wtf? Really? LOL!!!

Passive are things like +100 toughness/vitality. Things that continuously add effects without any conditions to trigger. To call a proc that occur by fulfilling certain conditions as passive is…, lol, you really made me laugh so hard.

I guess that explains why you “argument” lack depths and don’t sound logical, more like referencing what other people are saying.

TheBeesKnees.8391:

If you put an semi-good/average group vs a good group atm, and give the average group the boonshare, the average group will win 90% of the time.

It just means that your good group in reality is just average. A good group will quickly adapt to the best synergy that will bring them greater chance of victory.

zinkz.7045:

SkyShroud.2865:

So, whenever a organised group come up with a way to synergy with one another, you gonna complain about it? Like how anet decide is a great idea to nerf stability, destroying all the frontlines?

Synergy is fine, a broken OP group passive is not.

Passive? Which part of it is passive?

zinkz.7045:

SkyShroud.2865:

Don’t see how the resistance is broken when it simply give 1s every 20s. Like I have said and you yourself said, the reason why it was removed from pvp was due to the stats being mathematically higher than average runes, nothing to do with resistance, protection and regeneration. But, I guess the 1s resistance is just too much for you to handle?

1s of resistance is fine, but obviously I am talking about it in melee groups in WvW, but apparently you need that explained…

You didn’t but you seems rather good at changing your stand but unfortunately, in forums, everything is stated black and white.

They can choose to rename the merged server name to something else to create a whole new identity.

Of course, I do prefer to delete all the servers and recreate them dynamically every X period,, in fact, I was the one of the few that kept on suggesting that at the start. However, the problem is people acceptance towards that solution, you and I can easily guess that it won’t be easily accepted by the people although there are increasing number of people supporting this concept.

zinkz.7045:

SkyShroud.2865:

that what it means to be organised, that what it means by unity is power.

No what it is, is just one more example of how a game where cheese has always passed for “skill” to an extent has became even more cheesy and even more skilless with the HoT powercreep.

So, whenever a organised group come up with a way to synergy with one another, you gonna complain about it? Like how anet decide is a great idea to nerf stability, destroying all the frontlines?

zinkz.7045:

SkyShroud.2865:

i will say it once again, the rune is fine as it is like all others have mentioned.

It’s broken as hell, it got removed from PvP for being OP because of the stat values + boon% was too much, in WvW what was a little extra in PvP – the resistance, just becomes another broken aspect of the rune, don’t worry though I am pretty sure Anet are aware at this stage WvW is 99% baddies, so they will continue catering to what is left of their core audience.

Don’t see how the resistance is broken when it simply give 1s every 20s. Like I have said and you yourself said, the reason why it was removed from pvp was due to the stats being mathematically higher than average runes, nothing to do with resistance, protection and regeneration. But, I guess the 1s resistance is just too much for you to handle?

Justine.6351 knows what he talking about but too bad, majority of you are blaming runes of durability for resistance duration when that duration is pretty insignificant for the most part, not unless you have the correct classes using the necessary unities to bring out the maximum potential of it.

Processor wise, look at this
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html

A better engine will simply means that anet will be less restricted by the type of contents and bling bling they can introduce to the game. Furthermore, they can advertise gw2 having improved graphic since dx11 or 12 does have better graphical capability than dx9.

Currently, HOT maps compare to the Tyria maps have way more bling bling and stuffs going on. Likewise, desert borderland map (excluding the blobs) too reported by players having performance issue on it.

Anet has to think about the performance issue if they want to continue adding more blings bling into the game.

Doesn’t have to be dx12, dx11 itself is a significant leap forward from dx9.

They do have people working on engine but performance enhancement isn’t the priority. The engine is being improved to handle more game features, most likely for the next expansion.

it was removed from pvp because its stats is mathematically higher than other runes.
nothing to do with resistance which the OP is complaining about

Disagree. The increase in participation is a combination of increase in population due to world linking, rewards track and changes to EOTM. The decrease in wvw population is due to stale wvw development and inadequate new players to replace the one that left. People stack for a simple reason, because there are more activities up there. Why are they are more activities? Simply because there are more populations. World linking proves that more people = more activities which result in more vibrant wvw. The numerous number of servers is a obstacle to population concentration, it has to go.

Anet can never find a way to resolve population imbalance with any of the current approach. As long as majority decide that server identity is more important than population balance, we will never see a greater variety of matchup. At least in NA.

it is funny to see how OP trying so hard to the point of even using a draft metabattle build, a draft that no one is commenting on, a draft who we have no idea who the author is. it gets funnier when the others continue to comment that rune itself is fine on its own

that rune itself is impossible to get 33s resistance. even if you have 100% boon duration, it will only increase that resistance to 2s with 20s cool down. the organised groups are running a combinations of classes and utilities to maintain resistance uptime. that what it means to be organised, that what it means by unity is power.

i will say it once again, the rune is fine as it is like all others have mentioned.

Dhemize.8649:

If you have two servers paired together that are forming a massive bandwagon then merging the two servers together will only make matters worse. I don’t care how you try to argue the point, but making the pair permanent will not fix the balance issue. The only way to stop servers from abusing the system is to unlink the newly fat bandwagon servers and pair them with an appropriate, smaller server that could use them.

“But it will hurt my guild!” You should have thought of that before you started poaching players from the linked server knowing full well that they would eventually be paired with somebody else.

“We built a community!” No, you didn’t. It’s been a month. It’s nothing special. I’ve had closer ties with the toilet paper I wipe with and flush.

“Relinking servers makes me fight a guild I previously played with!” This happened all the time before linking was even a thing. You should be use to it.

There is absolutely no good reason to merge servers as opposed to switching/evening pairs whenever some have very clearly been stacked. Saying a blobwagon server should be permanently merged together is absurd and outright wrong. Again, if people really want to game the system they should have to pay the gems every month when the two stacked servers are separated. It’s Anet’s chance to finally step in and fix what people simply don’t care about: balancing. If you want to mindlessly blob ktrain, pay up.

As mentioned in my post above. Population control did not exist for the first almost 3 years which result in servers getting excessively stacked. If anet implement a dynamic capping while using the target server and lowest servers disparity difference as reference instead of a fixed capping, it will effectively prevent stacking from occurring. As for now, this method will not work with world linking as there is a philosophy difference between linking and merging.

joneirikb.7506:

The problem with a straight Server Merging is that we keep all the current weaknesses of the Server structure. Especially the wonderful Server Stacking issue, that has caused NA a lot of problems. That alone is a good enough reason for me to prefer Server Linking, but it certainly needs some tweaking.

The primary cause of the server stacking was due to anet lack of concern for population control for the first 3 years. After megaserver, server status continue to include PvE population, until close to 2 years later. There’s also the infamous “black out” method prior the server status algorithms change. Not to forget the experimental method like free transfer to the lowest 3 servers in that division (gold, silver, bronze) during the WvW season. There wasn’t any population control existed and if you let it go on for close to 3 years like that, you get servers that is excessively stacked while having servers that are like ghost towns.

Moving on, the numerous servers also contribute to related population issue which is inflow of players. There are a lot of servers, there isn’t enough inflow of players to all servers, this will then too contribute to population issue.

Server merging will literally reduce the number of servers overall, improve the rate of growth per server due to concentrated inflow of players. Not only that, with less number of servers, it become much easier to resolve population unbalance issue as you will not have to brainstorm on how to link that and link this while making sure communities or guilds don’t get split apart. They can move on using incentive and locking servers to rebalance servers with server merging. Server linking is actually a complicated thing to do in long run, if you are doing it, you will understand what I mean.

Server linking was chosen as a method not because server merging is inferior but because server linking is more acceptable to the community, mainly due to the silly server identity mentality. Dev too have the thoughts of deleting all the servers and recreate a X number of servers depending on population but it is highly not acceptable by the community, but logically, it is the best way to redistribute and rebalance every server.

Server merging does have its own problem, for example, once you merge it, you cannot unmerge it if there is a sudden spike in population. However, it is unfortunate, wvw and gw2 as it is now, there isn’t really enough population to spread across 24 servers.

That is not true. During season, some lower servers were once stacked during free transfer. This says that “free” itself is a very powerful incentive to move people.

dont see how it is ruining all kind of fights
in a group fight, builds are design to complement one another

that rune is pretty useless if only one player is using it
it is powerful when a group of ppl is using it
i think it is working as intended, ever heard of unity is power?

disagree.

world relinking while can punish bandwagoners, it also punish other innocent players and guilds. is a complicated issue. i personally think that consistently relinking without resolving the fundamental logic flaws with server status and underestimating the undesired effects of numerous servers will bring more harms than good in the long run

SkyShroud.2865:

The DX 11 / 12 debates have been going on for ages, I believe a poll will does more justice!

http://www.strawpoll.me/10292457

PS: Please don’t merge this with DX 11 / 12 thread or this poll will be buried.

Edit: To clarify. DX12 has improved pc cores to gpu cores communications but whatever, higher drawcalls is more understandable

29 voted!

24% voted for no!
76% voted for yes!

We need to vote for server merging instead of linking!

After merging, we need make the bottom 3 populated server free to transfer in for a period of time, to destack T1. Of course, make sure there is a check in place to prevent bottom 3 servers to be over stacked due to free transfer. And double of course put some costing for people moving from T3 to T4 to deter T3 destacking. Server transfer cost should not be universal, should be used as a mean to deter destack and stacking depending on what server you are from.

i personally find anet polling in a way that lead people to certain direction while giving people a sensation that their voice matters

unfortunately, im not that naive and im sure there are many not too.

Tyler Bearce.3427:

We are looking at ways to improve transfer experience. It’s a complicated problem.

Our current preferred solution, which we’ll likely poll players on, is as follows:

• If you think of the periods between world links being changed as seasons, then we’d lock all transfers for the first half of the season, and allow normal transferring in the second half.
• So assuming we continue to update world links once every 3 months, the first 6 weeks would be locked for all worlds and the second set of 6 weeks would allow normal transfering (costs scaling based on population size.) Then we’d relink worlds and lock transfers for another 6 weeks.

I don’t like that kind of proposal. This proposal is targeting only the existing players looking to transfer. How about the new players? Given that there will be servers opened throughout the seasons while specific servers will be closed during a certain period. New players will flow to those opened servers, even when they have a specific guild they want to join but happen to be in the full server, so they end up having to pay additional money to get themselves transferred in during that “open” period, sucks to be the new players, sucks for the guilds that able to get people to play the game.