Guild Wars 2

SkyShroud.2865:

Swagger.1459:

Pensadora.9478:

Tiny Doom.4380:

Thing is, as per the dev explanation linked by Swagger above, ANet don’t balance WvW by “population”. They balance it by “play hours”.

Yep, and I’m sure that I could quote some very interesting Dev statements from the past. This later referenced “THE POLL” and was from a year ago. A YEAR AGO … let that sink in just a few minutes. In this game, in any game – a year is a long, long time.

This bolsters my argument to blow it all up. We have now invested an entire year, doing this tweak and that tweak, and look we’re all still talking about blowout matches, groups bandwagoning to T1, bloated servers, dying servers, etc etc.

Tiny Doom.4380:

As to whether that works for “balancing” the game mode… obviously not.

Thank you. I agree. Let’s blow it up and start with a clean slate. Let’s envision something better instead of continuing to beat this dead horse of ‘WvW the way we’ve always done it.’

Tiny Doom.4380:

According to the dev statement above, though, it’s the best they’ve been able to come up with.

It’s the best they’ve come up with given that we have boxed them into restrictions that say : “Don’t touch my e-world.” I’m pretty certain they have quite a few ideas on the shelf they could dust off, if they didn’t have their hands tied behind their backs over this one issue.

Let’s erect a monument to all the existing servers in LA , celebrate their accomplishments, blow them all up in a hail of fireworks, and move forward!

Let’s progress, people. We’re in the Paleolithic age of WvW and some of us want to stay there… forever. I’m sure it was really comfortable for people back in the days. But, those who don’t adjust… die. We’ve been treading water in the same place for a long, long time.

I would like WvW to survive. I’d like it be amazingly awesome. To get there, I believe we’ll have to let go of some of the ideas that are currently killing us and the gamemode. We need to free up our thinking and the designing to be able to cure what is ailing us.

We’re stuck in “Nowheresville”, not WvW, and, it’s not such a great place to be, or to recommend to your friends.

And, that is why I continue to ask for some clarity.

A year is nothing in terms of game development, it’s just long to you.

Linking, reward tracks and updated rewards have increased population and participation. WvW is surviving just fine right now… Seems you don’t really have a finger on the pulse with how the game has progressed, and you obviously haven’t followed any dev comments either.

Your vague “blow it up and start over” comments show you didn’t think anything through. You’ve provided zero input aside from “we need to change”, but you don’t even bother to suggest how things should change.

Edit- You can attempt to ignore the answers I provided as clarity, but that won’t change the facts. Those are dev quotes, so perhaps you should absorb them.

Fine as it is now? Are you saying that while ignoring the slightly more than handful of guest servers that are lacking in both guilds or numbers? Are you saying that while ignoring the population imbalance between servers? Do you WvW?

It’s kind of helpful when you put the entire sentence in context… right?

It’s also helpful to follow the discussion and not spin off into assumptions…

Pensadora.9478:

Tiny Doom.4380:

Thing is, as per the dev explanation linked by Swagger above, ANet don’t balance WvW by “population”. They balance it by “play hours”.

Yep, and I’m sure that I could quote some very interesting Dev statements from the past. This later referenced “THE POLL” and was from a year ago. A YEAR AGO … let that sink in just a few minutes. In this game, in any game – a year is a long, long time.

This bolsters my argument to blow it all up. We have now invested an entire year, doing this tweak and that tweak, and look we’re all still talking about blowout matches, groups bandwagoning to T1, bloated servers, dying servers, etc etc.

Tiny Doom.4380:

As to whether that works for “balancing” the game mode… obviously not.

Thank you. I agree. Let’s blow it up and start with a clean slate. Let’s envision something better instead of continuing to beat this dead horse of ‘WvW the way we’ve always done it.’

Tiny Doom.4380:

According to the dev statement above, though, it’s the best they’ve been able to come up with.

It’s the best they’ve come up with given that we have boxed them into restrictions that say : “Don’t touch my e-world.” I’m pretty certain they have quite a few ideas on the shelf they could dust off, if they didn’t have their hands tied behind their backs over this one issue.

Let’s erect a monument to all the existing servers in LA , celebrate their accomplishments, blow them all up in a hail of fireworks, and move forward!

Let’s progress, people. We’re in the Paleolithic age of WvW and some of us want to stay there… forever. I’m sure it was really comfortable for people back in the days. But, those who don’t adjust… die. We’ve been treading water in the same place for a long, long time.

I would like WvW to survive. I’d like it be amazingly awesome. To get there, I believe we’ll have to let go of some of the ideas that are currently killing us and the gamemode. We need to free up our thinking and the designing to be able to cure what is ailing us.

We’re stuck in “Nowheresville”, not WvW, and, it’s not such a great place to be, or to recommend to your friends.

And, that is why I continue to ask for some clarity.

A year is nothing in terms of game development, it’s just long to you.

Linking, reward tracks and updated rewards have increased population and participation. WvW is surviving just fine right now… Seems you don’t really have a finger on the pulse with how the game has progressed, and you obviously haven’t followed any dev comments either.

Your vague “blow it up and start over” comments show you didn’t think anything through. You’ve provided zero input aside from “we need to change”, but you don’t even bother to suggest how things should change.

Edit- You can attempt to ignore the answers I provided as clarity, but that won’t change the facts. Those are dev quotes, so perhaps you should absorb them.

Pensadora.9478:

When FULL at T3/T4 is equated to FULL at T1, things appear to be a bit wonky in the universe, to say the least.

What could be worse than the slow, painful, demoralization of all the host server communities so that they join the linked servers, an already demoralized group? Why try forced re-colonization? Why not try exploration? I argue the later is far, far and away more positive.

Isn’t it more obvious than ever that it’s time to activate the nuclear option? Let’s blow it all up and start over, so that we can begin to build our brave new world(s).

This could be one of the most exciting things to happen in WvW. It will be fresh, challenging, and risky. To go where no one has gone before….To march off into the horizon to form new worlds and conquer the unknown.

This story: All bandwagon to T1, Locked down, Not enough population, Lost Community Identity, Imbalanced Matchups …. is old, tired and needs to be shelved. No one… and I mean no one… wants to read this story any more!

“….That’s what exploration is all about. Going to places where others haven’t been and returning to tell a story they haven’t heard before. " J. Cameron.

Let’s do it! What say you?

You need to be much clearer than “blow it all up and start over”… You’re going to have to think this through, explain the entire process and how exactly we end up in a better place… instead of being completely vague and not offering any well thought out ideas to discuss.

I’ll help the op again…

Linking is a permanent feature voted in so that’s the state of linking. Linking is also how the devs attempt to balance wvw populations.

McKenna Berdrow.2759:

The poll has ended! After removing all votes for “Don’t Count My Vote”, the final results are:
82.7% – Yes
17.3% – No
This mean that World Linking is now officially a Guild Wars 2 Feature. Thank you to everyone who voted!

Relinking is done every 2 months…

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!

The metrics to determine if servers should be locked or reopened…

“Yak’s Bend is among the highest worlds in terms of play hours and ranks gained, which is the primary metric we use to determine which worlds we lock each week.”

“To clarify further this is the first week we are using this new algorithm. So some of the complaints that are being brought up were problems with the old algorithm.
We use play hours to determine the size. Rank gains is tracked for comparison purposes since they usually follow a similar curve, but isn’t actually used to determine the world size.

We have simulated other algorithms to measure world size and ultimately found that player hours gave us more accurate results because we are mostly comparing active WvW play. The past algorithms weighed more heavily on individual players, so we ended up with situations where JQ was ‘Full’ because they had a lot of players, just not necessarily ones that played as much as Blackgate."

…You can recruit players from LA for your wvw server. You can also recruit players while in wvw. Finally, you can use the forums to recruit players for your guild too.

The devs are not going to give anyone specific numbers or announce when servers will open… your “planning for the future” consists of having players buy gems so when a server is unlocked you all can transfer…

You should also be well aware that the devs don’t discuss future plans. We know stuff when they are allowed to tell the community, not when we ask.

That should cover all your questions! You’re very welcome again!

Justine.6351:

I’m so sick of getting hit with 15k CoR and 6k Hammer Bolts that revenants spam out. All they do is press 1 and 2 and you cannot get to them because you die before gap closing. With survivability through the roof with unlimited evades, blocks, resistance and invulnerable/heal skill it’s even more rediculous. One trick pony build that has 1200 range decapitate on a 2sec recharge with 6k AA to weave in. It wouldn’t be so bad if the skills for hammer actually had a tell so you could dodge them.

I’m thinking 50% damage reduction on those 2 skills and shorten infuse light to 2 seconds to match the trait version. Probably increase the cd on the evades and blocks aswell.

Here is a vid of me trying to fight them with various classes/builds. 6k hammer bolts on my condi reaper. Cannot land any melee attacks with my power warrior. Evade spam ignoring/triggering my dh tapper. Even got my hybrid hammer rev out and we pretty much kill eachother in 3seconds because power overload.

https://youtu.be/X5_-gIvxGA8

Game is unplayable. They should at least consider increasing downed state survivability if I’m going to keep getting one shot, and maybe increase the effectiveness of weakness on revenants. It makes sense because they draw their power from the mists and so their muscles are not as strong in the first place. I can find the lore if needed.

You died. It happens…

Nobody is debating that changes to professions and stuff need to happen, but your post isn’t very constructive at all… You’re just coming across like you can’t handle losing. Next time you should post a list of changes and improvemts instead, so the community can discuss things and the devs can read some rational feedback.

Darn condi spammers…

No, not tengu. Dwarven playable race. I could type out a ton of reasons why, but I don’t need to because Dwarves are just that awesome.

It’s only $30 for HoT… this game has zero monthly access fee… geez…

It’s 2017 peeps… anet has 400 employees to feed… taxes to pay… a game to produce… and for a mere $30 you get unlimited access to a really great game… Like what do some of you really expect?

Jayne.9251:

Swagger.1459:

Jayne.9251:

I know you’re reliant on quotes, even what you linked backed up what I’ve been saying.

Unlink EU.

Keep fixes for NA in NA.

Actually, you’re trying to spin it in your favor… Just because some worlds had decent population, doesn’t mean all of them did… Same held true for NA too. Fewer worlds needed linking doesn’t equal none of the worlds needed linking. Let that churn in your mind some.

You not looking at wvw as a whole is your problem…

And you aren’t realizing/recognizing that NA and EU are two very different entities. Even the quote you cited backs that up.

I don’t need a dev quote to back up what I’ve seen first-hand. Linking was bad for EU.

Going forward I would suggest Anet plans based on these differences.

Revert EU, and implement fixes meant for NA to NA only. They’re both current.ly stationed on separate server systems. It shouldn’t be hard. And those who prefer server-style WvW can help build the EU community, and leave the other stuff to those who want it.

Win-win.

You can spin all you want, but that doesn’t mean you are right. EU still needed linking, but just not as many servers as NA… lesser doesn’t equal none.

I highly suggest dissecting that dev quote and what it means, not just what you want it to mean.

Jayne.9251:

I know you’re reliant on quotes, even what you linked backed up what I’ve been saying.

Unlink EU.

Keep fixes for NA in NA.

Actually, you’re trying to spin it in your favor… Just because some worlds had decent population, doesn’t mean all of them did… Same held true for NA too. Fewer worlds needed linking doesn’t equal none of the worlds needed linking. Let that churn in your mind some.

You not looking at wvw as a whole is your problem…

@Players talking about the need for EU linking…

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/World-Linking-Beta/first

“However, pairings for EU are a lot trickier, both because there is an odd number of total worlds, and because there is an odd number of specific language worlds. EU also has a greater number of well populated worlds, so it makes sense to link fewer worlds. The result is that a number of worlds in EU will not be linked.”

…So just because there were a “greater number of well populated worlds”… doesn’t mean EU didn’t need linking at all… and that it was “only a NA problem” to resolve either…

Some of you can keep griping about server linking, but that means you don’t care about wvw as a whole…

Last relinking was June 30th and they do a 2 month rotation schedule. August is the next round.

Every even number month… February, April, June, August, October and December.

Ashen.2907:

Swagger.1459:

atheria.2837:

Swagger.1459:

Ashen.2907:

Swagger.1459:

Balthazzarr.1349:

Swagger.1459:

Balthazzarr.1349:

Just because someone says it, doesn’t mean it’s true… works for me, and for the devs. They can say what they want.. I can go on what I see with the people I know. At the end of the day, with the new PIP system I still say the servers would do just fine. You can argue against it again and again and it still won’t change the idea that it could work.

What applied then doesn’t necessarily apply now, and so on.

Ok, so find the dev who made the quote and call him/her a liar and challenge their stats against what you “see” and what “people know”… Id love to see that interaction take place on the forums so start a thread and pm the dev…

I’m not getting angry or abusive.. let’s keep this friendly.. we can debate without being nasty. They have their stats and that’s all good.. I have what I actually have seen while playing the game. If more pugs came in than xp people left then nice for ANet but not so nice for the folks that really PLAY wvw.

I’m not getting angry either… You are basically saying that the devs are misleading the players, and countering that dev statement by your personal speculation.

You counter facts with facts, not assumptions. By all means, you are more than welcome to challenge the devs, but you better have all your stats in order, not just what you “see” and you think others “know”…

Do you know what the player cap per map is?

Do you know what the average amount of overall players per server, on every server, is?

Do you know the total average wvw participation rates for every month this game has been in existence?

Do you have the overall average amounts of wvw players and participation rates pre and post linking?

Do you have any stats with regard to anything wvw related that you can provide a rational counter argument with besides what you assume?

…The answers are that you don’t know any factual stats, so you’re basically calling a dev a liar. And your only argument to remove linking is that you think you, and other players, know better… That counter argument won’t win on any level and certainly won’t be strong enough to convince the devs to remove linking at this stage in the game.

The dev statement is no more supported by evidence available for review than is the case for the poster you quote.

Two individuals making statements. Neither providing evidence to support their claim.

Yes, you do counter facts with facts, but so far we have only unsupported claims, not established facts from all parties.

Or you can ignore the facts…

Dev post from Tyler Bearce…

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Additional-World-Linking-Information/first

“We’ve also had a substantial increase in global WvW participation since reward tracks, world linking, and the return of the Alpine borderlands. On top of that, we use a fairly long historical tail on WvW activity level for world population purposes.”

From Reddit.. quote from the polling site…

“The week of April 19th we released World Linking and Reward changes in WvW. Since the release we’ve seen an increase in WvW population and participation and we believe we’re moving in the right direction. We’re here today to ask if you think that World Linking is a positive improvement to the game. As before, we’re looking for 75% of the population voting “Yes” or “No” to agree that World Linking should remain a feature.

Do you believe that the WvW World Linking should be a Guild Wars 2 feature?"

…So please challenge Tyler’s statements and get linking removed. So far you have zero rational counter arguments to remove linking, so you might want to work on that when you bring it up to him and the team.

World linking had nothing to do with participation going up, unless you count the mercenaries paid to be on larger servers – that is the only ‘uptick’ from linking and that’s heinous abuse of real WvW’ers.

Adding a Legendary, that raised the population incredibly.

World Linking is still listed as a ‘beta test’. Not my words, theirs.

Linking is a destroyer of the game.

Adding a Legendary and tickets added value.

Linking needs to GO.

Take it up with Tyler Bearce then and tell him that the team is lying… go for it!

The quotes from Tyler Bearce that you provide do not claim that linking caused an increase in participation. He stated that after implementing linking among other changes to wvw they observed an increase in wvw population and activity. He further stated that it was a belief (note that a belief in something is different than an established fact) that they were moving in the right direction.

Trotting out quotes and inaccuratelt representing what they actually say does not support your position.

And stating a belief that is contrary to someone else’s stated belief is not calling them a liar. I am firmly of the belief that our sun is not the center of the universe, that doesnt mean that I consider Copernicus to be a liar.

I highly suggest you go back and read all of my comments in this thread before you make attempts to play “gotcha” with me…

Edit- You obviously have the right to post, but do me a favor and make an effort to understand the chain conversation going on so I don’t have to continuously repeat or requote myself… Doing your part will avoid cyclical banter and help lead to more constructive conversations. Thanks!

atheria.2837:

Swagger.1459:

Ashen.2907:

Swagger.1459:

Balthazzarr.1349:

Swagger.1459:

Balthazzarr.1349:

Just because someone says it, doesn’t mean it’s true… works for me, and for the devs. They can say what they want.. I can go on what I see with the people I know. At the end of the day, with the new PIP system I still say the servers would do just fine. You can argue against it again and again and it still won’t change the idea that it could work.

What applied then doesn’t necessarily apply now, and so on.

Ok, so find the dev who made the quote and call him/her a liar and challenge their stats against what you “see” and what “people know”… Id love to see that interaction take place on the forums so start a thread and pm the dev…

I’m not getting angry or abusive.. let’s keep this friendly.. we can debate without being nasty. They have their stats and that’s all good.. I have what I actually have seen while playing the game. If more pugs came in than xp people left then nice for ANet but not so nice for the folks that really PLAY wvw.

I’m not getting angry either… You are basically saying that the devs are misleading the players, and countering that dev statement by your personal speculation.

You counter facts with facts, not assumptions. By all means, you are more than welcome to challenge the devs, but you better have all your stats in order, not just what you “see” and you think others “know”…

Do you know what the player cap per map is?

Do you know what the average amount of overall players per server, on every server, is?

Do you know the total average wvw participation rates for every month this game has been in existence?

Do you have the overall average amounts of wvw players and participation rates pre and post linking?

Do you have any stats with regard to anything wvw related that you can provide a rational counter argument with besides what you assume?

…The answers are that you don’t know any factual stats, so you’re basically calling a dev a liar. And your only argument to remove linking is that you think you, and other players, know better… That counter argument won’t win on any level and certainly won’t be strong enough to convince the devs to remove linking at this stage in the game.

The dev statement is no more supported by evidence available for review than is the case for the poster you quote.

Two individuals making statements. Neither providing evidence to support their claim.

Yes, you do counter facts with facts, but so far we have only unsupported claims, not established facts from all parties.

Or you can ignore the facts…

Dev post from Tyler Bearce…

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Additional-World-Linking-Information/first

“We’ve also had a substantial increase in global WvW participation since reward tracks, world linking, and the return of the Alpine borderlands. On top of that, we use a fairly long historical tail on WvW activity level for world population purposes.”

From Reddit.. quote from the polling site…

“The week of April 19th we released World Linking and Reward changes in WvW. Since the release we’ve seen an increase in WvW population and participation and we believe we’re moving in the right direction. We’re here today to ask if you think that World Linking is a positive improvement to the game. As before, we’re looking for 75% of the population voting “Yes” or “No” to agree that World Linking should remain a feature.

Do you believe that the WvW World Linking should be a Guild Wars 2 feature?"

…So please challenge Tyler’s statements and get linking removed. So far you have zero rational counter arguments to remove linking, so you might want to work on that when you bring it up to him and the team.

World linking had nothing to do with participation going up, unless you count the mercenaries paid to be on larger servers – that is the only ‘uptick’ from linking and that’s heinous abuse of real WvW’ers.

Adding a Legendary, that raised the population incredibly.

World Linking is still listed as a ‘beta test’. Not my words, theirs.

Linking is a destroyer of the game.

Adding a Legendary and tickets added value.

Linking needs to GO.

Take it up with Tyler Bearce then and tell him that the team is lying… go for it!

Balthazzarr.1349:

Swagger.1459:

Ashen.2907:

Swagger.1459:

Balthazzarr.1349:

Swagger.1459:

Balthazzarr.1349:

Just because someone says it, doesn’t mean it’s true… works for me, and for the devs. They can say what they want.. I can go on what I see with the people I know. At the end of the day, with the new PIP system I still say the servers would do just fine. You can argue against it again and again and it still won’t change the idea that it could work.

What applied then doesn’t necessarily apply now, and so on.

Ok, so find the dev who made the quote and call him/her a liar and challenge their stats against what you “see” and what “people know”… Id love to see that interaction take place on the forums so start a thread and pm the dev…

I’m not getting angry or abusive.. let’s keep this friendly.. we can debate without being nasty. They have their stats and that’s all good.. I have what I actually have seen while playing the game. If more pugs came in than xp people left then nice for ANet but not so nice for the folks that really PLAY wvw.

I’m not getting angry either… You are basically saying that the devs are misleading the players, and countering that dev statement by your personal speculation.

You counter facts with facts, not assumptions. By all means, you are more than welcome to challenge the devs, but you better have all your stats in order, not just what you “see” and you think others “know”…

Do you know what the player cap per map is?

Do you know what the average amount of overall players per server, on every server, is?

Do you know the total average wvw participation rates for every month this game has been in existence?

Do you have the overall average amounts of wvw players and participation rates pre and post linking?

Do you have any stats with regard to anything wvw related that you can provide a rational counter argument with besides what you assume?

…The answers are that you don’t know any factual stats, so you’re basically calling a dev a liar. And your only argument to remove linking is that you think you, and other players, know better… That counter argument won’t win on any level and certainly won’t be strong enough to convince the devs to remove linking at this stage in the game.

The dev statement is no more supported by evidence available for review than is the case for the poster you quote.

Two individuals making statements. Neither providing evidence to support their claim.

Yes, you do counter facts with facts, but so far we have only unsupported claims, not established facts from all parties.

Or you can ignore the facts…

Dev post from Tyler Bearce…

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Additional-World-Linking-Information/first

“We’ve also had a substantial increase in global WvW participation since reward tracks, world linking, and the return of the Alpine borderlands. On top of that, we use a fairly long historical tail on WvW activity level for world population purposes.”

From Reddit.. quote from the polling site…

“The week of April 19th we released World Linking and Reward changes in WvW. Since the release we’ve seen an increase in WvW population and participation and we believe we’re moving in the right direction. We’re here today to ask if you think that World Linking is a positive improvement to the game. As before, we’re looking for 75% of the population voting “Yes” or “No” to agree that World Linking should remain a feature.

Do you believe that the WvW World Linking should be a Guild Wars 2 feature?"

…So please challenge Tyler’s statements and get linking removed. So far you have zero rational counter arguments to remove linking, so you might want to work on that when you bring it up to him and the team.

I’m willing to agree that the overall stats they have are no doubt real and true. But I will narrow this down and state that for the people THAT I KNOW on my server I definitely saw a marked decrease in wvw activity for quite a while after linking. NO I don’t have numbers and I don’t need them. When I see people I know coming back now that haven’t been in for a while wondering if linking will terminate … well, it is what it is. Overall numbers notwithstanding… our server suffered.. now that this PIP system is in place I see MANY more people playing that I know that had all but stopped. .. and of course new people.

That’s good news! Now we have a better understanding! Thank you!

So… We can’t make huge judgement calls just from what we see on 1 server. Have to look at the big picture and the various systems that drive wvw to a better place than before. Linking, reward tracks, skirmishes, improved rewards… are all contributing factors to the growth of WvW… It’s all a much better “formula” than before, so it’s not rational to remove anything that’s netting positive results for this game mode.

The devs are aware.

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/support/bugs

Ashen.2907:

Swagger.1459:

Ashen.2907:

Swagger.1459:

Balthazzarr.1349:

Swagger.1459:

Balthazzarr.1349:

Just because someone says it, doesn’t mean it’s true… works for me, and for the devs. They can say what they want.. I can go on what I see with the people I know. At the end of the day, with the new PIP system I still say the servers would do just fine. You can argue against it again and again and it still won’t change the idea that it could work.

What applied then doesn’t necessarily apply now, and so on.

Ok, so find the dev who made the quote and call him/her a liar and challenge their stats against what you “see” and what “people know”… Id love to see that interaction take place on the forums so start a thread and pm the dev…

I’m not getting angry or abusive.. let’s keep this friendly.. we can debate without being nasty. They have their stats and that’s all good.. I have what I actually have seen while playing the game. If more pugs came in than xp people left then nice for ANet but not so nice for the folks that really PLAY wvw.

I’m not getting angry either… You are basically saying that the devs are misleading the players, and countering that dev statement by your personal speculation.

You counter facts with facts, not assumptions. By all means, you are more than welcome to challenge the devs, but you better have all your stats in order, not just what you “see” and you think others “know”…

Do you know what the player cap per map is?

Do you know what the average amount of overall players per server, on every server, is?

Do you know the total average wvw participation rates for every month this game has been in existence?

Do you have the overall average amounts of wvw players and participation rates pre and post linking?

Do you have any stats with regard to anything wvw related that you can provide a rational counter argument with besides what you assume?

…The answers are that you don’t know any factual stats, so you’re basically calling a dev a liar. And your only argument to remove linking is that you think you, and other players, know better… That counter argument won’t win on any level and certainly won’t be strong enough to convince the devs to remove linking at this stage in the game.

The dev statement is no more supported by evidence available for review than is the case for the poster you quote.

Two individuals making statements. Neither providing evidence to support their claim.

Yes, you do counter facts with facts, but so far we have only unsupported claims, not established facts from all parties.

Or you can ignore the facts…

Dev post from Tyler Bearce…

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Additional-World-Linking-Information/first

“We’ve also had a substantial increase in global WvW participation since reward tracks, world linking, and the return of the Alpine borderlands. On top of that, we use a fairly long historical tail on WvW activity level for world population purposes.”

From Reddit.. quote from the polling site…

“The week of April 19th we released World Linking and Reward changes in WvW. Since the release we’ve seen an increase in WvW population and participation and we believe we’re moving in the right direction. We’re here today to ask if you think that World Linking is a positive improvement to the game. As before, we’re looking for 75% of the population voting “Yes” or “No” to agree that World Linking should remain a feature.

Do you believe that the WvW World Linking should be a Guild Wars 2 feature?"

…So please challenge Tyler’s statements and get linking removed. So far you have zero rational counter arguments to remove linking, so you might want to work on that when you bring it up to him and the team.

Yes, a statement made by an individual, as I noted previously. Without verifiable data to support it, it is just a claim. “Because I said so,” isnt really a viable argument.

By the way, I am not asking for server linkings to be undone. There are, as with many things, positive and negative aspects to linkings. How one feels about it is likely influenced by how the particular positives and negatives balance for you.

Oh, I thought you were the other person when I quoted.

No worries, I get it, but you are missing the overall points I’m trying to make… Thanks for your input though!

Ashen.2907:

Swagger.1459:

Balthazzarr.1349:

Swagger.1459:

Balthazzarr.1349:

Just because someone says it, doesn’t mean it’s true… works for me, and for the devs. They can say what they want.. I can go on what I see with the people I know. At the end of the day, with the new PIP system I still say the servers would do just fine. You can argue against it again and again and it still won’t change the idea that it could work.

What applied then doesn’t necessarily apply now, and so on.

Ok, so find the dev who made the quote and call him/her a liar and challenge their stats against what you “see” and what “people know”… Id love to see that interaction take place on the forums so start a thread and pm the dev…

I’m not getting angry or abusive.. let’s keep this friendly.. we can debate without being nasty. They have their stats and that’s all good.. I have what I actually have seen while playing the game. If more pugs came in than xp people left then nice for ANet but not so nice for the folks that really PLAY wvw.

I’m not getting angry either… You are basically saying that the devs are misleading the players, and countering that dev statement by your personal speculation.

You counter facts with facts, not assumptions. By all means, you are more than welcome to challenge the devs, but you better have all your stats in order, not just what you “see” and you think others “know”…

Do you know what the player cap per map is?

Do you know what the average amount of overall players per server, on every server, is?

Do you know the total average wvw participation rates for every month this game has been in existence?

Do you have the overall average amounts of wvw players and participation rates pre and post linking?

Do you have any stats with regard to anything wvw related that you can provide a rational counter argument with besides what you assume?

…The answers are that you don’t know any factual stats, so you’re basically calling a dev a liar. And your only argument to remove linking is that you think you, and other players, know better… That counter argument won’t win on any level and certainly won’t be strong enough to convince the devs to remove linking at this stage in the game.

The dev statement is no more supported by evidence available for review than is the case for the poster you quote.

Two individuals making statements. Neither providing evidence to support their claim.

Yes, you do counter facts with facts, but so far we have only unsupported claims, not established facts from all parties.

Or you can ignore the facts…

Dev post from Tyler Bearce…

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Additional-World-Linking-Information/first

“We’ve also had a substantial increase in global WvW participation since reward tracks, world linking, and the return of the Alpine borderlands. On top of that, we use a fairly long historical tail on WvW activity level for world population purposes.”

From Reddit.. quote from the polling site…

“The week of April 19th we released World Linking and Reward changes in WvW. Since the release we’ve seen an increase in WvW population and participation and we believe we’re moving in the right direction. We’re here today to ask if you think that World Linking is a positive improvement to the game. As before, we’re looking for 75% of the population voting “Yes” or “No” to agree that World Linking should remain a feature.

Do you believe that the WvW World Linking should be a Guild Wars 2 feature?"

…So please challenge Tyler’s statements and get linking removed. So far you have zero rational counter arguments to remove linking, so you might want to work on that when you bring it up to him and the team.

Balthazzarr.1349:

Swagger.1459:

Balthazzarr.1349:

Just because someone says it, doesn’t mean it’s true… works for me, and for the devs. They can say what they want.. I can go on what I see with the people I know. At the end of the day, with the new PIP system I still say the servers would do just fine. You can argue against it again and again and it still won’t change the idea that it could work.

What applied then doesn’t necessarily apply now, and so on.

Ok, so find the dev who made the quote and call him/her a liar and challenge their stats against what you “see” and what “people know”… Id love to see that interaction take place on the forums so start a thread and pm the dev…

I’m not getting angry or abusive.. let’s keep this friendly.. we can debate without being nasty. They have their stats and that’s all good.. I have what I actually have seen while playing the game. If more pugs came in than xp people left then nice for ANet but not so nice for the folks that really PLAY wvw.

I’m not getting angry either… You are basically saying that the devs are misleading the players, and countering that dev statement by your personal speculation.

You counter facts with facts, not assumptions. By all means, you are more than welcome to challenge the devs, but you better have all your stats in order, not just what you “see” and you think others “know”…

Do you know what the player cap per map is?

Do you know what the average amount of overall players per server, on every server, is?

Do you know the total average wvw participation rates for every month this game has been in existence?

Do you have the overall average amounts of wvw players and participation rates pre and post linking?

Do you have any stats with regard to anything wvw related that you can provide a rational counter argument with besides what you assume?

…The answers are that you don’t know any factual stats, so you’re basically calling a dev a liar. And your only argument to remove linking is that you think you, and other players, know better… That counter argument won’t win on any level and certainly won’t be strong enough to convince the devs to remove linking at this stage in the game.

BloodyPanda.6789:

I really think when a player die in WvW there should be some waiting time before he can wp back again. Maybe like a 1 minute delay before you can wp back to spawn. The reason I think this is better idea because it give death more penalty, especially during a squad fight people will consider more tactically instead of just charging in and die and instantly wp and run back less in a minute. I seen so many more organized squad winning a fight wiping half of enemy but eventually lost because they are close to enemy spawn point. This will make winning and losing larger squad fight more skill base significant, because losing will actually require the squad to regroup and organize before moving out instead of just keep spawning like waves of zombies. Also this makes reviving people more meaningful and can actually be part important part in after battle. Any thoughts on this?

My thoughts… This idea is a waste of time. Having to respawn and run back is penalty enough. Let’s come up with ideas that actually improve wvw, not make it more annoying.

Balthazzarr.1349:

Just because someone says it, doesn’t mean it’s true… works for me, and for the devs. They can say what they want.. I can go on what I see with the people I know. At the end of the day, with the new PIP system I still say the servers would do just fine. You can argue against it again and again and it still won’t change the idea that it could work.

What applied then doesn’t necessarily apply now, and so on.

Ok, so find the dev who made the quote and call him/her a liar and challenge their stats against what you “see” and what “people know”… Id love to see that interaction take place on the forums so start a thread and pm the dev…

Balthazzarr.1349:

Swagger.1459:

Sorry, but overall participation increased with linking…

None of you have provided any real evidence or rational arguments to remove linking. Some of you can type until your fingers hurt, but it doesn’t change the stated dev fact that wvw is healthier, in part, due to linking… All in all, it’s pretty irrational to want wvw back in the same failing state it was in before linking…. Makes zero sense and is counterproductive to wanting a more thriving game mode.

I don’t believe that overall participation increased at all. I’ve seen many many people leave WvW and this game because of the linking. The borderlands got more people now because of clumping up the servers but that doesn’t equal more participation.

As stated above here and there, the new PIP system has actually brought new people into WvW… and has caused more and more people to stay in and farm for PIPS. They aren’t “fighting for the land”… a large number don’t care at all about WvW.. just the PIPS.

But, if the servers were returned to their original states WITH the PIP system in place I’m very confident that not only would they do well, but they would do very well as people moved around to places where they could roam/havoc and farm the blazes out of every object in site just to get more pips.

With this new PIP system you don’t even need many people on the bl’s for that. You just need “participation”. Yep it’s flawed… but it definitely would get more participation out of every server!

Doesn’t matter what anyone believes… I go by the following Dev quote…

“*The week of April 19th we released World Linking and Reward changes in WvW. Since the release we’ve seen an increase in WvW population and participation and we believe we’re moving in the right direction.* We’re here today to ask if you think that World Linking is a positive improvement to the game. As before, we’re looking for 75% of the population voting “Yes” or “No” to agree that World Linking should remain a feature.

Do you believe that the WvW World Linking should be a Guild Wars 2 feature?"

…So to the rest of your post… yeah… both linking and rewards have obviously increased population and participation.

Move on peeps…

Sorry, but overall participation increased with linking…

None of you have provided any real evidence or rational arguments to remove linking. Some of you can type until your fingers hurt, but it doesn’t change the stated dev fact that wvw is healthier, in part, due to linking… All in all, it’s pretty irrational to want wvw back in the same failing state it was in before linking…. Makes zero sense and is counterproductive to wanting a more thriving game mode.

It bugs me when people do not make clear thread titles, and niggle about anet using whatever word(s) they want to describe “things” for their game.

Jumpin Lumpix.6108:

Swagger.1459:

Jumpin Lumpix.6108:

Shazmataz.1423:

No more tournaments please…I have heard commanders talking about the resulting burn-out from past tournys and we need commanders in game more than ever.

One of the current issues with wvw is the lack of commanders and pugmanders. Having a tournament would be detrimental to wvw long term.

This just sounds like people who can’t control themselves. Most of the commanders I talked with enjoyed the exciting zvz in the tournament.

So you want anet to host wvw tournaments that feature terrible lag, poor profession balance, horrible condi system designs, unbalanced matchups even with linking… and take a huge risk with potentially losing players permanently due to frustration and burn out? …seems pretty logical right?

Will prob bring in new players let the ones who quit, quit.

Or you could think things through more… Also, you skipped the dev quote swamurabi provided… should probably read that.

Jumpin Lumpix.6108:

Shazmataz.1423:

No more tournaments please…I have heard commanders talking about the resulting burn-out from past tournys and we need commanders in game more than ever.

One of the current issues with wvw is the lack of commanders and pugmanders. Having a tournament would be detrimental to wvw long term.

This just sounds like people who can’t control themselves. Most of the commanders I talked with enjoyed the exciting zvz in the tournament.

So you want anet to host wvw tournaments that feature terrible lag, poor profession balance, horrible condi system designs, unbalanced matchups even with linking… and take a huge risk with potentially losing players permanently due to frustration and burn out? …seems pretty logical right?

Fridgemomo.3750:

I wish Anet would give us a poll on this, and let the majority decide.

We already had a poll… and linking is now a permanent feature because it was voted in by the majority.

Also, a dev clearly stated that populations have increased since linking was implemented…

Good luck with your efforts to put us back in the same problematic state wvw was before!

Jayne.9251:

You both are a bit defensive.

NA had the issue with server stacking; prior to linking, EU did not have the issue — or at least not to the extreme that was seen in NA.

The linking has brought the NA bandwagon movement to EU. We really hadn’t seen it in EU prior to linking; again not to the extreme that was happening in NA. SFR was the only server, allegedly, that actively paid for guilds to transfer to its server. It’s why it remained dominant for a long time.

EU players: solo, roamers, guilded, but particularly guilded had discussions amongst each other to ensure that three max big guilds were on each server to ensure a good ratio of fights. These guilds self-organized and helped balance out the rest of the pug masses. And I’m pretty sure none of these guilds cared whether they were in 1st, 2nd or 10th spot: they just wanted to make sure they had the bodies to fight to challenge them and their friends during their leisure time.

What did motivate them were queue times: If they got too long on any given server, they’d move down in tiers.

It wound up creating a pleasant playing field where pugs could improve skillset by tagging along with high level guilds — and pugs would leave the guilds alone if they were working on group raids/compositions etc… Scouts could call out blob reports and the guilds would actually (good naturedly) fight with each other in map chat over who got to take on the blob first. I even witnessed one guild wait at the side to let another guild have the first shot.

EU servers period would complain about what is common in NA — zerging. And accuse other guilds of hand holding if they didn’t wait turns.

EU did not need linking to balance out the population. The majority played during prime and there were small groups of devoted “daytime/nighttime” regulars.

The server balance issues were NA only. Linking was created for NA.

SpellOfIniquity.1780:

Your blanket statements aren’t a far cry from racism in terms of ignorance. But then I guess I should expect that from an EU player. See how unfair that is?

I think you mean bigotry.

I’m not that either.

Nah…

I’ll ask again since you are deflecting…

Do you have any dev statements to back up your claims about EU?

You have any ideas on how to force players to spread out in equal numbers on every server?

Jayne.9251:

Blow up, link, whatever you’d please — only do it in NA. The whole new system was implemented because players refused to spread out in NA, and it completely borked EU which was fine prior.

Do all the new shinies for NA. They want it.

Interesting… Well, perhaps sorting out all NA players by their native tongue and race will help us be more organized like EU servers… Maybe we could have the devs force players into regional and county servers? Like Northern Canadian, Southern Canadian, West Coast US, Central US, East Coast USA, Australian…

…Seriously, though, do you have a developer quote stating that the EU was fine prior to linking?

Also, how does one force players to spread out evenly? I’m sure we’d all like to hear a rational and possible way to achieve this…

Namer.9750:

Hi, I had a few ideas on how to make Condition-damage based gameplay more interesting and innovative. These ideas could be implemented with the next expansion, as they make use of new mechanics that would refresh the current stale “boonshare” meta of WvW.

> A new type of Condition, or maybe a trait that makes all Condis “Virulent Conditions” that are uncleansable.

> A new type of Conditions, “Plague Conditions” that tick for damage, not on one target, but in an AoE. (literally, passive Epi). This could be a trait or a specific new condition.

> “Cascading Conditions” where the Condition Damage per tick per stack scales up with higher stacks of the condi. Say, every stack of bleed you have increases the damage of your individual bleed ticks by 10%. So 10 stacks of bleed do a lot more than 10 times the damage of a single stack of bleed.

> A new condition, “Malice” (or something like that) that, like Torment and Confusion, does damage based on your actions. More specifically, it does damage based on how many boons+condis you have, and whenever it ticks it corrupts one boon, with Resistance being corrupted first and stability second.

> A new condition, “Broken Bones”, that deals additional damage if you’re CCed, and each stack of Broken Bones increases the duration of any stun, knockback or knockdown by 20%

These are only a few possible ideas out of a vast universe of possibilities. I hope ANet takes a look at some of these suggestions!

Great list, but only 5? Think we need at least 10-15 new “soft” condis. You should also consider coming up with a bunch of “hard” control skills too…

Good luck!

Jana.6831:

I do hope you guys will get my point some day. I can’t say more than I’ve already said, just that I suspected some servers/colours being faster/slower than others for 2 years now but it’s really obvious with the resurrected servers right now.

Again in short: GH comes back from the ashes has got a K/D ratio around 2+ for 5-6 weeks straight, then falls to 0.9 and now with the nearly same linking Vabbi (and GH and UW) is back at 2+ again. And the fights definitively were different as well – and that’s not because the servers fought that much better – because no one really can and all servers had an influx of PvE players.

In even shorter: Anet, please use maths when adjusting server latency.

Match ups are fluid from day to day, week to week, month to month… That’s how it goes, and something you should know by now… The devs can’t predict the future, they can only analyze the various stats and make their best guess decisions…

The devs have a nightmare of server juggling, linking and various systems in place to manage… and they try to appease everyone. They get it, and the “maths”… It’s that you don’t understand. The human element of players is the unpredictable factor that’s beyond dev control, not that the devs are doing things in some flawed way. Understand?

Slyther.1297:

What you don’t seem to understand is that the entire system is composed of multiple parts. I don’t care if the reward is a thousand tickets, or a single ticket, this thread is talking about the cog in the system that addresses how you GET those tickets, and the tickets themselves are IRRELEVANT to this thread. You are still making assumptions that I don’t understand the system, when it seems that YOU are the one that fails to understand that even a perfect ticket reward system still relies on the pips to EARN the rewards. Two separate cogs.

The pip system has it’s flaws, I’m trying to make a suggestion to fix one of the flaws. The Outnumbered buff makes the difference between spending 20-24 hours in WvW per week without the buff, to 12 hours WITH the buff, at least when using my personal pip incomes for reference. I have other aspects of the game I want to play, and to more efficiently use my WvW time to make it so it doesn’t feel like a job I end up taking advantage of the outnumbered system as much as I can. What the Team buff I propose will do is distribute outnumbered pips to everyone on the team, no more map hopping, no more map silence, just playing what map you want without feeling like you’re being punished. The outnumbered pips should feel like a BONUS, not a REQUIREMENT for efficient ticket farming.

I’ll cross-post this to the mega thread, but I’d appreciate you stop hijacking the thread for your own purposes.

The devs intentionally gave pip bonus on outnumbered maps as incentive for players to populate maps… Working as intended…

Pips are a means to ticket rewards… The ticket reward structure and weekly ticket limitations are the issues that causes this to “feel like a job”… it has nothing to do with pips…

Hijacking? You’re the one hijacking the wvw forums when you should be posting this stuff in the official thread. It was created so players would stop spamming hundreds of pip threads, like this one. You’re also unwilling to look at the real issue, and it has nothing to do with pip dispersal…

If you don’t want, or can’t handle, feedback and different perspectives, then don’t start a thread for the community to comment on.

We wouldn’t be having all these pip discussions if the ticket rewards were improved… but many don’t get that… I’m sure you’ll connect with that soon.

You should use the official thread on pip acquisition instead of bypassing it… That’s what’s it’s there for… “We have had quite a few threads posted about Pips over the last few days. In order to keep things organized, let’s use this single thread to discuss the topic moving forward.”

Good luck!

The pip system is used to earn what?

Are pips used to purchase rewards?

The true issue, “toxicity”, reasons why players are “upset”… has to do with ticket stuff, not pips. You and a hundred other players don’t seem to understand…

This is the official feedback thread on pip acquisition btw….

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Feedback-Pip-Acquisition-merged/first

I would write in all caps, but I’m not allowed…

Stop focusing on the pips. Pips are not the issue… The issue is the low ticket amounts awarded for the time and effort, and the bad 175 weekly ticket cap.

Do you understand?

Mmat Cz.5203:

Hey,

so I transferred right before finishing my diamond chest.

Why do you do this to us?

Because they did…

June 7th patch notes.

“Pips cannot be earned if you have recently transferred or if you do not have enough participation.”

“You must play on a world for an entire match in order to be eligible for earning pips.”

Good luck!

Mounts Strike Back: The End Is Neigh

From May of last year.

McKenna Berdrow.2759:

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

82.7% – Yes

17.3% – No

This mean that World Linking is now officially a Guild Wars 2 Feature. Thank you to everyone who voted!

From June of last year.

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!

Jayne.9251:

Ok I must be really naive. Or Canadian. Or both.

I can’t see what’s so controversial about that beaver?!

Ok if it creates a monster liability issue by having player-created items; maybe Anet can give a choice of three for each server (artists I’m lookin’ out for ya! job security! wink wink), and then the community votes. They’d have to do some kind of tweak to ensure only those actively on X server were voting for X gear, but a girl can pie in the sky it.

As for the rest of you. Hilarious. Your responses actually made me laugh in some instances.

Any serious responses tho?

I think it’d would be awesome to have a set of gear that instantly visually identifies what server you’re from. And given the popularity of exclusive items, it would provide a source of pride, longterm goals, staying power in game, etc ….

Given that you’re not aware of the extensive work it takes to create armor in this game, I’ll just drop these quotes from an AMA here…

“Sunaris•1y
Mike, why were there so few new armor sets added to HoT? Why did the new raids offer no new armor skins, and when can we expect some actual new ones to help our fashion addiction?”

“anet_mattp•1y
Not Mike, but I do have some answers to this:
Armor sets are one of (if not actually) the most time expensive things we make for GW2. Each set has an incredible amount of detail and customization, and then has to be fit to very disparate rigs. That’s a big part of why we did the number we did for HoT.
That being said, there are plans for more reward armor sets in the future. And while raids doesn’t have armor skins yet, it will be the way players obtain legendary armor.”

“YumeijinTarnished Coast•1y
Close. Being able to mix and match with all the other armor in the game (in its weight class) isn’t really a demonstrable concern.

However, in order to make an Outfit an armor set they’d have to shoehorn it into an armor classification and chop it up so it’s cut at the proper vertices and attributing item IDs to call each piece correctly.

An Outfit gets way more of a return on their investment, due to being usable by all weights (since it’s its own weight classification) and being in one piece. It requires the least amount of additional work."

“Mike-OBrien-ArenaNet•1y
You two answered it for me. It does in fact take about ten times the dev effort to make an armor set as to make an outfit.”

… With all of that considered, it’s completely unrealistic to ask the devs to make 153 unique sets of armor to fit 5 races… 153 being 51 sets of heavy, 51 sets of medium and 51 sets of light… again, that have to fit 5 races… for 51 servers.

You may want to rethink what unique things could be made and given for each of the individual 51 servers.

Nyx.6532:

Problem with Goldsellers.
question in bottom:

So here is a problem I actually haven’t experienced with goldsellers before (no matter if it is sold by the company or thirdparty. I see no difference on the two from a gameplay and enjoyment experience).

So I am sitting here thinking: “I would actually like to buy the living stories I don’t have and play them. I don’t mind paying the price it cost” (its 1280 for the season 2 and an extra 800 for the season 3 I can’t play, so 2080 gems which is roughly 25€).
Then I look at what that would get me in gold. Anet will sell me roughly 600gold for that price, that is actually far more than my char has on him and even at a 4g/h ratio (which from what I read is pretty high income grind) it is 150hours of grind.

There is No Way in hell the living stories will ever even come close to making or opening something worth 600g.
So if I was to give the extra money (and I Truly don’t mind that if it was, it’s 25€ which is very cheap for me) I should definitely get direct gold instead of stories as it gives me far more hours of “income”.
However I will NEVER buy gold, I don’t care if it is from some sweatshop thirdparty seller or from the company itself; it is cheating, it cheapens the effort of legit players and it decrease the enjoyment of everyone which plays on a fair playing field.

So since I would feel bad for buying something which has far less worth than simply buying gold, I have a hard time even wanting to buy anything….
So instead of me starting to use extra money on stories, later the cool tool animations (which they where just animations as I am using magic tools), perma bank stuff etc etc etc. I am constantly recalculating what that would be in pure gold and therefore coming to the conclusion that buying anything else is pointless and again I will Not buy ingame currency as it is cheating etc. as mentioned (and I could use 1 day at work and buy 3200g+ ingame (200€=16000gem= 100g per 500gem, so 3200g), making any time I use ingame on gaining anything an utter and complete wasted of time which will instantly turn me off from playing as any time spend I should just be paying my way out off…)

So yer, this is actually an issue I haven’t seen in other mmo’s I’ve invested time into…
Any cool idea’s of a different way of looking at it? which could change my mind and make me not feel so “depressed” over spending time actually playing the game to progress, instead of simply taking some overtime at work (and cutting months of grinding off for every day i just do RL work) ?

normally my argument is “it is against the eula etc. and hope the little piip piip gets perma banned when they do it” but here it is highly encuraged and the devs really want us to do it, making any kind of this argument nullified

edit: calc for gold price

What does this post have to do with “gold sellers”?

This is you griping about not wanting to spend your € on something in-game… You want something, then buy it. You don’t want something, then don’t buy it… You don’t want to use money, then exchange your gold earned in-game for gems to purchase it for free…

nosleepdemon.1368:

Linken.6345:

Psientist.6437:

nosleepdemon.1368:

Regarding open markets, I’d argue that in an MMO there is a definite value to obtaining a good location for selling particular goods. For example, a merchant selling health or mana potions in a dangerous zone could reasonably increase their item price “above market value”, because there is value in not having to return to a town to purchase those items. This is something that the TP really mutes. I’d also say that access to a global market would create a high bar for entry, which is something that I think is also seen on the TP, where players with lots of supply have a global effect on the market. This is super convenient to manage, and may be necessary from the point of view of ANet and managing the game’s economy, but it’s also a bit gross.

Yes, the TP reduces the chance for profiteering or charging a premium based on location. The horror.

A global market reduces the threshold for entry and increases the threshold for market manipulation.

Game development is a group effort. If you are a developer and are fortunate enough to be lead on a game’s design, keep that in mind and hire an economist to help.

I thought gw2 have a economist and most players dont seem to like the changes he do at all so not sure hiring one would help tbh.

There’s a difference between what the vocal minority say, and what the majority of players actually do. I’d wager most people don’t post on these forums, so as a developer one would need to be careful about what opinions one takes to heart from anybody posting here. I imagine that most of the decisions made regarding the economy are based on statistics and not forum opinion.

Regarding economics, how does one argue that a global market reduces the cost of entry when the little guy is put in direct competition with established players?

You’d wager? You’re entire first paragraph should be obvious…

Umm perhaps because it becomes centralized so all players can jockey for their own buying and selling price points… Although possible to make profits, the devs didn’t intentionally design the tp so players could rip off others to make gold… which seems to be the theme you are ultimately aiming for.

Your serious input is flawed and shows you didn’t put in enough thought into the subject. Not a developer myself, but it’s obvious you didn’t think past the koisk phase to look at effects on the game as a whole…

nosleepdemon.1368:

Regarding open markets, I’d argue that in an MMO there is a definite value to obtaining a good location for selling particular goods. For example, a merchant selling health or mana potions in a dangerous zone could reasonably increase their item price “above market value”, because there is value in not having to return to a town to purchase those items. This is something that the TP really mutes. I’d also say that access to a global market would create a high bar for entry, which is something that I think is also seen on the TP, where players with lots of supply have a global effect on the market. This is super convenient to manage, and may be necessary from the point of view of ANet and managing the game’s economy, but it’s also a bit gross.

Want to know what’s really gross?

Kiosks set up all over communal areas, with players and bots spamming chat trying to sell their items…

Also gross… this will increase player hoarding 100 fold and drive up costs…

Another gross… bot shops, more scams and more gold sellers…

Biggest gross… All this negatively impacts common players, irritates them and alienates them from enjoying the game… and that hurts the bottom line in the long run…

…You obviously didn’t think through the portion of your posts that were half serious. Your posts also highly suggest that you are one of those market manipulator players who wants to abuse systems for person gain only, not to have a overall fair and balanced working game economy.

DemonSeed.3528:

Is that anything like “Lock Ground Target at Maximum Skill Range” in options? I probably misunderstood.

It would a number over the target that shows the distance to the target.

MoarChaos.8320:

I’m all for the option. Seems like it would help people see what they want to see even if they aren’t using it for the same reasons. Your issue is entirely a computer issue though. A notification wouldn’t cause that.

What do you mean a computer issue? Like an old computer or one that’s not optimized for gaming?

Just wondering because I do have a great set up.

Warning… Not a computer nerd so don’t get all technical with me…

I have noticed more lag and fps dropping when the loot drop notification display is scrolling down with the loot I’m getting. I have not calculated the fps loss while playing and getting loot, but here are some basic numbers…

Sitting in LA- 60 fps

Open lots of bags and the loot notification is scrolling- Drops down to 40-50 fps.

Taking a screen shot of the fps loss while opening bags- A brief minus 10 fps.

Loot notification done- 60 fps.

…So, would be possible to add in an option that disables the loot notification to help combat some of the lag and fps loss? Would be great because every little bit counts…

Thanks for the suggestion, but no thanks! Anet set things up perfectly so we are all good!

Take care!

Thanks for putting in all the effort to type this out, but please try to condense this, and highlight important suggestions, so it’s easier to read.

Like an option to display the exact distance to a target?

We have players running around and skill ranges are all over the place… and it’s frustrating to waste skills because we incorrectly calculated the distance to a target. Would be nice on portals and such too…