The players have jumped on Anet because they’ve given/done things that we haven’t asked for (or it’s their interpretation of what we want):
- Desert BL – all we wanted were more open maps to make the massive fights easier. We got the opposite.
- EoTM – we never asked for it
- Golem Week – never asked for it
- Portable cannons – never asked for it
- Scoring changes – asked for it but the idea was that Anet would continue to change/develop it into something that works better. Granted, this won’t really be fixed until server balance is fixed
- Linking – we asked for server balance and got linking. We’ve given it a try and it just doesn’t work. No one’s fault but a revision needs to be forth coming (not a year and waiting)
- The other “improvements” such as getting gold for daily is only in WvW because it’s in PvE. It never would be implemented only in WvW.
The poster about petting the cat hit it right – Anet rightfully is hesitant to change things given the community response. But the solution is simple – get the darn dev’s to actually play WvW for more than 1 hour a month and they can see what we’re talking about.
DBL: Players didn’t want structure to structure siege. (Remember when you could hit bay from garri?) Players didn’t want it so easy to be able to run back from spawn and continue a fight in a keep. Players wanted towers to be more important.
EotM: Players didn’t want to sit in queue. (This was the time Anet could have said “you overstacked a server, you sit in a queue.”)
Scoring changes: Players wanted PPK. Players didn’t want blowout matches. Players didn’t want nightcapping to be rewarded.
Linking: Players complained about lack of players on their server up to and including T1.
Golem week and portable cannons: Players wanted special events in WvW.
Automatic structure updates: Players complained about the cost to upgrade and how they were losing gold playing WvW.
The real problem is that we don’t get a reason why a change is made so we are left to speculate and complain about it.
Which teamspeak am I using this week?
WvW got put on the bottom of the priority inbox and has to wait its turn in the queue.
WvW doesn’t get a “turn”, which is a fine example one of the reasons an MMO released in 2004 (ish) and charges a sub still has way more players than second raters like this game, that don’t put the minimum of necessary amounts of resources into many areas of the game (even entire game modes like WvW), then wonders where most of the players went and why it has record low revenues 3 quarters in a row, but don’t worry, more outfits in the gem store.
But every company that has to release a product at a certain time has to allocate resources to every project for the life of the project. The WvW project was sacrificed to more important projects when it was determined that the WvW project became out of scope. GW2’s buy to play and free to play model just doesn’t allow it to have the same resources as that other MMO and can’t have a fully staffed WvW team.
This thread isn’t to measure kittens or anything. I’m just encouraging guild leaders to look at what’s going on. Maybe this thread can even motivate someone or help a new commander get ideas on what to do to create his/her own guild.
Something that I’ve found is making videos has helped our recruitment, especially early.
We started with videos like this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-oPFQK1f50 and shared them with our server. We then started making WvW only videos and that seemed to spike recruitment for us. The first vids were pretty smallscale stuff but then grew.
Our guy that makes videos is TBT ruggs and he uses shadowplay to record. Most people have it if they possess and Nvidia graphics card. From there, you can grab a video editing program for pretty cheap.
Recording also helps A LOT when it comes to seeing who is out of position etc because you CAN’T always look 360 around you all the time in order to see what’s going on (as a commander).
I think that you’re somewhere in the middle of the WvW guild lifespan arc.
I don’t know what the life stages of a WvW guild are but after you start using video for recruitment you move to using video to improve your play.
This leads a guild to become serious and more exclusive because winning is fun and fun is winning.
This eventually leads to burnout and the eventual breakup of the guild. If the commander is the one who burns out the guild dies.
Still waiting on HoT fulfillment.
Think I’ll pass on the $50 trait line.Agreed, unfinished product. Can’t trust these guys.
Don’t worry, I am sure that when ANET said that WvW would be a priority after the expansion they were saying after the SECOND expansion.
You guys just assumed it was the first expansion, but nowhere did ANET say that.
They also didn’t say SECOND expansion either.
But seriously, Anet did have WvW as a priority, but they experienced mission creep and scrapped it to only work on the quick and easy fixes because other issues (LS, xpac…) became the priority issues.
WvW got put on the bottom of the priority inbox and has to wait its turn in the queue.
It may be that since it’s May the 4th, AKA Star Wars day, that when I read this thread I picture OP as Obi Wan saying, “this is not the thread you are looking for”
The worst part of filling a PvP game mode with valuable PvE rewards is that the PvE majority start farming for the rewards and they turn your PvP game mode into PvE.
I’ve never played one, but I have played wvw since launch, and I recognize portal captures and hiding games a vital part of wvw tactic, stop encouraging zergfests with your BS autoupgrading and roam hate.
Remove cap marking, remove radar towers, bring back sweeps and scouts.
Just because stealth capping used to be a “feature” in WvW doesn’t mean that it’s vital to WvW.
I’m sorry but I just don’t see the value to my gameplay experience when after capturing a keep every player has to inspect the grounds for 5 minutes for something they can’t see.
I too felt disappointed in the lack of information regarding the WvW questions.
Could someone compile all the WvW questions and the answers and post them here?
Maybe if I’m bored at work I’ll give it a try but I expect to be busier than normal today.The link I posted should include everything. There are a few other answers, that refer to this comment or are essentially the same. Correct me if I’m wrong.
Not entirely WvW related, but the proposed Sigill changes will be PvP only, which is not a surprise.
That’s just one thread that got two answers from Anet. There were a more responses from Anet about WvW questions but there were also a lot more WvW questions that were unanswered.
I felt that the AMA, as far as WvW is concerned, was more of a “Ask me something I am allowed to answer”, which has been my perception of how Anet responds to questions about WvW.
Probably because it was a flashpoint AMA that was just released but why have people there to answer WvW questions that can’t or won’t answer “in development” questions. I know it’s easier to answer questions about something that’s been released as opposed to answering questions about the future, but you’d think that Anet would have learned by now.
I too felt disappointed in the lack of information regarding the WvW questions.
Could someone compile all the WvW questions and the answers and post them here?
Maybe if I’m bored at work I’ll give it a try but I expect to be busier than normal today.
I remember when my guild used to run every night except update Tuesdays. Eventually it was 4 days…..then none.
Too bad there isn’t something where a player can do a filtered search to find guild-raid time-raid size-server and have it verified by Anet so it’s always updated.
While YOU prefer a small scale aspect to WvW, that is not what the game mode was designed for.
sPvP is for small scale fights.
WvW is for large scale fights. So if you want WvW to be about fifteen 5v5 encounters instead of one 75v75 megabattle, you should either play on DBL or play sPvP.
You are exactly right. I have stated many times, that those ideas would specifically appeal to me and might not be for everyone. I never intended for my opinion to be the “be all and end all”.
All I wanted, was to setup a platform, where people could talk about what would make THEM play the game mode.
What do people need to play WvW……a reason to play.
My first reason to play was map completion.
That reason no longer exists. The Gift of Battle reason doesn’t keep players in WvW long enough to get to like WvW. WvW map completion could take months.
My second reason to play was to find a good commander/guild to follow.
It used to be that you could find a tag on every map. Sometimes there were more than one tag and there were calls for one or the other to tag down. I eventually found a guild and played for a few years. When the commander quit the game the guild collapsed. So I’m back to looking for a good commander/guild to follow. Unfortunately, because of linking and the current state of WvW, sometimes there isn’t a tag on a map, even EBG. Last night in NA T1 I went to EBG and there was a tag, after they got wiped twice they either quit or went to another map. Our side was quickly outmanned. I see this more and more, no tags and outmanned on multiple maps. Even if you do see a tag because of linking they might not be on your server or might not even be on your server’s teamspeak.
If I know what to look for in WvW and can’t find it how do you expect someone new to WvW to find it?
While YOU prefer a small scale aspect to WvW, that is not what the game mode was designed for.
sPvP is for small scale fights.
WvW is for large scale fights. So if you want WvW to be about fifteen 5v5 encounters instead of one 75v75 megabattle, you should either play on DBL or play sPvP.
I don’t know the numbers for DBL in the current setup of 2 ABL and one DBL, but in NAT1 the kill-death metric, the only metric that the players can see, is that EBG close to 60%, Green and Blue BL are around 17% and Red (DBL) around 6% of total kill-deaths.
In tier 2, or w/e tier SoS is in, things are a bit different.
47,210 Total Kills
—-
25,247 EBG Kills (53.5%)
11,523 Blue BL Kills (24.4%)
5,513 Red BL Kills (11.7%)
4,927 Green BL Kills (10.4%)I wager there’s so many kills on Blue BL because it’s currently the weakest server and thus gets cannibalized by the other two.
Meanwhile, your tier 1 stats are being thrown off by the fact that the red team, Maguuma, is intentionally tanking the match. There’s not going to be much action on a BL if the home team is MIA.
I’d wager in T2, or whenever green is dominating, that the action is on blue borderland because there is less desire to play on either red or green. That’s why I suggested on a previous thread that WvW go to only two maps, one for the highest ranked server to defend (like GW1 Fort Aspenwood) and the other an equal fight for all (like GW1 Jade Quarry).
But the metrics would show which servers when red defend DBL and if they attack DBL when not red.
I don’t know the numbers for DBL in the current setup of 2 ABL and one DBL, but in NAT1 the kill-death metric, the only metric that the players can see, is that EBG close to 60%, Green and Blue BL are around 17% and Red (DBL) around 6% of total kill-deaths.
There are other metrics that can be used, Player-hours per map and even players entering map at reset to show how the players feel about DBL.
If the metrics show that DBL is not on par with the other two BLs, then that should show Anet that work still needs to be done to improve the map. Having “I hate DBL” and “I Love DBL” threads won’t change anything.
Now I expect sometime in the future that Anet will eventually make a third borderland map. They have to. Anet cannot make new PvE maps, new raids for PvE, new maps for sPvP and keep WvW, one of the core game modes of GW2, stagnant at three maps. My concern is that Anet will eventually bring the issue up in a poll and if DBL isn’t improved there won’t be 75% of the players that want a third borderland map.
Nice alternative facts there.
Here’s the history in case you all forgot.
Players were tired of two WvW maps, complained that WvW was stagnant.
Anet brings out DBL, replacing ABL. Players hate map.
Poll #1 asks players if you want to keep DBL, or go back to three ABL maps players complained about. Voting to keep DBL would mean a third map would be done.
Players voted to keep DBL so new map would be done, which was better than three ABL maps that we’ve had since launch.Poll #2 asked what kind of rotation they would like with DBL.
The winner was two ABL and one DBL because that was the lowest number of DBL maps.Still no new map.
So the real facts of DBL is that players voted for DBL so that a third BL map would be done and the players voted for only one DBL map because it was the best choice available.
Actually, the polls you are referring to are different than what you’ve outlined.
Poll 1:
Today we’re here to ask about the future of the Desert Borderland map in WvW. Since its release, there has been significant community debate surrounding the Desert Borderlands and there’s been a vocal group of players demanding that the Desert Borderlands map be removed entirely. The question remains, is that opinion actually representative of the vast majority of the WvW community?
Since this is a change that has significant impact on WvW as a whole, 75% of the community vote must be in agreement to disable the Desert Borderlands map.
Do you believe that permanently removing the Desert Borderlands map from play would be a superior game experience compared to having both Alpine Borderlands and Desert Borderlands maps as options?
• Yes: The Desert Borderland map should be permanently disabled.
o Alpine Borderlands will forever be the only Borderlands map.
• No: The Desert Borderland map should continue to be supported.
o Both Alpine Borderlands and Desert Borderlands will remain as map options.
o We will hold a revised Simultaneous Borderlands poll again, to determine how the Desert Borderlands returns.
• Don’t count my vote, just show me the current results.Poll 2:
Again we’re here to ask about the future of the borderlands maps in WvW. The current plan is to rotate the active borderlands map with each quarterly update. The alternative option is to have both Alpine and Desert Borderlands running simultaneously. The down side of both maps running simultaneously is the possibility of imbalance between the maps; the upside is more choice and variety of which map to play on.
How would you like to play both Desert and Alpine going forward?
• Simultaneous Borderlands is a superior option
o At all times there will be 2 Alpine Borderlands and 1 Desert Borderland
o This requires a 75% majority to win.
• Rotating borderlands is a superior option
o Quarterly rotation between 3 Alpine Borderlands and 3 Desert Borderlands.
o If Simultaneous does not win by 75% we will continue with this option.
• Don’t count my vote, just show me the current results.LOL get rek’t@Swamurabi
I wish I could have changed my votes.
I believe the thread of poll #1 has a red post that says that if DBL was not supported no other WvW maps would be done.
Could you please locate that post and provide a link? I’m not seeing it.
That’s it.
Simultaneous borderlands (2ABL, 1DBL) would be more likely to have a third WvW map developed. At least that’s how most of us read Tyler’s comment.
I voted for 2ABL/1DBL rather than a 3ABL-3DBL rotation because it was a better option and also there was the possibility of a third map. Whether the third map was developed, 2ABL/1DBL was a far better choice than having 3DBL for three straight months.
I believe the thread of poll #1 has a red post that says that if DBL was not supported no other WvW maps would be done.
Could you please locate that post and provide a link? I’m not seeing it.
Either it was a forum red post or a reddit post.
This was the red post announcing the results
The poll has ended! After removing all votes for “Don’t Count My Vote” the final results are:
65.5% No: The Desert Borderland map should continue to be supported.
34.5% Yes: The Desert Borderland map should be permanently disabled.This means that the Desert Borderlands map will continue to be supported. Next, the Mixed Borderlands poll will be re-run to determine how the Desert Borderlands map will re-enter play. Thank you to everyone who voted!
which was followed by this post
So uh for the people saying they wanted a new map but don’t want dbl.
What happens if we vote for a new map, they make it, and you don’t like it, gonna ask them to delete that too?
I’ll keep searching….
I believe the thread of poll #1 has a red post that says that if DBL was not supported no other WvW maps would be done.
Guess I must be an exception, as I see people in dbl all the time when I am roaming. /shrug
So do I, so you’re not an exception.
Thanks for repeating it… it’s really a pity because once people decided they don’t like DBL, they kept at it, even though a lot got better.
If you don’t like liver, it doesn’t matter if a 5 star chef makes the best liver every done by human kind, you still don’t like liver.
The desert bl is that crappy. (though I do like liver)
Fair enough. I’d add that if you don’t like liver, you don’t demonstrate every week in front of that restaurant which serves the best liver in the world to ask it to be removed from the menu because you think liver is crap and nobody could possibly enjoy such a dish.
And yet, that’s what happens with DBL.
Lots of posters here also seem to have completely forgotten that DBL poll that was taken long ago by Anet. The playerbase decided on the current configuration of 2 abls and 1 dbl. And that poll was taken before most of the really nice changes to dbl.
If you hate DBL so much, then just don’t play it. Simple as that.
Nice alternative facts there.
Here’s the history in case you all forgot.
Players were tired of two WvW maps, complained that WvW was stagnant.
Anet brings out DBL, replacing ABL. Players hate map.
Poll #1 asks players if you want to keep DBL, or go back to three ABL maps players complained about. Voting to keep DBL would mean a third map would be done.
Players voted to keep DBL so new map would be done, which was better than three ABL maps that we’ve had since launch.
Poll #2 asked what kind of rotation they would like with DBL.
The winner was two ABL and one DBL because that was the lowest number of DBL maps.
Still no new map.
So the real facts of DBL is that players voted for DBL so that a third BL map would be done and the players voted for only one DBL map because it was the best choice available.
Inappropriate forum topic. Closing soon.
So tonight in EBG I seen that running away from fights is still rampant, where is the fun in that, from both sides, 1 server runs away as soon as they see the enemy, and the other gives chase until the runners get into a keep/tower and hide behind arrow carts, or manage to WP out.
The group I was running with (early on) where outnumbered at least 2:1 in some fights, and when we ran out to fight the enemy they ran off,
Scoring should be changed so that PvD is not more rewarding that actually fighting, WXP from capping should be removed, or heavily reduced, we need to make it that servers that actually want to fight get placed against each other, as it stands servers will still run away hide, and when its clear run out PvD a door down and cap, then run away again, its boring, with this you should increase the rewards from actually fighting real players.
Servers that wish to do that, will eventually get that, and only face each other, and servers that want to actually fight in WvW will move up and face each other, that way servers who want to PvD all day wont have to fight anyone,
As it stands, even with the changes to scoring, its still to easy for a server to score and never actually have to fight anyone other than an NPC that stands no chance against 20-40 people.
To be honest this was my number one turn off from GW2’s version of RvR. It was pretty clear in this game the cowards usually win. Servers run away from fights to hide behind towers and back/night cap because that was going to give them more towards the score.
GW2 ideal of RvR is kinda the opposite of every other dev team’s game with RvR support that I’ve played. In all of the other MMOs I plays or played. If you ran away from fights you was punished in the personal rewards. DCUO, BnS, Eve Online, and ESO went down this route to promote fighting between players. On the other hand it seems GW2 wanted to be special by doing the opposite, and promote back capping, night capping, PvD, and K-Training. It’s also has the do with the community that GW2’s raised since HoT.
So in essence it appears that if you want RvR-Lite PvD edition, and want to avoid fights
and RvR at the same time. Then GW2 is the game for you. Other then that, you’ll end up with nothing but salt. Different games for different things I guess.
So how would you change the scoring so that population and coverage doesn’t win?
Would you divide the score by player-hours?
Would you compare the final score to an expected score?
Would you replace capture, hold and PPK scoring with territory gained/lost scoring?
I think that the main problem is that OP doesn’t like to run solo but can’t win a 1v1.
Could it be that you don’t have a dueling build?
I like running in a guild group but I know my build is garbage in 1v1 situations and I just don’t engage.
There’s two basic issues with DBL.
The first is that most of the map feels like a choke point. The whole eastern half of the map is one giant choke point, with a couple of flat areas. If the northern shrines are active, the whole north half is one giant choke point.
The south and north entrances into air keep don’t have enough flat area for maneuvering. The west side is rarely attacked with the exception of the NW wall.
The south and east sides of the fire keep are full of narrow passages. This leads to attackers dropping siege so that the defender has to go through a choke point to destroy the siege, or build counter siege. So counter siege is the tactic that gets used.
The second problem is that the towers have zero strategic influence. Taking any tower on DBL doesn’t put pressure on another structure.
If you were to rate the towers from most to least important the DBL towers are at the bottom. ABL SET is the worst, Mendons and DBL towers are next.
The fixes for DBL would be:
Make towers able to hit keep outer walls.
Make keeps able to hit tower walls.
Limit choke points and for every choke point have a large enough flat area on either side of the choke point.
Where you do have a choke point that’s not in a keep, allow for a second or third path. Limit the vertical tiers because they limit the visibility, which makes the map feel empty.
If Anet can’t get the people to play, then they should add the Anet logo in all other player names on their chosen server plus links.
Anet should live stream it too. See how many viewers they get.
I’ve Mystic Toiletted my way to four precursors. Sold one. Still don’t have a legendary. Don’t even know what I need to finish one of them. Don’t care.
If I did care I wouldn’t go on the PvE forums and post about how Legendary weapons are forcing me to play PvE.
I should check on the map completion percentage of all my characters. I know one is at 100% and the next closest is around 80%. Past that I don’t think I have any of the seven left at more than 50%.
OK, back. Took a while to find my number of badges of honor.
Here’s the totals.
1048 unused World Ability Points
33887 Badges of Honor
Hold on a minute while I check my WvW currency totals.
I have to say that my favorite times in WvW were in a guild. I joined RET after the guild had a split and they needed to recruit.
While I think that limiting squad size to 20 could help, I rarely see more than two tags per map. I just don’t think that most servers can have 4-5 commanders per map.
The other issue I see is that while I was in RET during the GvG golden age, there was a subset of players that wanted to become more serious and the guild got split between the GvG focused players and the “have fun” playing WvW players. This didn’t end well.
If you were to limit guild size to 20 I can see instances where a player gets pushed off the “A” team to make room for another player/class. I can also see where a guild of 20 becomes exclusive of others and turns nasty to players on their own server, or even players in the same guild.
I can also see where the guilds that run 40 would still run the same but having a frontline 20 and a backline 20.
Why is it that WvW is the only game mode that doesn’t allow the separation of the skilled from the unskilled?
sPvP has tournaments. PvE has raids and fractals.
While the idea is interesting, I feel that trying to balance this would be difficult.
If you add frontline damage reduction to a frontline build that already has damage reduction or add healing utility to a class that is already best at healing you could push certain classes into and out of WvW.
Would you look at roles and subdivide them into heavy, medium, and light armor classes? We all know that medium classes are the least played in WvW.
Are you looking to add this as another level like WvW masteries? Would this further separate the veteran WvW player from the new player?
Would this be added to existing skill tree so that you limit the choices by profession?
Lastly, the current WvW meta makes it difficult for smaller groups to defeat larger groups, how would this improve WvW if it both reduced the number of new players to WvW as well as reduced the players that are playing when outmanned?
i read enough WvW forums to the point i feel sorry that Gaile waste his time on reading most of this.
Honestly i feel like he one of the few dev really trying to put in effort to make game better. everyone just kitten talk him.
Gaile is female. Most of her posts are to the GW2 community in general. She likes frogs. Unfortunately, WvW does not have someone that talks to our community like Gaile does. She mains a ranger, one of a few classes that has been mostly unwanted in WvW.
Tournaments were the most stupid thing in wvw. Maybe as stupid as shield generators, tactivators and desert bl.
Golem week, 300g for a single commander tag color, bloodlust.
This begs the question, are there other classes that need to adapt their builds on the fly depending on the opponent? If not, then there still needs to be some work done for the Necro class.
Two questions for OP, what server are you on and why do you think that WvW is ready for a tournament?
Doesn’t matter. We’re already lost at sea with a clueless captain.
Most vocal passenger on the ship that’s currently awake gets to decide where to navigate.
However…in my vision…I’d highly advise against hosting tournaments until WvW can have Healthy Competitive game play with stable Long Term Communities in place.
Yes it does matter. I’d like the reason WHY someone wants a tournament, especially after the first three permanently lowered WvW populations.
I suspect that the tournament proponents are all on a particular top tier server which will remain closed and unnamed so as not to turn this into a matchup thread and incur the wrath of the overworked monitor.
Two questions for OP, what server are you on and why do you think that WvW is ready for a tournament?
I’m curious to know what server all these 1U1D proponents are on.
Eotm has been there for quite awhile and it was a basically a beta test for new things to implement in WvW but now it just sits there and count toward servers populations. If you go in to Eotm all you see is K-trains and that doesn’t sound like beta test to me. SO why not get rid of it?
It doesn’t count towards server pop, they explicitly said so.
Yeah, the “EotM counts towards WvW populations” and “the players voted for DBL” are the two biggest WvW myths
Anet devs might listen, but they sure don’t communicate. And because they don’t communicate, the players don’t think that the devs listen.
We never get into a discussion with a back and forth with Anet devs. Do you ever see more than two red posts in a thread? Even the CDI discussion threads seemed to have minimal red posts.
Take the WvW overhaul. It was announced that there was going to be a WvW overhaul. Months go by and then we hear that the overhaul was scrapped because the project continued to get bigger and bigger.
Look at the scoring change history. We’ve had multiple threads, each many pages, where we’ve argued about 3-2-1, 2-1-1, 1-0-0 and 5-4-3 and it seems that all we hear from Anet is an announcement of “Next weeks match we will be changing the scoring format to x-x-x”. We don’t get a comment that says that the scoring was changed because player participation dropped after they switched. There’s nothing about the participation levels of the first, second or third place servers.
Multiple threads about server population, linking and glicko threads. Most of these threads get closed because they devolve into the dreaded “matchup thread” archive. We’ve had months of guesses what “activity level” meant. We knew that server populations and linkings were odd but there was only the final announcement by Anet that they changed how they calculated population levels. Then there’s all those posts where Anet decides to manually change a server’s glicko score. No explanations, just a statement.
Then there’s skill balance. Was ghost thief nerfed because Anet listened to WvW threads or was it nerfed after a PvE player posted a video soloing a raid? If ghost thief was nerfed because of WvW threads why did it take so long? Either way it’s like Anet doesn’t read WvW threads.
And how’s that discussion with Anet about lag going?
It should have said, " Entrance into SAB is now in Eternal Battlegrounds"
I already have Yakslapper title, it’s the only title I show.
Does this mean that to get this fixed in WvW someone has to post a video on youtube how they can use this to solo a raid boss?
Is this what was meant by the famous quote “…like if you’re into WvW, typically you’re really into PvE”
So, a Necro with lag is a dead Necro, unless the lag is really, really bad.
I donno, even when we are red and grossly outmatched / in wrong tier , generally it is fairly simple order to Swiss cheese smc
It usually depends upon how Green, who usually owns SMC, wants to play. If they want to PPT they can either build counter siege on the hill and destroy the trebs hitting SMC or they can open up the wall(s) of red keep and take your keep.
Or if they want to PPK they’ll leave a squad in SMC and wait for you to try and take down one of the inner gates, call for help and throw all siege and map queue at you.
WvW really sucks when the SMC owner gets it to T3 and sieges it up and when you try to defend one of your towers they run back to siege range.
the old system was better in every way except for paying money for upgrades. everything just upgrades with little to no effort.
You don’t hear anyone ranting in map chat about who ordered the wrong upgrade.
You rarely hear anyone complaining about taking supply.
To minimize the time for upgrades you used to have one or two players to speed workers, one to refresh siege, two to speed yaks. The old system was a clear advantage for the rich and overstacked servers.
3 months would have been awful, seeing how slow Anet is to react to player movement as well as servers gaming the system and how long it takes Anet to “manually” adjust a server’s glicko rating.
I voted for 2 months but 1 month might be best because players will run out of money eventually if they keep transferring 12 times a year. This would also diminish the hibernation some servers go through the last two weeks to try to become open. Two weeks on and two weeks off would make some players find something else to do, permanently.
However, I also think that re-linking every month really makes communication between host and linked servers an issue because it takes time to get used the the new partners. This would end up making WvW more like EotM for some servers.
What you want is a mega server WvW map with a sPvP ladder system so that all guilds in NA can compete with each other. Same for EU and China.
I doubt this will make WvW better, because I was in a large WvW guild that had a small set of players that wanted to GvG. It tore the guild apart as you had players that had different goals. What this might do is pull all the experienced/elite/veteran players away from WvW.
I took that into consideration, since your guild can fight with everyother guild once a week only, and for a limited time or untill fulfilling the objective, that way it wont take a lot of time, they are doing long daily raids in WvW anyway. so let the GvG for the battleground at certain times, and let the big blobs free fun run stay in the actual WvW
The tension that broke apart the guild happened during the raids, as the GvG part wanted to be separate so they could practice for their GvG. Eventually it turned into the elites vs. the scrubs and we lost one of our commanders over it.
What you want is a mega server WvW map with a sPvP ladder system so that all guilds in NA can compete with each other. Same for EU and China.
I doubt this will make WvW better, because I was in a large WvW guild that had a small set of players that wanted to GvG. It tore the guild apart as you had players that had different goals. What this might do is pull all the experienced/elite/veteran players away from WvW.
DBL isn’t going to get the overhaul it needs to make it a desired map by most players.
Removing DBL will also end any chance to get a third BL map.
I wonder if wvw would be better off with just two maps. EBG for everyone and one home Alpine map for the highest glicko server to defend.