Guild Wars 2

Some of them look ok. But I seldom even show the back skins I got. I would prefer these to glowing wings any day though.

Blade.3456:

Atreidies.6257:

RIP NocVision

Miss you guys <3

Hope all is going well on FA ^^
#LightVision

Remember the good times, what we were and who we are! Kick ’em hard and take their names!

Regardless of what people want, this will not happen. Anet has already stated, and Recently on the account issue forums that they have no intention of releasing names already taken.

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/support/account/Requesting-a-Taken-Name/first#post4251392

I went almost two years before I decided to log back into Guild Wars to finish up those last few titles. A bit longer won’t make a huge difference one way or another.

NovaanVerdiano.6174:

Stooperdale.3560:

The players decided they wanted something else more than the Abaddon fractal. Does this encourage the designers to create the Abaddon fractal after all? Probably not, not if they can put the time into a dungeon relevant to LS2 instead.

Players will complain if it does come (our votes were irrelevant), doesn’t come (lots of us voted for it), or appears in another vote (we want something new) and so on.

No, players decided they want reduced waypoint costs and Kiel would’ve won anyway, I can bet my kitten on that.

This, If it had been anything else other then a reduced cost of Black Lion keys linked with it, then perhaps we would have had a shot at the Abbadon fractal.

I wouldn’t count on it showing up anytime soon. Although we have been told it “might” happen. Even if we do get it, I wouldn’t count on it being as good as what we had in Guild Wars 1, just do to how they have handled other fractals.

Be nice to see more of the older weapons from Guild Wars 1. I recently loaded it up again and discovered the joy of my Chaos Axe and the ability to put dye on weapons again, which I had nearly forgotten we could do. Doubt it will happen though.

We are with ya!

Been like how long now? Two years? A year? I can’t even be bothered to look back through all these pages of people asking for Cantha or Elona to see the last time we got developer feedback.

Same few names appearing on this thread. Same questions. But no answers.

/sigh

Oh well, guess its time to just give up on this.

Should just let us use Badges to reset it.

X amount of badges for each line we want to reset based on how many points we spent on it.

Swamurabi.7890:

It’s easier to balance three sides than it is to balance 24 NA or 27 EU.

If you remember GW1, there was a time that Jade Quarry and especially Fort Aspenwood, had problems just getting players to play, and that’s with just trying to balance two sides.

Eventually Anet solved the problem by allowing players to play on either side. That’s what needs to happen with WvW to keep the game going.

Allow the players to choose which side they want to play on

Instead of having 24 or 27 sides to choose from, make it three. There will be better matches because of it.

It’s obvious after 2 years that the players won’t balance themselves. It’s also obvious that Anet’s attempt to entice players to move with free transfers (HoD) works, but only for a short time.

Even if you played around with 3,4,6,8,12 hour matches or even weekend/weekday matches you still have the problem of coverage balance that has plagued WvW from the beginning.

One of the first stickied threads was “Night Capping and You”. The first WvW CDI was about “Balance”. The other big complaint players had with matches was that they got tired of facing the same servers for months. If you force balance by merging servers you are also forcing match stagnation. At least with a GvBvR setup, you have the possibility of going up against guilds from multiple servers so that you can face a different guild each day.

Nothing good would come out of this. The only way your way would work is with overflows. I have debated this with several others in this thread, who are in favor of alliances, and even they agree that overflows would be horrible.

You could forget server wide TS where you could talk or get along with whatever commander was running the map. Forget about any kind of defense, no one is gonna waste Superior siege on a keep that might not even be there in a few hours if people log off.

All the RvBvG with overflows brings is a quick painful death to WvW as we know it and the expansion of the Karma train to all of WvW.

ManaCraft.5630:

Well, I think we’ve probably had too many threads dealing with this issue to expect people, regardless of which side of the fence they’re on, to come rushing in.
these forums are themselves the minority to begin with. Most players, according to a.net, simply don’t post here.

All to true. We only get the views of the small minority of players. Unless I have myself started a tread I seldom bother with the forms anymore.

ManaCraft.5630:

although a.net’s tendency to arrange WvW tournaments despite the problems we have does bother me, but that’s another topic entirely.

Yes it is, and on this point I am in agreement with you

ManaCraft.5630:

It’s a process that is already fairly well underway, and the most likely outcome by far is that a.net will simply let this process play itself out.

I am sure anet is well aware of the problems, whither they will actually do anything or just ignore it to death is another problem all together. I don’t expect that we will see any Red on this thread. And I didn’t actually expect a large amount of people to post on it either. I know the RvBvG pops up way to often. My only hope in making this was that people would start to think about more then "We lost, we were steamrolled, if we were in an alliance this wouldn’t’ have happened. "

Dayra debated a different theme on alliances all together. Which I am still not a fan of, but would be a much better chance then the RvBvG stuff.

For anything more then that I think we have pretty much tackled all the two of us can, and we will simply have to agree to disagree on the rest of the points.

Swamurabi.7890:

GvBvR is a way to have more balanced matches than the current T1 only balance NA has.

There are too many Tx.5 servers in NA.

This is not a match up thread. I won’t touch on any point that specifically talks about my server, who we fight or how those matches went. I understand there are balance issues. I know there is alot of frustration from players who are losing matches due to this.

I don’t however see the ideas dealing with RvBvG as any kind of solution to the problem. I see them as a quick way of killing any interest left in the WvW game mode.

WvW is unbalanced. Anet hasn’t done us any favors on trying to help with its balance at all. Yet For a game mode that wasn’t supposed to be balanced they try to hold seasons which has lead to futher unblance.

Coverage is a main talking point, as is numbers. Hard fact, GW2 has lost players just like Every game does. We no longer have the population to support every matchup.

Easiest solution is to start slowly merging lower population servers based on their strongest time zones. However as I have early stated I do not advocate the destruction of any ones server simply to create balance.

ManaCraft.5630:

Talyn.3295:

Server pride

We’ve covered that ground already, so I won’t address this part of your post further.

No offense Manacraft but my entire post was not directed at you. But this one will be. Anytime you don’t feel like debating a logical point I won’t hold it against you.

ManaCraft.5630:

Okay, I already commented on this issue once, and gave you the whole speech on strawmen, so I’ll be a little less courteous with you this time in order to get the point across.

I care little for how you respond or how courteous you think you are. Others make points and I don’t always break my post down to address each person as an individual simply because I would rather be playing then debating the same points on this thread. However, if you want to start being condescending I can simply stop replying to your post if that makes you feel like you won some kind of moral victory.

ManaCraft.5630:

The claim that alliance systems promote large scale combat (i.e. blobbing) at the expense of small scale combat is entirely a strawman of your own making. The argument has no validity whatsoever. In fact, alliance systems outperform server systems in this regard precisely because they have larger populations to draw upon, which enables them to offer a palette of different experiences to the player base while still ensuring that there are enough people to make each of those experiences meaningful (that is, you will incur fewer, if any, dead maps)..

“A straw man is a common type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on the misrepresentation of the original topic of argument. To be successful, a straw man argument requires that the audience be ignorant or uninformed of the original argument.”

I have done nothing but stick to the topic that I feel that RvBvG is not good for WvW. So here I am just confused.

ManaCraft.5630:

“An AvA system is bound by no restrictions. It is, for almost all intents and purposes, the God of Maps. There can be as many or as few maps in the map pool as you wish, they can have whatever population limits imposed on them that you care to implement, and those limits can vary from map to map any way you like. You are bound by nothing but your imagination. AvA gives you the power to customize the map pool to fit the needs, desires, and overall size of your player base at any given time. And this is all working with the elements that already exist in the current infrastructure (so much for all the extra work for a.net).”

Funny this just sounds like a lot of fancy words for the one big one “overflows.” I even touched on the way this could be done, (even if I didn’t agree with it in my initial post) without the use of overflows, if that is what you were trying to say there.

ManaCraft.5630:

We haven’t even begun talking about introducing new elements (i.e. new maps with other mechanics).

I am all for new maps or new mechanics. However I don’t see what this has to do with any kind of move to an alliance based system.

Talyn.3295:

I do hold that my view is correct and seems the more popular view regarding WvW at this time.

ManaCraft.5630:

Probably. It is the easiest thing in the world to acquire upvotes on forums like this one because people are predisposed to voting with their hearts instead of their heads.

I won’t debate this as a popularity contest. I simply stated a fact. I believe the vast majority of the WvW population agrees with me. I have yet to see more then the three people I expected to object to what I had to say in my post here, based on previous discussions. However if the majority of the population here on these forms were to join in this discussion on your side I would concede the point.

I also won’t debate the heart vs head. Because I feel your the one who is putting your heart out there, working for your ideal of what you think WvW should be. Not the reality of what we have. Or even the reality of what most of the population wants.

Is a change that the majority of the population objects to a good change? No, I really do not believe that it is.

RvBvG random matchups is only one way it could play out, and not the only. But I have seen it advocated for more then I would wish to. Hence the entire reason for my post. I discussed in my initial post on the different ways that our matches would have to change in order for the RvBvG to be effective including how the maps would have to be changed. I do not believe that the befits of the system would out way or justify the changes.

 As for the “Us vs them.” That is WvW, at its core its my server vs the other two. And if we want to win, we have to be more dedicated and put in the work to defend or take objects, play map politics and push only as far as our manpower is able to hold.

Server pride is the only thing holding the WvW community together right now. Ultimately it might cause problems or drive away players who refuse to transfer to a larger server. However if you  destroy the communities, you put a bullet in the head of WvW right now.

I think it would be obvious that a larger population would out perform a smaller one when it comes to the WvW game mode. I prefer the larger population and the fights that come along with it. However, there are many many players who have stated that they do not prefer this. I do not argue in hopes to win any logical debate on it, only to point out that it is one of the reasons that players do not want this kind of change.

Yes, I know the population isn’t there anymore. I have said that previously. But if we made maps, just 5 copies of all four maps, that anyone can join. How would this be controlled? We would have to make sure every server who had access to those maps would be the same every week. If it is going to be organized. I think this is assumed to be the case or any such change would be useless.

Also given how the population is for WvW during my timezones it is not uncommon for there to be a small number of people playing even in T1. The idea that we would not only have our own maps but to have to cover all the territory of the other alliance maps makes the game more work then fun. Given that the problem right now that people complain about is the lack of coverage on their own servers. This coverage isn’t going to magically appear.If we make enough maps for the NA players to be able to play and not be over burdened in Ques. Then we are going to create a lot of territory for smaller forces in other timezones to cover. Alliances will not fix this.

I am not insecure in enough to crush any suggestions that oppose my views. Although I do hold that my view is correct and seems the more popular view regarding WvW at this time.

ManaCraft.5630:

Moving back to game design, this is why larger population units (alliances) are better than smaller ones (servers) – because they enable more redundancies. They permit the (rough) balancing of total populations against one another, they are highly resilient to population fluctuations, and they impose no restrictions on the map pool. By contrast, a multitude of smaller population units offers no mechanism for balancing populations (no, server population caps are not a viable control mechanism), are much more volatile, and restrict use of the map pool to specific player segments.
You have to appreciate the big picture.

It isn’t that I don’t appreciate what your saying. Or that I lack understanding of the big picture. But we as players have very limited influence over the content of the game. It rest with Anet to make any kind of meaningful change to the system in which we enjoy.

That said, what we get from them has to be worth the effort they would put into it. As from what I have seen when it comes to Alliance ideas, I don’t see that we get enough from them to benefit from the amount of work Anet would have to put into making the change.

The RvBvG Overflows are bad, and this would be as you said the extreme way of balancing. But besides killing off any sense of community we would have it could become just tedious. Why invest anything in defense if the overflow can and will disappear based on the populations at the time? This was I think in part why we don’t have upgrade options for EoTM. Both upgrades and Superior Siege cost money.

Otherwise, what you are doing is setting up and environment where Defense becomes even more trivial then it already is. That is the first step to the Karma train mentality. When Defense stops, and all three sides go full on offense, just going through the motions.

Other alliance ideas would destroy existing servers to merge them into other [insert term here] grouping of players. It does not matter what you call these new groupings. You have at this point taken away the players choice. By making someone who might wish to play on a low pop server or moved there due to a older computer now being forced into this kind of an alliance setting. We are in a sense making an assumption that Our form of play is more important then their form of play, or that larger populations which alliances would make would be the answer for everyone. I don’t believe this would be the case, given the feed back from many players on smaller servers.

For any solution to be acceptable, hence justify the work that Anet would have to put into the game and the change to the player experience it would have to actually accomplish something. By pointing out which things it would have no effect on, hence any statement where “alliances don’t address [insert problem here]” has to be made because at the end of the day, if the new system you want of alliances doesn’t address enough of the problems we have, or create more problems, hence ruining the game experience of the players then they are not worth it.

The over all fact is that the WvW population has declined, along with the entire GW2 population. There are not enough players to properly man every server in terms of play. Despite this, I would never advocate the destruction of any server, from the largest to the smallest. People choose their home. Who am I to destroy it? Anet has said they have no intention of moving away from Named Servers in WvW. We only have their word on this. It is my firm hope that they stick to it.

Dayra.7405:

Coverage is a different problem A worse one and an always ignored one. I do not have the possibility to count how many people (like to) play at which time, but given that there are more at one time and less at another time, the capacity of matches should adapt to that, e.g. if it turns out that at a specific time 4 times as many people like to play, than at another time, then the map-capacity should be only 25 per side and not 100 during that time. (or… or … see link in my signature)

I have read your ideas on this before. Sadly its not ever gonna be something I agree with. Simply because one server can’t put out the numbers it needs to, the players from the other two are restricted from playing. Even when we are outnumbered and floating for three maps I still wouldn’t support it.

ManaCraft.5630:

However, to extrapolate from that that all forms of AvA are bad is overreaching.

Perhaps, but I don’t see alot of options that present a good way of doing it that actually fixes anything. Either we have a massive change like overflows which destroys things, or we go with something else like what was presented here. When I read through it, I didn’t actually see that anything would change to help fix problems people are asking for.

Akari Storm.6809:

Instead of 3 maps to go to you would have 24.

Selecting a color to play for locks you into current match-thru -end of next match like now.

Sorry, but I don’t see this working at all. The issue is that we don’t have enough players now to cover all the servers now that the game has started to die out. I don’t want to have to worry about floating down to cover down for BP for example because it is in the Red alliance when we are having enough trouble dealing with our own Borderlands.

Not to mention, we have had enough attacks on our TS in the past, that giving out the information to a random server every week would be bad.

Besides that we saw the extent in which players will go to win. What would likely happen is all the Big coverage servers would pull into one color and dominate everything if they ever had another season. Just being realistic on how most players are, we have alot of bandwagoners and fairweathers and those who just want rewards.

TheGrimm.5624:

The question that needs to be asked is why are people looking for server alliances? Is it coverage, number of players, variety. For the most part, WvW is the only thing that defines a server now. I think that lends itself to WvW players associating themselves to a server even more than before. But that doesn’t mean RvBvG system couldn’t work in tandem with the current structure.

I don’t see it working together well at all. To coordinate anything you need to have a TS setup. Otherwise it is hard to run effective.There is nothing there to hold people together. I would dread seeing a PPT attached to what happens in EoTM, but that could just be me.

Cara.8749:

How about instead of WvWvW we add another vW to it? 4 servers. Add another generic map like we all get, modify EB to accommodate or even make multiple EB maps. Pick a color then as well. Probably Yellow.

Been discussed before. I am not directly opposed to it. But I don’t know if Anet would really be willing to put any time into doing it anymore then they would anything else. I could just lead to more issues like we had in Season 2. Or it could be a balancing force. It does have potential gains that I would consider, if implemented correctly.

Thanks for the Responses and the discussion guys.

Ad 6) same as for 5), a lot alliances will probably underpopulated, trying to recruit people so there is always space for starters.

Underpopulated alliances would just lead to complaints like we have right now about coverage. Because no matter how hard we try, there is not enough coverage for certain timezones. I find that many players in those smaller timezones flowed to the larger servers prior to Megaservers to have people to play with. Some servers are known for having larger populations of Oceanic, Sea or what have you. Swapping to a system like you propose won’t make more of these people appear out of no where.

Coverage will be an issues here just as much as it is with the current servers. I did go ahead and edit the topic of the post to make it more clear as to where most post was aimed so that it won’t be confused with what you are proposing.

I fear this kind of alliance less than the Random Blue, Red, Green which most often comes up. Mostly because I think Anet is just too lazy to do all the work that would need to be done to change the system into this.

Any proposal for a fix to WvW has to take into account Anets track record. I do not see much support for what you are proposing, although it might be that I am just not looking at the right post. Most of what I see calls for the Red, Blue, Green or I think one was calling for alliances based on the Three orders. But it all amounted to arguments I listed in my initial post.

Ad 1) to play 24/7 WvW you probably need around 10000 people. If an alliance start to kick interested people without more reason than being noob they end outmanned and loose. Especially as I proposed a 2 level system, the alliance leader can only kick whole guilds, only guild leader can kick individuals. And guild leaders can already kick you, but I haven’t hearted of many guilds that kick people for being noobs.

I don’t know, 10000 people seems a little high. I mean I play on a pretty heavy server, figuring we have 100 people per map, over 4 maps, with a queue of 30-80 per map. It will be alot smaller than 10,000.

Figure that we have 100 per map x 4 maps 400
There are four major Time zones NA, EU, Oceanic and Sea about 400 each would be 1600, double that if you have 100 people in Que and maybe an extra 1000 if we have people who don’t play every day. Your numbers would be around 4200, and that, more like 5000 max. I suspect that most will have far fewer in number.

However given how organized some Server Leadership can be I would not be surprised if it couldn’t be made to work. However what I would see happening is that Each exisiting server, at least the more successful ones will pull in together to form up an alliance and the players who were from the smaller servers will not be as lucky. Mostly this would just change it from say the Blackgate Server or Jade Quarry Server to the Blackgate Alliance or Jade Quarry Alliance, and people would be calling for those alliances to be disbanded because of their better coverage.

Ad 2) I would expect maps running on virtual machines (or as different processes on the same machine). And running 5 maps a 100 people is very likely using LESS resources than 1 map with 500 as the (non-linear) interaction are reduced. So I don’t think your speculation about ANets server capacity is true.

Its not a speculation on Anets Server Capacity. Its more a speculation on the amount of work that Anet is willing to put into the system. Anet has always done the path of least resistance when it comes to any fixes. Mob AI vs Zerker nerf, or like with Reflects in the last update. It is unlikely to expect them to put a significant amount of work into Revamping WvW. I doubt they want to manage 50 or more servers just because we ended up with a significant number of smaller alliances then you anticipate. As I often notice every wants to be a leader, that is why we have so many smaller guilds, I think this could just as easy fall into an Alliance thing as well.

Ad 3) in the end only ANet can adequately handle hacker, but an alliance/guild leader that take care can help already.

Sorry, but I have never seen Anet handle this problem efficiently. No matter how many reports are put out. Thankfully its not as large of an Issue here in the US as it appears to be on the EU servers. While it could combat Spies and or Siege griefing, it would not change Hacking or exploits at all.

Ad 4) less problems than the current system of uncontrolled movement causes.

Potentially. But I have never been one to complain about movements in WvW. It has always been my opinion that people will move or play as they wish. I don’t always support the choices that players make, but I support the right for players to make them. I don’t feel anyone has the right to tell others where theys should play. I won’t advocate the destruction of any server from the highest or the lowest. People chose to move there for reason. Small fights vs Big fights.

Ad 5) PvE population is called PvE population because it wanna play PvE. It can also play EotM and if you would have read my link, there are some random teams for them in my wvw proposal as well.

As for this, I honestly couldn’t care where the PvE population ends up. However I felt obligated to point out that Anet Makes many of their choices based on this percentage of the game. We all know this. It think every WvW player has felt this. I can’t see them putting in a system which would make it harder for the PvE population to hop into WvW do there song and dance then leave until its time for the rewards.

Dayra.7405:

You seem to understand something completely different under AvA than I do.
Did I got you right, you think AvA is like EotM? I would call that mega server WvW and I find it bad as well.

But under AvA I understand something completely different, namely that guilds (and maybe also individuals) form an alliance under an alliance leader that can also reject someone to be in an alliance, especially as alliance should be size limited. I.e. alliances should have a max size to avoid winning by numbers only. Here is an example how it could be done https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/Collaborative-Development-Edge-of-the-Mists/3695388

Advantages over today:

• max size of people in an alliance limits the imbalance by numbers
• alliances cannot be flooded by bandwagoners and can easily handle (e.g. kick, if arguments don’t work) spies, hackers and grief players in their team without need to call ANet for support
• alliances should have an alliance chat (similar to guild chat) potentially visible everywhere in gw2 not just WvW.
• team proudness has more reason than with current worlds! where you have no influence who is in your team.

After reading this, you did something I did not think was possible. You gave me a system that would be worse then overflows in WvW.

I see so many problems:
1. So alliances as you see them is player controlled, Noob = Kick
2. We have 24 servers on NA currently for example, so we could only have 24 Alliances, Unless you expect Anet to make more servers so that each alliance could play as it wanted too.
3. Even with the current reporting systems we can’t do anything about hackers and grifers, so don’t see that changing. And how would you prevent an entire alliance from doing this?
4. If you allow people to reject or decide how and when people can join, then you open up all kinds of problems.
5. That would exclude the PvE population, which would keep Anet from doing any seasons ever again. So I don’t see that happening.
5. Not to mention someone new to WvW would have have to hunt up an alliance that would be willing to take on new players who had little or no experience and teach them builds and how to play, rather then just them learning by doing.

It would depend of in your looking more for Oceanic Or Sea coverage.

You list 12:30-6:30, that falls in about our main time for my guild.

But I can tell you that your gonna find people on all through the night. It won’t be like it is during North American Prime Time. But we are never lacking for fights. All three BG/TC/JQ can field a pretty decent size ball.

SoS and Mag are not gonna win against any of the big three, but they are not gonna be lacking in people to play with.

Just my Two cents.

DeadlySynz.3471:

It is impossible to all WvW players on 4 maps, this much is true, but it is not impossible to fit all WvW players across multiple versions of each map. This would not be an overflow because if it is done correctly (like many have stated), allow multiple instances of each map going at once. Then allow players to view exactly how many from each alliance (or color) are on each map.

Regardless of what you call it, it is an overflow. The reason people didn’t defend things in EoTM is because there wasn’t a point in it, due to overflows just going away.

You can say that it will be multiple version of each map. But that just the same wording for Instance/overflow.

Unless you expect Anet to go through all the trouble of making six or seven copes of the of Every WvW map that we can all join with no randomness. None of this “will I end up in this instance or that instance.” I pick WvW Blue BL one for the win. Or Green BL instance two because it needs help

This just makes us have to worry about alot more ground to cover. I personally like having only three or four maps, so I can know where Siege is, and how much I am expected to cover.

DeadlySynz.3471:

- You’ll rarely see coverage disparities
- The enemy dynamics will never really be the same due to any player from any guild could theoretically be your enemy (even your own server)
- The matches will not be stale (though the maps themselves might) like they are now
- GvG is significantly easier because guilds can just organize on a low population map
- It’ll be far easier for guilds to set up map wide guild raids

Coverage disparities are everywhere. On any given day or night. It isn’t likely to change because we cram everyone into alliances. Because unless the maps adjust to the number of players on at that time, (this is overflows) It is still possible that there will not be enough players in an alliance to cover all the territory that we would be creating.

It is also not going to make it fun for those of us who have friends that are in different guilds.

The matches I play are never stale. But even if we assume that you have a point, this won’t provide anything new. The main reason is that the maps have not changed. There are no new features, no new places to put siege. No changes. We all know where to go and what to do. I doubt that a guild you have never heard of from another server is really going to bring anything more to the table, or shake things up that differently.

GvG Has the OS. That is what it is there for, and until Anet decides to do something more with it, I would rather my guild does what it does best.

Nothing stops a guild from doing a map raid now. Outside of guild leaderships. The maps are there.

Overflows = Bad for WvW

Lorelei.3918:

I thought the biggest problem with AvA was that it was bought out by Aeria Games?

touché

Duece.5607:

i was on the 3rd fractal on level 50 and i called someone a noob for hitting the seal on cliffside before killing all the mobs and he got mad and vote kicked… was not a guild group just pugs and someone got mad and voted..and yes im in a guild but its not like everyone wants to do fractals or people are all on the same time… people PUG all the time saying joining a guild is the answer is not valid….

Lesson learned, if your going to express yourself by calling someone a noob. Then they will express themselves back, possibly with a kick.

My own fractals group is only composed of one other guild mate, the other two or three are from my friends list. If some one choose to open there mouth and be a jerk and one of my friends votes for a kick, I will likely second it.

Season 2 had some great fights. Alot of work, alot of dedication.

Which AvA could completely destroy our game mode. It won’t work without Extensive changes to our current system.
There are several reasons why:

1. It all boils down to numbers. It is impossible to fit all the WvW players onto four current maps. That is why we had serves to start with.

Solution A: Add mega servers with EoTM style play? At that point one has to wonder what would be the point? I can spend an hour putting up siege and scouting Hills and then someone says in TS. Hey we lost hills on BGBL. I am like huh? I am standing in it. And they respond with. On this instance/overflow we have.

Solution B: Rework all the maps and make more of them, since Anet has said they can’t do larger maps. This would mean potentially eight to twelve? I don’t even know if this would work for the number of people who play WvW.

2. Sever Pride: I don’t know everyone on my server by name. But I do recognize a friendly voice on TS when I have talked to them before. Alot of people like this. The sense of community and working with friends for a common goal. I don’t see any solutions need, because I don’t see pride in our accomplishments as the problem.

The current system has lead people to move around servers based on where they prefer to be. Populations will never be balanced. T1 isn’t nearly as laggy as people say it is, and I can’t swear but I am sure that the bottom ranking servers are not always tumbleweed infested ghost towns. People who like big fights moved up, people who wanted smaller ones moved down. Should we have the right to dictate where either of these groups end up?

Q. If Anet offered free Transfers to any server where would most people go?

Would it be T1 where all three servers are more or less balanced? Despite claims to the contrary, BG/TC/JQ are all more or less equally stacked. With one server or the other having stronger coverage at different times. I know this all too well. I play during one of my Servers weaker Timezones.

Or

Would they choose to stack a Silver Server like what happened before Season 2, because that would give a better chance of rewards? For some players Rewards and Winning matter. For alot of the rest of us they don’t. WvW will never give the Loot that is found in PvE, but it is very expensive when you consider how much in the way of resources go into the amount of siege that we throw down. We have to build a guild War Chest for a reason.

3. EoTM

Let us face it. It is not what it was meant to be. I recall before it came out talking with some guys late one night on TS. We pondered over how we could do anything with the map if the people we were put in with changed every week. Giving out TS information and what not. Due to the attacks on TS and the number of Spy accounts.

That aside,
Why did EoTM turn into that style of play? Sure rewards helped, but lots of instances and overflows were the real issue and random servers every week meant no TS for the servers to rally around so it turned into a huge karma train.

So it boils down to this:

Solution 1: Overflows which would suck for WvW and trying to hold or defend anything. This would just kill WvW, and many threads are asking for it.

Solution 2: We have several different alliance maps based on Tier, one gold one silver one bronze or whatever. But would that fit in with the populations that we have now?

Solution 3: A complete re-working of the WvW system, which would require alot of work on Anets part. And I think we all know how likely this would be

My thoughts though:
Megaservers/Overflows = Bad for WvW.

We need new content. The fact that Cantha and Elona have nearly been forgotten is rather disappointing. I used to play this game alot. And I mean Alot. Now, I barely bother to log in and do the dailes and they take what? 30 minutes? 40 max?

It is just two much effort for a game that is slowly falling off my raider.

I haven’t both gems in months, and I doubt I will again if something doesn’t change.

NO.

Random ques would kill any spirit left in wvw.
Mega servers do not belong in WvW. We do not need overflow maps. Any system that introduces overflow maps to WvW will be the death of the game mode.
Overflow maps are what killed EoTM and made it into a Karma train to start with. Then people kept at it because it was easy and it was profitable. This same thing could happen to WvW if we move to any kind of system that uses Megaservers or Overflows for WvW maps.
The main reason is there is no sense in playing defensive if your hard work/siege becomes meaningless due to an overflow disappearing.

I am fine with it, Season 2 made me a rich happy camper.

That nice Dusk that TC Norn Warrior dropped for me during Season 2 was worth more then anything I got out of the chest when season 2 was over. Now if only there was a way to know someone from TC or JQ bought it off the TP from me that would make it all the sweeter.

Last thing I want is more Achievement hunters flooding WvW and working on thier achievement points instead of playing the game. WvW is about the game mode, if it is one you enjoy or not isn’t really the point.

Not Loot.
Not achievements.

Sorry but if you are trying to get those points, then maybe you should be playing another portion of the game.

I propose we ban QQ threads about Thieves from the WvW Forums.

Mega servers do not belong in WvW. We do not need overflow maps. Any system that introduces overflow maps to WvW will be the death of the game mode.

Overflow maps are what killed EoTM and made it into a Karma train to start with. Then people kept at it because it was easy and it was profitable. This same thing could happen to WvW if we move to any kind of system that uses Megaservers or Overflows for WvW maps.

The main reason is there is no sense in playing defensive if your hard work/siege becomes meaningless due to an overflow disappearing.

DeadlySynz.3471:

Talyn.3295:

AvA is a bad idea for guild wars. We saw this with EoTM. Why people still can’t get this is something I will never understand.

With the exception that EoTM seems to draw more casuals who could care less about PvP and more about karma training.

Now transfer that same idea into WvW but not fill it with actual WvW players and we have a whole different ball game.

Question is (as I see your from BG), what do you prefer, rolling over someone with superior coverage, or having even fights whenever you log on?

Yes, I am on BG and I am proud of it. Its about good fights and rival guilds.

Which AvA would completely destroy. It all boils down to numbers. It is impossible to fit all the WvW plays on to four maps. That is why we had serves to start with.

Solution add mega severs with EoTM style play? At that point one has to wonder what would be the point? I can spend an hour putting up siege and scouting Hills and then someone says in TS. Hey we lost hills on BGBL. I am like huh? I am standing in it. And they respond with. On this instance/overflow we have.

Why did EoTM turn into that style of play? Sure rewards helped, but lots of instances and overflows were the real issue and random severs every week meant no TS for the server to rally around so it turned into a huge karma train.

Either we do overflows which would suck for WvW and trying to hold or defend anything or we have several different alliance maps based on Tier, one gold one silver one bronze or whatever. Which if we do that what is the point of doing AvA to start with?

Overflows = Bad for WvW. And AvA would need overflows. I think that should be pretty cut and dry for most people.

Edit: Don’t get me wrong. I understand why people ask and what people are trying to do. But Overflows in WvW are not the answer.

It wasn’t like it was great in GW 1, I only played through it once. Seems odd they made a big deal out of it being in the game before release and now two years later, have never added it.

My issues with the mini-games themselves. We don’t have but limited options and there is no real option to go into them playing with “friends” and not just randoms.

AvA is a bad idea for guild wars. We saw this with EoTM. Why people still can’t get this is something I will never understand.

I think leaving it doesn’t mean boring per say. Maybe people won’t want to go there and do the content. But at least the content IS there.

Fenrir.3609:

You could either tie the mechanics to party creation. Don’t want to have your dps output or gear/build seen? Then don’t join a group with those mechanics turned on.

Or you can give every player an opt out. Go into settings and turn /allow inspect to off. There you go, no one will ever be able to see your gear or build. But you will be unable to join any group which asks for /inspect and/or dps meters.

The systems could, quite simply, be implemented in such a way as to allow those players who want them, to have access to them. Whilst at the same time allowing those not interested in them the ability to avoid them.

The whole current “but but elitists!!” theme (anti zerkers, anti TP flippers, anti speedrunners, anti meta builds, anti anyone who wants to group with other efficient players) is not only a really, really poor argument. It is also (ironically) exactly the kind of antisocial, toxic crud that those spouting seem to be raising their pitchforks over.

I don’t have a problem with it being done this way. It would allow a zerker group to form up and people who joined it would have to agree to allow for inspections and DPS meter.

If not they wouldn’t be allowed to join. Because if what they are worried about is just not getting a group, it shouldn’t be a problem at that point.

No more pugs joining who don’t meet requirements. Which is my whole issue, with pugging to start with.

If we are gonna have a Living World Season 2, can we get a push into other maps and parts of the World. Don’t ignore the lore, its the only thing that still gives me any interest in this game outside wvw, and if WvW dies. so does my interest in GW 2 with out an Expansion of some kind.

Surprised in every update that the feature wasn’t added or in the game from the start.

I have ask that in the “talk about the WvW Spring Tournament” section we might get some feed back on the issues the WvW community has had with Seasons and how they are handled?

I have read alot of bad ideas on this thread. Most of which have been beaten to death more often then not.

Almost of these suggestions will do is put the final bullet into the head of my beloved game mode.

No thank you.

At the risk of all the hate I am going to get for this, I am still going to go ahead and say it.

I hope that Anet never puts in a precursor hunts or crafting. The amount of Legendary weapons in game already seems to high. When I used to walk from the bank to the trading post and pass five or six guys all with the same legendary weapons I had to shake my head.

I will admit there is nothing legendary about buying them. But as soon as 80-90% of the population is running around with them it will seem even less legendary.

I am all for them adding different themes or styles to the legendary weapons for those who do not like certain looks, aka the necro and the staff etc.

But it doesn’t need to go from one extreme of there being very few precursors to everyone having one or more just from farming quest.

Nothing good comes from seasons. WvW is awesomly unbalanced. I love that about it. The problem is when we are offered season rewards and anet tries to impose balance on the chaos. That is were I see the core problem.

Nothing will ever be balanced in WvW. I accepted this and play the game with my friends. I do not need some silly reward chest or ugly skin for coming out and rallying for my server.

Season one lead to more fights and bickering. Then massive tranfers to were the winning servers, which got cloged with fair weathers. There was even a post here on the WvW fourms where a player ask which server he should transfer to make sure that he got the max number of tickets.

While fights were good in season two…. the rest was just blah… Lets move on and just enjoy what we have and not do more damage.

It is a sad state that WvW has been reduced to. I do not suppose that it is unexpected. But for the love of all that is holy….please….no season three.

Dayra.7405:

TeamBattleAxe.3901:

Jeknar.6184:

Wtf AvAvA mean anyway?

Alliance vs Alliance vs Alliance
If implemented correctly, it would be a great way to preserve server pride and communities while providing a dynamically-balanced competitive environment.

Instead, we got Potato of the Mists.

Here a possible way of doing AvAvA:
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/Collaborative-Development-Edge-of-the-Mists/3695388

Was not intrested then. Still not intrested now.

Seems like the only people who should realy have an issue with this are the ones who join groups knowing that they do not meet the said requirments. Regardless of which side of the field they fall on.

Honestly though there is no super elite set of gear in this game. At least nothing like we have in others. No swords that give bonuses to certain skills or traits. Nothing that will help a necro get life force faster or let a warrior build up Adrenalin faster.

Worst case we have dedicated elitist who debate between scholars and strength. Although i think that one is settled. Or perhaps which traits are best. Even with this we will still need to find like minded players. Again it would be there because people lie. The game does not.

So in closing if people would stop lying about their gear or intentions we would not need this. However they do so sadly this would keep people honest and in the right groups and not greifing others.

I suppose these would be my main three. Although the Guardian is the main. Not my best work, but lets face it I am better at games them I am at Photo shopping stuff

Dark Catalyst.1028:

Talyn.3295:

I do not support Anet in every thing. But how many people who are complaining about spending money would work a forty hour week without pay or some kind of compensation?

Yeah that is what I thought. No matter how much you love your job people have bills and a family to support.

The gem store is there to use. I have never felt my game was effected by not using it. I do not agree with loot nerfs which is what the thread was about. The gem store is a whole other animal all together.

I don’t have a problem spending money since I pay subs for games I value. And I don’t have a problem spending money in a fair cash shop. But GW2’s cash shop is anything but fair, and now with the China release, it’s just a cash grab.

Look at Rift’s cash shop for an example of a shop that is very fair.

While I will not disagree with you on every point. P2P can be just as big of a cash grab. Look at what has happened with ESO for example.

I would just like a guild only feature. I have no issue with our milita falling in on our tag. Alot of those guys are great. However a guild only option would help to combat tag watchers. The milita could still follow as needed and we would not have to worry as much about having our movements reported from an uplevel setting at spawn.

I do not support Anet in every thing. But how many people who are complaining about spending money would work a forty hour week without pay or some kind of compensation?

Yeah that is what I thought. No matter how much you love your job people have bills and a family to support.

The gem store is there to use. I have never felt my game was effected by not using it. I do not agree with loot nerfs which is what the thread was about. The gem store is a whole other animal all together.

Did them all the firat time for the fun of it. But I do not think it would be worth it for the money alone.