Guild Wars 2

As far as I’m not satisfied with the way things turn out, I must admit that it’s not a matter of who wins, or who loses.

They were really clear about all this from the beginning. The situation is not : “Devs are idle, what should they do know ?”. The situation is “Devs are currently doing A. You seem to consider a B option. Should we switch to B ?” That’s not at all the same, and considering the amount of work already spent, and the incoming amount should there be a change, it seems fair to ask for a super-majority.

So, this is not exactly a “minory blocade” situation. This is : “The amount of people supporting the B option is not worth the effort”.

Yet, that 75% figure seems awful,ly high and that outcome and the associated comments really feel bitter.

That’s a good idea. They may use something like obsidian Sanctum to do a kind of FFA arena, or put banks and crafting stations there instead of citadels (that would hen seem quite empty without it…)

lil devils x.6071:

Actually they DID advertise it as " Large scale PvP" and stated that was what the players asked for and was giving us when they discussed the results of the surveys they used to create this game. They specifically told us the players asked for large scale PvP, that they heard us and they were giving it to us. So YES, they not only advertises it as large scale PvP, they outright told us that is what they were giving us and why many bought the game.
Raiding castles is still nonstop PvP if implemented properly. Players fighting other players over objectives = WvW. " nonstop PvP action" should be players fighting other players nonstop over objectives. I am not sure what you are understanding that to be.

PvD undefended structures on the other hand has no place in a PvP game mode, nor should it be rewarded.

I was there in the beginning too… Yet, many things changed since then in WvW, PvP and PvE, so it feels more relevant to look at what they advertise now, instead of sticking to what they used to advertise, even if I understand the disappointement.

As much as I understand their official site, the main focus of WvW seem to be taking on and holding objectives (and thus, PPT). And in the process, you may encounter opponents, thus have PvP. Not necessarily in a big scale, by the way.
If no player defends an objective, then you can take it on your own, just by opening it, and fighting the NPCs. That’s more or less impossible to avoid in a 1 week persistent map. It’s hard to have a sufficient amount of players any time, everywhere.

There’s here a slight difference with using objectives as an excuse to do (I exaggerate on purpose) blob vs. blob (what many ppl understand as “large scale PvP”) in the middle of a field, with no interest in camps, keeps or towers. And there’s such a biais currently in WvW, as I stated in another post, where I related 2 comms blob vs blobbing in the field amongst green objectives (we play red) and not caring about our red towers and camps being taken over. We were players who took those objectives, and raised them to T1, and we were disgusted.

In a nutshell, and from what I understand from updates and official site, ANet expects players to focus on objectives, ways to take them, upgrade them, get benefit from them, and hold them ; and have large scale PvP at various stages of the process.They do not expect players to focus on looking for a big crowd to fight in some kind of large scale courtyard ; and not care much about objectives which would be mere “PvE gimmicks”.

lil devils x.6071:

Xeno.4610:

Why there is no option for NEVER EVER DBL!?!?!?!? I’d love to vote for deleting all the dessert borderland code, burn all backup files and brain wash the guys who designed them just to be sure it never gets back Of course I voted for 1 DBL and 2 ABL, since this makes still at least two borderlands playable. But if there was an option for no more DBL I’d choose this one 1000%.

There is no option to keep or scrap the DBL because they already know players will vote to scrap it and they don’t want to give players what they want actually here and are expecting them to “settle” for a bad map which then in turns makes more players leave the game again completely reversing the progress they already made on this.

Rather than create actual WvW maps from the ground up designed with nonstop PvP gameplay as the primary focus, they want to handcuff us to a dysfunctional map they are attempting to make playable. Players deserve actual good maps designed for PvP, not just broken PvE gimmicky Bouncy maps made somewhat" playable".

Just have a look here : https://www.guildwars2.com/en/the-game/competitive-play/

It says :

World vs. World (WvW) is PvP combat that involves hundred of players. Three huge teams —each representing a server, or world—battle for control over objectives on four massive maps in week-long matches.

Each map – one for each server and a huge “neutral” center map – is loaded with objectives that are worth points for the team that claims them. Players can band together to lay siege to castles, raid enemy supply caravans, clash with other players in truly massive battles, wreak havoc behind enemy lines, or build mighty weapons of war like trebuchets and siege golems.

PvP indeed matters, but WvW obviously has never been intended as “nonstop PvP gameplay as the primary focus”. So please stop trying to handcuff ANet into enforcing something they don’t intend. Or ask for it somewhere else than in WvW’s forum.

What you want truly is an important feature, yet it’s not WvW as ANet wants and advertises it.

I opened a thread about it some times ago. It’s still here. https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Ideas-for-DBL-towers/first

Here a list of proposals :

Have towers work as “barracks”

Each tower having a special flavour, there could be a training master that you could use to buy specific and extra-powerful reinforcements you’d assign to a camp, a keep, another tower, or escorting dolyaks.

Towers could also be the one place to buy a specific extra-powerful siege weapon (depending on the flavour of the tower).

Have towers generate an environemental effect

This effect would be related to the “flavour” of the tower, and would strongly incitate a blob to take the tower first, or have a very hard time ignoring it. It’d be a strong defensive point, yet at the same time, a strong step in ennemy territory for invaders.

The detection effect of towers could also have an increased radius, yet would only be available for players actually scouting the tower.

Have tower be strategical waypoints
Towers could have then own waypoints, only active when both related supply camps are ok.

Towers could also have a networking system, in a nuhoch wallow’s or skritt’s holes’s fashion. You could fast travel from one tower to another, yet couldn’t spawn in a tower.

SgtOVERKILL.4701:

Although you do have some good proposals can we PLEASE not make WvW any more automated than it has already become. The radars, the upgrades, the everything that made WvW strategic to take higher tier items is gone. Scouting is useless if you have a radar on each tower. Also how do you expect roamers and small guilds to sneak towers away while the enemy blob is defending smc? There are just too many automated and pve elements in a strategic game mode for any group ranging from 5-50. Yes, anet solved the issue of overpowered keep tactivators and cloaking waters but that doesn’t solve the smaller guilds and groups from being able to sneak a t2 or t3 anything from and enemy if they aren’t properly scouting when everything has these ridiculous upgrades.

You’re right about the disappointement caused by automation of all this, even if I’m not sure it should be called PvE. Yet, you’re forgetting most players just want to have fights against other players, and don’t care much about upgrading, roaming, scouting and so on.
Even if I perfectly agree with the fact players should actually do it by themselves, making things automatic is a way to push things towards the strategic facet of WvW. For exemple, I once have been in a border map and, with some help, we took the spawn camp, helped taking the spawn tower, escorted 20 dolyaks to have them go T1, prevented the camp from being taken by ennemies 3 times and eventually lost everything because 2 comms were busy playing blob vs blob in a place where our server wasn’t holding a single thing : one of those fantastic guild fights.

So, in that kind of case, I must say I’m happy some things are in automatic mode.

To me, there’re two main issues with the blob wars biais that WvW is taking now.

The “less effort, more rewards” is making things unfair, and at the same time, the blob makes things impossible to be effective for any other playstyle. Just as it’s been said :

Blobs suck the talent out of wvw. If you aren’t in one then your experience is limited to flipping camps. If you are in one your experience is limited to mashing 111 and trying to hit a guy before he melts under the other 50 guys. What an exciting game mode people have created.

In a nutshell : there’s nothing wrong with blobs, but it shouldn’t be the “only” effective option.

The second issue is what ANet wants and maybe you should have a look on what they exactly advertise : https://www.guildwars2.com/en/the-game/competitive-play/

World vs. World (WvW) is PvP combat that involves hundred of players. Three huge teams —each representing a server, or world—battle for control over objectives on four massive maps in week-long matches.

Each map – one for each server and a huge “neutral” center map – is loaded with objectives that are worth points for the team that claims them. Players can band together to lay siege to castles, raid enemy supply caravans, clash with other players in truly massive battles, wreak havoc behind enemy lines, or build mighty weapons of war like trebuchets and siege golems.

It’s obvious : the main focus are “control objectives”, “siege”, “build mighty weapons”, next to “massive battles”. Yet, a lot of people claiming they’re “true WvW players” dismiss siege weapons, don’t care so much about controlling objectives and say sieges of objectives are boring etc.

It’s perfectly fine to like or not like something ; it’s perfectly fine to like blobs and “truly massive battles”. Yet, if you think those battles are the only thing that matters ; if you’re not into “claiming objectives”, “building siege weapons”, or just consider it’s “no real WvW” or “PvE gimmicks”, then you should consider switching to another game mode.

Because if ANet devs want WvW to be tactical gameplay then they truly won’t appreciate the noisiest players to twist their arms into doing something they don’t want, or don’t feel like it should be. The eventual outcome of this will certainly be devs letting down WvW to rot.

Supernatural Dawn.3194:

I think it is odd that people look for fights in WvW and those who don’t are told to go to sPvP or PVE. I’m interested in capturing objectives. If I can split my guild and hit two objectives and come out with one then that is a success. I think conquering the map is much more satisfying than some lagfest war. You prepare for war but with good tactics, should come the win.

I liked DBL the forts were tough to crack but the map was huge so feinting attacks was more effective in confusing the enemy.

This, of course, makes perfect sense, and even if ABL towers are of more help for tactics than DBL’s, I still feel like DBL was more appropriate for splitting groups, and confusing enemies, and such, for overall tactics.

The main issue is those tactics aren’t involving blobs, and lots of players want blobs, so lots of players don’t want DBL. The almost only solution would be to make a whole new system so that there’d be a big blobby lagfest fight next to a far more tactical capture the map. And everyone would be happy…

Hello Tyler,

It seems to me like a very bad idea for a problem that’s anyway broader than a mere figures management.

Tyler Bearce.3427:

Hypothetically speaking, if we were to open some additional worlds (and at this point I still don’t know how much work, or how safe a change like that would be), but if we did, would there be player interest in transferring to these new worlds? The new worlds would have lowered population caps, be free to transfer to for a period of time and be immediately linked with existing lower tier worlds..

That part feels like an overall segregation of players who’re not into blobfest or who want to keep things small. Even if it’s a good intention, it’d be far more effective (yet require far more work) to work on mechanics, maps and what WvW has to offer so that everyone can find their own entertainement without refraining other’s ways of liking WvW as much as possible.

Yet… That can’t possibly be because :

2) Achieve a larger number of smaller worlds that we can link together to achieve more balanced numbers for each team.

Which I translate as “ok, you wan’t to keep things small, here you are with a small server. Be careful, we’re gonna use your small server has a management device and link it with bigger servers to eventually have more population”. So, that won’t be small server for small things…

One last thing :

The ultimate goal of this hypothetical plan would be two-fold:
1) Give players/guilds that are too big for their ‘Full’ status world an opportunity to move to new worlds, enabling them to grow more easily again.

That actually is a sweet dream. I can’t imagine a big guild wanting to do small things. I’m not into one, yet I can easily emphatize with guildies who want to find fights everywhere, and blobfests, and action in a less-than-15-seconds walk from the spawn. And putting those in a smaller server will only lead them to be the only guild around.

Orpheal.8263:

Stability as a Boon should get removed.
Every Player should receive a BREAK BAR and based on your TOUGHNESS should this Breakbar break in the end easier or harder.

(…)

WHY THE HELL CAN’T GET THIS SIMPLE BUT GOOD SYSTEM BE INTEGRATED INTO PVP AND WVW AS WELL???

Nothing much to add… Plain and easy. Rework stunbreakers as break bar refillers, and it’ll be fine.

The idea sounds appealing to me, since the server system indeed only has WvW left to dwell.

Anyway, I see a major flaw : having only 3 orders left (if I understood correctly) will provide them with a huge population leading to 2 issues :

• Maps will be too small
• The time split between NA servers and EU servers won’t help (even if it could solve the night capping issue on another hand).

Now, get ready for the “WvW is no PvE” rants ;-)

I’m overall displeased about stability. There’s a trend those days of massive stun/daze builds who essentially lock you down for 75s with an array of CC, and kill you in the process without you being able to do anything because you can’t counter that many CC. And that comes from thieves/daredevils, scrappers, mesmers/chronomancers and warriors/berserkers…

I’m not at all against interrupts. My main GW1 character was an interrupt mesmer, and I’ve had very interesting fights. But I totally despise the idea of a “fight” consisting in tying the other player’s hands behind his chair with a ridiculous amount of stuns, out of the blue and even before anything starts, so that he can be stomped easily.

So my suggestions are :

• Remove the most of the CC system
• Keep the push/pull/drown/raise, but without any skill lockdown (the overall unexpected move can be confusing enough)
• Put a “standard on the fly” interrupt
• Put a “your next action fails” interrupt
• No stacking in those. If you use a CC lasting longer than the current one, it replaces it ; if you use a shorter one, it’s no use.
• Optionnal : add a latency between 2CC that’d last more than 1 second.

I heard people like fights, and I like them too. Yet, I don’t like the trend that’s raising consisting in using 32s stun+spike, then running your kitten off if it wasn’t insta death to repeat it later.

I’m playing in Augury Rock, and we’re linked with Ranik Fort.
I won’t speak for myself, but the other evening, there was some people from Ranik talking in the map channel saying essentially they weren’t happy about the linking, because they were happy in their small community, doing “not so big” things, and enjoying it. Putting them in AR exposes them to be crushed by blobs or more skilled players.

There’re a lot of ppl enjoying various playstyles, and everyone should be happy about doing WvW in their own fashion. In that case, they couldn’t because of being forced into a tier too high for their expectations. And eventually, they’ll leave.

The issue with the linking (and every change actually) is that, should people not like what’s happening, they’ll just leave. And that’s an issue for the poll. Indeed, that 75/25 may actually mean that “75% players that still haven’t left out of despair/disgust think it was a good idea”. The other 25% are expecting some change for the better.

That’s the pessimistic analysis. That may not be accurate, but it’s no less accurate than saying 75% “overall players” are happy. A broader sample is needed. Why not publish polls through in-game mail with another option like “I don’t care, I don’t play WvW so much” ?

Dinas Dragonbane.2978:

How are the queues looking for everybody nowadays? Seems most of the hype of both Alpine maps and wvw rewards have cooled down a bit, as I type this for FA/BP there’s no queue on a single wvw map.

I usually play in the evenings. There’re queues of 10-20 ppl in only 2 on 3 BL. Yet, even if it’s that much, it’s not a long wait to get in : something around 15 minutes… Oh wait ! Could it be ppl wait for tick before leaving ?

Anyway, at like 10PM, no queue on any map, and only 2 blobs running here and there…

So I agree with the fact the hype is down.

Tyler Bearce.3427:

The current plan is to rotate the borderlands maps each quarterly update. That said, now that we are actively polling the community, perhaps we can start exploring other options.

For instance, nothing is really stopping us from having a combination of ABL and DBL maps running simultaneously. 2 of one and 1 of the other. If we polled that, and players approved it, then there’d be no need for the rotation, and players on both sides of the issue could play on their preferred map. The downside of course, would be any perception of imbalance that may arise from one map being considered the stronger “Home” map, but we could always give the more defensible map to Red/Blue and leave the less defensible map to Green.

Talking about other options, here’re my 2 cents. Have the map rotate weekly AND the matchups rotate on a 2-week basis.
This way, you’d be against the same server on ABL and then on DBL for “revenge”.

The first issue about blobbing is lots of people actually enjoy that, because it’s easy : you can do whatever you want by the sheer effect of numbers, so you can braindead in the blob spamming 1, kill any roamer, solo guy reaching his friends, take towers, camps, and sometimes even keeps, without thinking too much about what you’re doing, and still get the loot. It surely is a nice rest after a hard day of work.

I’m sorry, but no, people can’t do roaming or work in small teams when 3 blobs are chasing each other in the map, because when the blob is near, you’re lag-CC’d and wake up dead. Because you can’t fight a blob 5 vs 50, and won’t try, even if you’re promised a full legendary set, because it’s more or less no use.

As for the epicness of fights, it walks on a sharp edge. I totally agree with the fact that a 10-15 pack with a good synchronization can epicly wipe a huge unorganized blob, and that feels really rewarding. I’ve also seen many fights be an epic mess with 2/3 sprites online, AoE impossible to read, tremendous lags, and uncertain issue. I won’t call that epic. Just huge mess.

The main issue is blobbing is a result of WvW fundamental mechanics allowing ppl being lazy. Despite all ANet’s attempts, many servers don’t feel like it’s useful or rewarding to hold points and level them up. So they need to work on rewards so that blobs chasing each others and flipping points won’t give anything at all. Why not having a fixed small amount of loot per objective, and split it between the blob ? “nothing much divided by 50” won’t leave many things left.

On the same idea, there’s a cap on how many ppl can rez an ally at the same time. There should be a cap on how many foes you can engage in a fight at the same time, and you’d get like 10% damage from every other in the area.

I’m positive about the noise telling “WvW is big PvP big fights blah blah blah”. Check WvW maps. Does it look like the courtyard in any way ? No. Then the purpose of WvW isn’t blobs fighting blobs.

Puck.9612:

I spent plenty of time in it after the last change (because ebg queues were so high I couldn’t get in), the map was slightly less terrible but it still only encouraged zerging.

My total time on the dbl is probably something pretty low like 50ish hours, that isn’t enough time to learn all the best spots to attack each structure but it’s plenty of time to learn all the short cuts around the map. In 1 hour on alpine I found more roaming fights than all my hours on the dbl.

I’m not sure it encourages zerging… As you said, DBL provides lots of shortcuts all around, from one place to another. Even if many people think it’s tedious, I see it more as a way to allow small group of players to dispatch, reach multiple points without being seen, escape from scouts etc. In that way, it doesn’t encourage zerging. Anyway, whichever map is concerned, zerging always work for the sheer power of numbers. And as lots of players choose it the easy way… Still, the lack of roaming fights can come from too much shortcuts and ways that’d dilute the overall population. There’re less paths in ABL, and they’re more open, so it’s easier to find people.

And as far as I’m concerned, I’ve seen far more zerging in ABL than in DBL.

BTW, for the other post, it was indeed an intentionnal misunderstanding, written just by overexaggereting what I was reading.

Dawdler.8521:

Moving entire structures requires reshaping the entire map. In your case, you could move them closer together true. But it wouldnt be anywhere near alpine, because moving them together would mean that you increase the distance to hills and bay – which is the complete opposite of what really need to happen for it to become more like alpine (ie keeps and towers can siege and threaten each other to keep the pressure high). Wanna move hills and bay to keep up with the towers being closer? Oh boy… Wanna fold the center in itself to create a map rectangular like alpine? Well that kitten up garri completely. Either way you twist and turn this you cant make it work without remaking the entire map.

That’s true : big moves of towers would need a huge rework of the overall map. Moreover, the idea is to give DBL towers new functionnalities which would give DBL a specific flavour and gameplay, instead of having DBL get the same mechanics as ABL, and eventually become a copy of it.

mcarswell.3768:

people like the towers on ABL because they encourage engagements by being important footholds in the enemy territory used as jumping off points to attack the keeps/garrison. environmental effects deter engagements and make people want to avoid the whole area…definitely not fight in it.

This is my all point : if towers are just standing there with no purpose or effect, then they’ll indeed be useless points to take over and hold. My idea here was to make a specific area very hard to cross without holding the tower. In that way, anyone leading an attack towards a big objective should say : “We’ll take the tower first to be free of our moves”. No more hazardous effect for attacking team, but a strong point they’ll hold because anyone who’d want to take the tower back will now suffer.

mcarswell.3768:

idea: allow waypoints in all structures at T3 including towers, but only if both supporting camps are owned as well (losing a camp would make the waypoint contested, even if the tower is not necessarily under attack)

On the same topic, it could be interesting to have towers work as hubs towards any other tower or keep held, with portals like things in a nuhoch wallow’s fashion. That’d enable very fast travel in “safe” places across the map. The main difference with a waypoint would be you can’t respawn in it.

Tiny Doom.4380:

lil devils x.6071:

It isn’t them fixing everything on the list that is concerning, it is HOW they are proposing to fix them that is the biggest problem here. Before this poll should have even been considered, they should have shown different ways to solve the problem and considered the numerous alternatives that are much better than their proposed solutions. If all of the solution’s being offered are bad and fail to address the core problem, a bad poll is just bad.
end game for the proposed solutions = PvD undefended objective, KIll NPC get Chest, Siege it to the teeth, Zerg avoid fight get i n tower siege hump and kill 5 ppl outside . This only matters during 6 hour period, everyone else outside of that time left game already.

As long as PvD undefended + zerg siege humping is the way to win END GAME is YB 2.0 for all servers eventually, + devalue players outside of prime time = kill the game faster because this is bad/ lame game play that treats players like crap.

WvW is PvPvE with a strong emphasis on siege mechanics. You can accept it or not but that’s self-evidently what it is and what it has always been. If that’s ever seriously in doubt then ANet is going to have to come down on one side of the fence, decisively, pick a direction for WvW, stick with it and change the rules to encourage that style of play and discourage others. If that’s done we will end up with a clearer WvW offer and those who find that offer appealing will stay and, if they are acting rationally, those who don’t will go and find other things to do that suit them better.

It has been apparent since launch that the official vision for WvW is, approximately, a ladder-style competition between Server-Level entities in which gameplay is based heavily on taking and holding structures. The trope is “medieval siege warfare” and siege machines are designed into the gameplay at the most basic level. It may well be that a more open-field, guild vs guild oriented offer would have been more popular but it wasn’t the offer that was on the table and in four years it has never been suggested that it ever would be.

If these changes do move WvW to a more unequivocal “take and hold territory” model then that’s all to the good. Lack of clarity has been a huge part of the problem with directional drift until now. Get WvW into shape, make some definitive statements about intended gameplay if necessary and then let that clear offer define what population the game mode can attract and keep.

Couldn’t agree more with that.

Puck.9612:

lil devils x.6071:

Puck.9612:

Swagger.1459:

The devs are going to rework the map to be more likable to the masses.

The devs will probably make a video showing their progress and ask our opinion.

The devs will keep working on it and someday bring it back into rotation when it’s in a wvw worthy state.

/thread

The devs would have better luck starting from scratch.

^ I concur.
Start from the beginning designing it around keeping players in the action not trying to get to it and give them a reason to be there. Give them easy to access terrain with direct routes, where you do not spend more than a few seconds in between each one. Objectives should be simple and easy to scout. Make it so players can actually use their skills everywhere..

These things should be the primary focus when building the map , not trying to come back later and force the map to try to add these things after it is already messed up.

Along with that they need to focus on function over flavor. Keep out the random obstacles on the ground that block projectiles, teleports and leaps.
Having obstacles to LoS (like the huts in alpine supply camps) is great, but you need to be able to see that they are there. The outcome of a fight shouldn’t be determined by crappy terrain bugs.
Keep the ground smooth, use ramps instead of stairs.

In a nutshell, previous posters want a map with no design, perfectly smooth and flat, with more or less infinite depth of view, and objectives close to each others so that tedious runs would be avoided.

lil devils x.6071:

If the system rewards specific behaviors, those behaviors will be increased over time, as they have been already.

I totally agree with this one. The issue is, the system rewarding specific behaviours is broader than the sole WvW, and includes balancing between classes and specs, and the whole game actually. For example, even if there’s now druid, water tempest or Ventari tablet, very few people play in a healer/support fashion in WvW, PvP (not even talking about PvE…), as far as I saw.

And it’s the same with every game mechanics, rewards and scoring in WvW…

The worse part of it is whenever they try to shift the fashion, and DBL were such a try, they only get a wall of complains because people are used to a specific way of playing, enjoy that very way, won’t consider any change in their habits but changes that’d make that specific way easier (let it be kill easier, survive longer, and get better loot e.g.) And anyone saying they enjoy something else gets “You’re no true WvW player” and other nonsense.

So, the only good question is, what is ANet actual view on WvW ? Because there’s a moment when people loving Pepsi should stop going to Coca Cola’s forums and rant about how they should change their reciepe.

And that moment is getting nearer and nearer.

Hello,

There’s been a lot of ranting about DBL towers being useless, and as long as they’ve got no strategic siege role, they indeed can feel like it. That’s why I’m coming with ideas to improve towers in DBL, and make them strategic points you want to take and hold.

Idea 1 : have the towers work as barracks

Towers could train guards and soldiers, each tower having its own speciality, and one could send them as reinforcements for keeps, camps, dolyak’s escort… Each keep would have 2 towers “feeding” it with guards.
In this way, you’d upgrade guards NPCS in keeps with towers troops, which are more powerful, with various styles.

Idea 2 : have towers work as points to control a strategic area

I think that what was initially intended : anyone who controls a tower make opponents have to walk the long run to reach their objectives.

I think there’re better ways to do this like having tower detect enemies in a permanent fashion (from like T1 ou T2 on), but I think it’d be even greater to have towers produce an environmental effect in an “Orr’s Statues” fashion, that’d make moving in the area tedious, or provide a strong advantage for defenders. Some things like :

• Mage college tower : random elemental storms all around
• Lich tower : somehow like Grenth’s statues effect
• Ogre tower : random thieves popping, traps…

And, it’d become more and more powerful, or with additionnal effects while raising in tiers.

Hi everyone.

There’ve been some fast paced changes with WvW maps and lots of arguing around “alpine/desert” map is better, and surely everyone can empathize with pros and cons of each map without pointless arguing. So that’s not what my topic is about.

My topic is about suggesting a way to solve this, and satisfy the most players by letting them choose.

How does it work ?

The central new idea is to create a “war of the mist enlisting” NPC which would ask you “War of the mists need your help. Which border do you want to fight in ?” and let you pick Alpine or Desert, or whatever new map that’d be created in an uncertain future.

• That NPC would be found in each main city (like, where the NPC chat about war of the mists)
• Once you’ve chosen, the portals will send you to that specific borderland, from the next reset on, *Once you’ve chosen, blue/green/red maps would all be the same (i.e. if you choose alpine, green, blue, and red will be alpine).
• You can change your choice as often as you wish, considering it becomes effective at next reset.
• The choice is account-wide.
• As long as you don’t change that setting with the NPC, you’ll be sent in the same borderland at each reset.

Population and balance issues

Those points can be handled easily by duplicating the existing systems and algorithms, considering each server would be divided in subservers that’d have each week a constant population, and a slight ability to forsee the upcoming changes of population.

• Having like 90% server population in alpine and 10% in desert won’t be an issue when the world linking feature can compensate this to make balanced populations in each map.
• There’d be a matchmaking for desert, and one for alpine (and one for each new map…), with the current matchmaking system.

Conclusion

As alpine and desert maps involve very different ways of understanding and enjoying WvW, it seems fair to let the players set which map they want to join, while allowing them to change should they change their mind, or want to join specific events. Allowing the change in a weekly basis seem fine for oversee and tweak purposes.

There wouldn’t be so many things new, but more of a duplication of what already exists, and having both maps work in a parallal fashion.

Hello Gaile,

I’m very excited about the WvW reward tracks, even if I think it’ll need some little tweaks.

Gaile Gray.6029:

A Message from the WvW Team
The first topic, as you probably guessed from the title, is WvW Reward Tracks! Here are a few questions:

1. How do you feel overall about reward tracks?

It’s a wonderful idea, and that made me want to do more WvW and build a little roaming team within my guild.

Gaile Gray.6029:

1. What are your thoughts on the rate at which you gain participation?
2. How do you feel about the rate you earn reward track points?
3. Overall, what are your impressions about the types of reward tracks we have?

Gains seem overall fair. I’m more afraid about losses. Alpine map is vast, and it’s not straightforward to go do something without a long run, and it’s worse when possession is high. Likewise, switching map to find something to do is impossible when there’s a queue. So, I think there should be little thing that’d prevent the participation bar to empty, or I agree with the idea of little gains for each things you do instead of a big one at each tick depending on participation.

Gaile Gray.6029:

1. Are there any other reward tracks you would really like to see?

I think you should build some living world 1st season reward tracks. I’m thinking about :

1. toxic track, with toxic spores, reciepies of various things you can craft with them (sharpening stones, torment sigils and runes…)
2. twisted marionnette / assault knights, with clockwork mechanisms, blades, reciepes, and power cores as loot.

I really enjoyed the concept of Ventari in a support build (more than Glint. Glint seems really nice, but not really my way of playing). I like the idea of a backline support mostly focused on keeping friends alive than dps (and they’ll name this a monk…)

I mostly agree on what was said before, especially the “faster tablet” thing, and the instant spawn one. AOE radius should also be increased, as well as the healing efficiency, and some work should be put in 8 and elite to make them more potent.

I’m not so fond of the “attach tablet” thing, even if I see the point, and think it’d be intersting. My main concern about it is : you can attach it to one char, while most of skills are AOE.

My suggestions :

• Instant spawn tablet when switching to Ventari. You must summon it anyway, so let’s just not waste time.
• Tablet should move faster when using Ventari’s will
• Tablet should follow the player, should he go too far.
• Instead of having the tablet healing whoever it’s “passing through”, I think it’d be interesting to have it move to targeted location, and have an AOE heal when arrived. That would mostly prevent an awkward “tablet/broomstick sweeping when you’re keeping a pack of friends alive” situation.
• I like Terra’s idea for energy expulsion : 100% heal in a large radius, with an expensive cost.
• Natural harmony : if Ventari’s will becomes more effective in raw heal, I’d like this skill to be a friend’s condi removal, foe’s boons removal and break stun, in a “natural harmony means everyone goes back to normal” fashion. Then it might become more expensive.

That’d make Ventari a jack of all trades in a matter of support : heals, projectile block, condi cleanse, and stun breaker.

I totally agree with the fact that crafting isn’t that attractive. As far as I’m concerned, I’m an elementalist, and I don’t farm each and every map to kill every mobs and get the every mats I can.

Still, I could raise my tailoring through first and second tier, just by making my gear… Sounds so easy ? Not so much, actually ! I only use the discovery tab (let alone the insignas) to build sets of armor with various buffs depending on the fine crafting materials I have. Then, to unlock the better insignas, I have to make another set of armor : this one is useless. And then I often had to make another one. As useless as the previous one (so I just salvage them to get some scraps back…)

Then, 5 levels later, I have to do it all agan, and do three sets of armor and a half to level up. When an insigna is 8 mats, it’s quite a pain in thekitten to get all of these… Let alone the fact that I wanted to be artificer so that I can do my staves too, I dropped the idea, both professions use the same mats.

One of the problems of crafting (because there’re many others) is the ridiculously low drop rate of fine crafting materials, making the idea of gathering them a huge pain, time-waster, or money-waster.

And no, I’m not level 80, and I don’t have 40 gold to put in this.