Guild Wars 2

Dawdler.8521:

Nope, that was exactly the comment he responded to and I quoted.

We see the same thing now – get the kitten on TS or get out you commander noob. Squads is another tier on top of that. Do all people think commanders need to be on TS? Hell no. But many people do, even if its optional (and not even part of the original game for that matter). You’re not seeing that at all on your server?

Maybe it will be a good change, I dont know. Personally I dont like changes that looks like its going to make a simple and effective thing into a tactical excel spreadsheet. But maybe that’s just me.

If you aren’t on TS as a militia or commander you are simply going to be far less effective and have a greater chance to be killed than if you are on TS. TS is not an absolute requirement to play wvw, nor are proper builds, nor is any experience required. The amount that any particular person invests in these things is dependant on their personal desires and goals from the game…

Mishi.7058:

Im curious if being in a squad will nix the option to see other commander tags on the map.

Many times I coordinate between multiple commanders who are pinned ont he same maps, and I’d like to see all of them if I choose to, not be only able to see the commander’s tag of the squad I am in.

This is changed on live already. Now when you are in squad you see all the tags on the map, your squad commander’s tag is now highlighted on the minimap so it is obvious who you are following. It’s a very nice upgrade.

Yep, max 50 people in the entire squad and I think no more than 12 sub squads.

yarINvincible.1243:

1. Sub squads? I don’t get it. Are those sub squads in the big squad? (joining by clicking on his name and Join Squad option).
2. What’s the point of sub squads basically?

OK, seems you don’t get out into WvW very much… Yes the sub squads are part of the main squad. So, this functionality allows everyone who is following a comander to be organized into appropriately composed groups for maximum profession synergy. The commander can see all of the professions that are available and group them, he/she can also see the amount of supply in each sub group and in the entire group. He will also be able to see all group members on the map at all times. Having individuals party up correctly is much more tedious and time consuming and generally leads to poor party composition. Also, knowing what the composition of the entire group following the tag allows the commander to better understand the overall fighting strength of the group.

The comander can place you in sub squads of 5 just like parties, buffs will be prioritized based on sub squad, same a parties.

Next Desert boarderland beta Oct 23. It’s just too close to the release of HoT now for another beta test to be of much use in my opinion, it’s not happening this or next weekend, otherwise they would have announced it, so that leaves the only possibility the weekend of Oct 10th, but my guess is that the entire dev team is sleeping zero hours a day, freaking out, and furiously trying to just finish off the entire HoT release enough so it doesn’t just immediately crash the game. And honestly, with so little time before release, how much value is there to doing another beta test. If they are actually going to devote real resources to WvW when HoT is released then I don’t mind if we beta test on release and they fix things on the fly, since we are all going to need to play that map for a while before we can really give valuable feedback. But if they are going to do it, seems like Oct 10th is the best bet….

I guess it would be cool if in a 2 day stress test, just downloading the client didn’t take practically on entire day… ok well it looks like it will only take around 3 hours, I got home started the download and my window of opportunity to play will be basically done before it’s even downloaded… good job on the invites and download servers.

well the rally mechanism is something that might seriously benefit with a modification of its function. a no rally week would probably be useful to determine how much rallying effects WvW combat and changing it could help to make things work better for everyone especially new players who are typically viewed as rally bots

dancingmonkey.4902:

Tspatula.9086:

dancingmonkey.4902:

On the last event you said :

Tspatula.9086:

It’ll be ok for a couple hours and then it just becomes even more monotonous.

And your point is? I assume you have some point here, as I cannot see one. I believe I was correct, but everyone survived it, the no white swords event was pretty good and the PPK was ok too.

I thought the point was fairly self evident.

they tried an event, and good, bad, or indifferent, the negativity towards it was overwhelming. Some of that negativity was from you. So it makes the request from those who displayed such negativity on previous events, hard to take seriously.

well, your point is quite weak then, my comment was far more constructive criticism than negativity, it was correct and had anet listened thing would have gone better. some people have to be honest, we can’t all be anet yes people. frankly I find it difficult to take your comments seriously, but please continue

Pink Ninja Man.4375:

Seems the answer is yes: 3rd Beta Weekend Anouncment

Pffff…. still only a stress test, still not open to everyone who pre-purchased HoT. The only reason I bought HoT ahead of time was to check out the WvW map betas… Did I get an invite… oh no.

dancingmonkey.4902:

On the last event you said :

Tspatula.9086:

It’ll be ok for a couple hours and then it just becomes even more monotonous.

And your point is? I assume you have some point here, as I cannot see one. I believe I was correct, but everyone survived it, the no white swords event was pretty good and the PPK was ok too.

ArchonWing.9480:

Pink Ninja Man.4375:

To be fair the community reacted in a way that seemed they would rather play core WvW then have another special event. For all we know they might have had another planned but after the first one well poorly they decided to scrap it. The WvW community seems to complain about stale matchups but as soon as something changes it they complain as well.

I would rather play core wvw and not have events that drastically disrupt the gameplay myself.

To me personally, until they can think of something like that, I can live without events, and honestly the demands being made to so call “break the monotony” are a bit vague. Suppose that PPK one again might be nice.

The problem with PPK is the effect is so minimal…. a “no rally” week would be interesting and provide some insight on how the current implementation effects gameplay. Everyone “thinks” they understand the mechanic, but in reality, none of us knows what the impact of not rallying would be. I think we could, as a community withstand one week of it as an exploration of how rallying works.

Next WvW map beta test starts Oct 23rd. Problems associated with the beta will be resolved starting summer 2016, just as it has always been… because WvW is soooo important to Colin, he said so and I believe him.

They should just remove the runes from WvW gear and make upgrades salvageable, problem solved, super easy. or make the runes major not superior and have the armor salvageable.

lordkrall.7241:

Yeah, because we all remember how much people loved the last special event they gave us to shake things up a bit…

None of the “events” have been that bad, not nearly as bad as all the crying about them on these forums…. But again this is the the biggest problem with Anets design philosophy, they come up with ideas that they like, collect absolutely no feedback from the players, spend time making the idea work, release it. The idea fails because it wasn’t well thought out, players lash out at devs, devs go to room, cry in corner like spoiled children. Someone has to be the adult in the room, in theory, it should be Josh Davis, but of course he is “busy”.

I believe the title says it all, I find it unbelievably disappointing how little effort is made by Anet to even throw us the tiniest bone in WvW to break up the stale monotony of week after week of the same match ups, same fights, more and more players leaving… Now with less than 2 months to go before the release of HoT we can all be sure that any possibility of a “special WvW event week” is pretty much gone… very lame.
Sorry to be so glum, but they are almost certainly using the “OMG HoT! we can’t do anything else..” and then when the new map drops and it is a disaster of bugs and poorly conceived giant keeps and unwanted PVE it will be the same “OMG HoT! we cant do anything else… so many bugs”. But esports, oh yeah, well that’s important, can’t ignore esports….

So Grouch,
What’s the deal? Are we going to get our week of “no rally”, while I think the “golem rush” week could have been better, it appears everyone, including myself, managed to survive it. WvW is so stale right now, it really would be a great opportunity to tweak the game mode a bit and see what sticks… Or is your foray into the “WvW special events” just a one trick pony?

ZhouFusion.1826:

topic has been made 1000×.

Some suggestions where.
Remove from all maps.
Place them into EotM & remove from Citadel
Place them into Obsidium sanctum & remove from Citadel.

Yeah I know, but this version of the idea would maintain the basic structure of the borderlands map while removing the idle/crafting players from the map player cap…

Create a WvW lobby by simply taking the center portion of home BL citadel and the surrounding NPC and crafting areas. Have it be a separate map and have the map chat from the home BL map. That map could have it’s own player cap. You could even have portals at all the main exit points into the fight areas of the map, so functionally it would be the same as the current map. Then disable all crafting from the other maps. There is no need to craft on a WvW map and no reason any server resources should be spent on non participating players when there are lag problems for the people actually participating in WvW.

Chi.2943:

MesmerizedNYC.2479:

I guess I have to start spamming the world selection at different times to try to squeeze back in!

They permalocked the servers. I came back from vacation only to find out that my guild moved from Blackgate to Yak’s bend. Just for the record, I’ve been on blackgate since release day and have never transferred before. The only reason why I play this game is to wvw with my guildmates so I’ve been trying to transfer for 4 days now only to find out that they permalocked all the servers.

I also have friends who are considering to pick up gw2, but there is no point because they have no chance at rolling on yak’s bend or blackgate so there is no way we will be able to wvw together. Until they fix this, I won’t be buying the expansion and there’s no point recommending this game to any of my friends because they have no chance at rolling on my server.

Well, unfortunately for you, I believe this is exactly what the new server population metrics is supposed to do… And if John Corpening is to be believed, as soon as HoT drops, they are going to start doing other things to address time zone imbalances and other aspects of WvW that are broken. The whole server population thing was terribly broken before, it lead to wayyyy over stacked servers, and wayyy under populated ones. The new system may still imperfect, but it is far far better than the previous one. And even before, it could take weeks or longer to get guildies transferred to servers with Full status. At least now everyone understands that there is a real risk to jumping servers and some significant advantages to moving to lower population servers, in terms of moving a large guild if it is spread out over multiple servers…

Dancing Face.4695:

Let’s summarize :" We know there are issues in wvw and we are working on it . Something will be done but much more will be done in the expansion. Buy it to see the fixes".

No, what he said was that AFTER HoT is released WvW will be the focus of the dev team. You will not need to buy the expansion to receive whatever gets implemented to solve the problems he outlined. You don’t even need to buy it to get the guildhall benefits, you just can’t help your guild build them if you don’t have HoT.

Personally, I am very encouraged by this video. Clearly John Corpening understands the major issues that dog WvW and we now know that they ARE being worked on. We haven’t been completely ignored and now the real question is the amount of resources Anet is going to devote to WvW after HoT is released…..

illenos.5134:

Tspatula.9086:

Remedying it will have a temporary negative impact on some or even many players, but in the long term we can hope it gets better.

In the long term most of the actual hardcore WvWers will take a look at Camelot Unchained and Eternal Crusade. I guess at this point all the issues regarding WvW are solved.
We don’t look for a certain IP and we give a kitten about how much content you can play besides WvW/RvR. Such things won’t hold anyone of us.

Well, being a “hardcore” WvWer myself, I’m not bothered by this, as you can tell I think it’s a step in the right direction. Having some people leave is, again a short term negative impact overall, but a small price to pay if things end up balancing out better. And, the game mode of WvW is going to change with the new borderlands map so this attempt at server re-balancing may not be the only thing that drives “hardcores” away to other games… WvW has gotten very stale, it desparately needs a “shake up” and I think everyone who plays it understands that. Deal or jettison.. Life is all about choices.

ASP.8093:

Y’all need to remember that the “full” servers aren’t just “bandwagons.” They’re communities that have managed to sustain themselves and grow in the face of massive player attrition throughout the game. Much as I like to snark about rival servers just buying guilds or whatever, the reality is that, through a combination of factors including both good leadership and blind luck, every higher-tier server has managed to cultivate a community that straight-up works better, for more people, than the servers languishing down in the lower tiers (which, honestly, seem to drive a lot of the discussion around here). Wanting to see them undone is pretty much rooting for the death of the working part of the WvW community.

No, what they did, however successful for them, is a large part of the ruining of WvW for a huge percentage of other players. That is not sustainable. Cherry-picking your so called “community” by over stacking the top servers is a big problem and this is a very mild way to try to address some aspects of it. If you are on a full server and you want to play with new friends, or old friends new to the game, you have to choose between not playing with them or transferring.
Remember, the population balance is a problem, at this point everyone is affected one way or the other by it. Remedying it will have a temporary negative impact on some or even many players, but in the long term we can hope it gets better. My guess is that if you are on a full server it’s going to be quite a while before it goes very high, even if there are large transfers of guilds… So settle in and enjoy the ride…

lil devils x.6071:

No, having too many servers broke the game. If a player cannot log in any time and have people to play with and people to play against, the game is either dead or broken.

Not a valid system if people are unable to have their friends join them on their already established servers with their guilds, unless your end goal is to make people leave. Please do not resort to attempting to demean rather than address the actual problem of too many servers. Forcing players to play alone on bottom servers is not solving the problem. Everyone deserves to have players to play with no matter what time they are able to play the game. On JQ we have people to play with 24/7 why would we go somewhere where there isn’t anyone to fight?

Server stacking has a very negative impact on WvW, but your argument is you want server stacking to get your people where YOU want them. WvW is about everyone’s fun, not just yours…

Anyone know of a way to check the server pops via the toobs? or do we have to log into the game to see how the servers are ranked now?

illenos.5134:

Yeah and guilds love randoms…this won’t work.

Randoms are a permanent part of WvW whether guilds, alliances, or other players like it or not, it’s a non-issue.

Jayne.9251:

Tspatula.9086:

Alliances wouldn’t and shouldn’t be random. They should be player created just like guilds.

Sounds to me you’d be happy with a private server.

Not my cup of tea. I’d miss out on all the new and creative people that come into WvW every day and add to my gaming environment.

Currently you are limited to encountering a very limited subset of your gaming environment, with Alliances that would certainly expand, but I understand sometimes the glass looks half empty, sometimes half full…

Kaiser.9873:

Tspatula.9086:

Alliances would allow for a megaserver based WvW and matchups could be balanced based on numbers of active players in an alliance and perhaps a time zone estimate. Server identity could be maintained and ranking could be both by alliance and home server independently. Alliances would be fixed over a given match but then there could be rebalancing for the next weeks matchups. It could be super flexible and fluid. If an alliance had enough players they would be a boarderland, if not the boarderland would be shared by 2 or more alliances grouped together for the match.

This sounds horrid imo. Shared TS, Tactics, strategy, knowing what to expect, camaraderie, all of these would be destroyed by Alliances system. It sounds like a rehash of EotM, which most WvWers feel is terrible for real WvW. It also sounds like a method to make WvW meaningful for bottom tier servers, while destroying it for servers that actually have WvW population.

Honestly did you read what I posted, or did you see the word “megaserver” and have a seizure? I understand that, I don’t play in EtoM at all unless I need to level a toon. But look, I already play in a sort of alliance of guilds that would absolutely be the basis for the people I play with’s actual “Alliance”.

Alliances wouldn’t and shouldn’t be random. They should be player created just like guilds. If you think about it, servers are already our Alliances. Only, we are being forced to play a set of maps no matter how many opponents we face or deploy. Most people would ally with current server mates and guilds, and there will be issues with the stacked servers, but those stacked servers ARE the problem in the first place. If this was done correctly, we would have ALL of the camaraderie, teamwork and “server pride” but with the flexibility to have the very competitive alliances field close to 24/7 coverage.

There would be, without a doubt, a spectrum of skill levels and people could also choose an alliance based on the environment they were looking for, sort of the same as now, but either you are in a stacked qued server blob (T1,T2) or (T3,T4) which is still more blob than a lot of “roamers” prefer, or T5 and below which gets empty quickly. That’s pretty much half of the servers basically idling, half the servers will the same devoted Anet resources, barely being used. (No offense to T5 and below, I know there are great players and guilds and people have fun there).

It would not be bad to offer a free transfer to a lower tier server for who had transfered once in the last year.. that would be nice.

briggah.7910:

I don’t get why they post more info on reddit. I don’t even go to that website. Anyways thanks for linking it here.

It’s not that much more info. this is good.

Tranquillity.8697:

It’s a nice idea but i honestly can’t see how this helps unpopulated wvw servers.

With the new system it will be even more obvious what the “best” wvw servers are and winning team joiners will join them no matter the cost.

Merging servers alongside with this change would make things better i think. At least when talking about population.

I would expect some of the higher tier servers that are “very high” now to go “full” also, if they maintain pricing then “very high” 1800 gems, “high” 1000 gems, and “medium” 500 gems. We should see a fair number of medium servers in the T4-T6 and at 500 gems that might be an interesting place to go for some larger guilds…

Aeolus.3615:

Also…. game would end with more alliances than servers thats for sure lol, since each t6 guild can have 500 players where players can represent diferent guilds, and each guild being in deferent alliance, so a players could jump from alliance to alliance…..something would had to change here.

Yes, some sort of WvW lock-in to 1 guild 1 alliance thing would have to be put in place, so you might have to designate your WvW guild prior to a match up or something… If think of the total allowable number of Actives per Alliance something like 1600 over the full 24hr period, and large guilds are usually 100 or so actives any particular borderland would be an Alliance(s) of roughly 10 large guilds and 10 med, and a bunch of smalls and indiduals… (aside: I’m a very naughty boy and i have to wait 900 seconds… zzzzzzzzzzz……)

Jayne.9251:

So if the map fills up and you’re part of the alliance, you have to sit out the week? Gee that would suck.

I believe that is what is referred to as a “Map que” currently. If you have experienced one recently I am sure you noticed how your number in the que drops? I have yet to enter a map que that lasted a week, I very much agree, that would really suck…

All in all, you don’t seem to like us in NA very much….

briggah.7910:

I’d prefer stale matches and map queues that are almost non-existent in my tier as is then an alliance which will mostly be filled with players who hop into one alliance and lock the rest into other alliances.

Also if they do not adjust the alliances per week or longer, it will not change the imbalance in any way. The most populated alliance will still win over all others.

I don’t really like using EoTM as an example but that is basically your alliance right there. Notice that most complaints about EoTM in the past is that green always has the majority of the alliance.

I think it will be difficult to have Alliances big enough in the early stages of this kind of matching, for them to “own” a borderlands, more likely a borderland would be “owned” by a collection of Alliances, and those would be maintained over the event period. What would be cool and interesting, at least in my thinking, would be that you could fight against Alliances in one event period (say 2 months) and recruit them to your Alliance for the next event period, since Alliances wouldn’t need to be restricted. Same for the ones you would fight together with. It might turn into a hot mess but it could be tweaked as things were worked out.

I think alliances would actually build stronger permanent bonds between players and guilds. Non-allied/non-guilded people could still be placed in matchups that had people from their server predominantly so as to maintain some server identity and expose them to the alliances that would be most obvious for them to join.

Ok, how it would work would be you set your alliance and anet could calculate your active players, then at reset the boarderlands would be assigned to however many alliances were required to “fill the maps” within reason. Once those groups of maps were generated they would be set for the week, AND the alliance could also be set for some duration either week by week, or a longer match period. So there would be no mid-week realignments. Non-allied people who entered WvW could be randomly assigned an ’Alliance boarderland" the first time they when into WvW that week.

As to server stacking and stagnant matchups, that has much more to do with how the glicko is set up, it’s inevitable if there are competitive players, and fortunately for us NA players, the game isn’t played exclusively on EU servers so our situation matters regardless of the reason why it exists…

Jayne.9251:

Sorry, the more you talk about it, the more I hate the idea .. it sounds very superficial and prone to a shifting assembly each week, regardless of whether you pick alliances or not, someone’s going to get the short end of the stick (and then we’ll have the same complaints about population on the forum all over again) — otherwise people would just stack with Alliance A rather than Alliance B, because they know it’ll have more bodies. The possibility of that leading to overflow maps and separation of real teamwork created over time and trust and real relationships in WvW … this idea would completely ruin that bond.

Sorry no.

So the stale match-ups and map cues of the current status quo is good, you like that? I guess you don’t have very many guilds that you or your guild coordinate with and would want to ally with? I get that if you haven’t experienced coordinated guild operations on your server, the idea of Alliances could certainly lead to lots of hopping, but in my experience, I already know a large portion of the people and guilds who would ally together. We wouldn’t have enough coverage for all time zones and would actively recruit guilds into our alliance to gain it. There will always be stacking at the top, but this idea would allow for alliances to match up better against others, and to develop long lasting relationships. And there would be NO overflow maps, AND Alliance total active population would have to be limited to something close to full ques on the 4 maps. You can hate this idea, that is fine, I hate the current system so we’re kinda even….

briggah.7910:

I’m all for making the matches more balanced but if you use megaserver and wvw in the same sentence, I will not stand by that idea for as long as I play..

By this I mean the mega server ability to fill maps and create new ones, but implimented differently than how it is used in PvE. In this case the megaserver would spawn sets of the 4 WvW maps at reset, all spawned maps would remain persistent through the entire week, no new maps would be spawned during the week. Megaserver would need to have a matching function to match up Alliances. If one considers a map total population of about 100 players, that would be 400 players per Alliance say per time zone maybe divied it into 4-6 hours time zones, so if your alliance had 1600 (-/+ some number) active players then your alliance could “own” a borderlands. It could be up to the alliance to ally with the right guilds to provide zone coverage, that would make things easier for Anet. Then that week your alliance is gaining some sort of points (maybe glicko) for holding objectives, PPK, etc… But those points or some ratio of the points would also go to individual guilds in the alliance and to the home servers of the individual players.
During the week, realignments of guilds in alliances can be organized and total active WvW could be updated to Anet’s megaserver match bot for the following week. Or Alliances could have a set make up of guilds over a 1-3 month period. And then allow “open enrollment” if you will to allow Alliances to change their composition, prior to the next match up.

Jayne.9251:

Tspatula.9086:

that’s not what I am talking about, guilds would form alliances not Anet, guilds within would have control over alliance composition, so it would strengthen the ability to play with whom you wished not weaken it.

What happens to people who are unguilded, but an integral part of the existing community? I know tons of people who are in small or solo guilds and losing them in the shuffle would not be good.

And those people wouldn’t join an alliance of guilds they know from their server or guilds of their friends? An alliance would only dictate what home map you were playing on for any given week.

that’s not what I am talking about, guilds would form alliances not Anet, guilds within would have control over alliance composition, so it would strengthen the ability to play with whom you wished not weaken it.

Alliances would allow for a megaserver based WvW and matchups could be balanced based on numbers of active players in an alliance and perhaps a time zone estimate. Server identity could be maintained and ranking could be both by alliance and home server independently. Alliances would be fixed over a given match but then there could be rebalancing for the next weeks matchups. It could be super flexible and fluid. If an alliance had enough players they would be a boarderland, if not the boarderland would be shared by 2 or more alliances grouped together for the match.

John Corpening.9847:

snip
There are a number of great ideas circulating attacking the problem from different angles and with varying levels of magnitude of change. One note though, I really feel that scoring is a separate issue that needs to be addressed on it’s own. We will discuss that one after we wrap this one up. Even if we were to overhaul the scoring system population imbalance will still be an issue.

From reading through this thread I think we can agree on the following goals:

• We want a thriving and vibrant WvW community in each world. That is to say, we want people to play with and against.
• We want to continue to play with our friends and the communities that we have developed already.
  snip
  Anyway, this discussion made it clear it is who you play with that’s important and a number of ideas in this thread preserved that without restricting the number of people who could play at a time. These have had a number of names but for the sake of discussion I’ll go with Alliances. The idea that I liked for Alliances is that it is a group of guilds and people that are guaranteed to stay together no matter how things are rearranged. There would probably need to be a size limit on Alliances and several of you pointed out that whatever limits are put in place it should be based on WvW participation.

A few of you noted that things will always be changing over time so the system would have to be dynamic. There are a couple of ways of addressing this discussed in this thread. An idea that would be a small incremental change to how the game plays would be to create a new set of worlds then fill them up with our Alliances of guilds and players that are guaranteed to always play together. This would happen at regular intervals, the intervals were all over the map as were the size of the worlds in this thread so I will propose this cadence:

• Off Season
• Tournament
• Restructure
  • Create new Worlds
  • Redistribute Alliances

This cycle would take a few months given the cadence of tournaments we have had which is about the time that we would want to rebalance populations. After the restructure, players could transfer like they do now if they so desired.

Alliances would provide continuity for the community. I see the server pride of today becoming Alliance pride because of that continuity. But I also see the off season as a time for the newly formed world of alliances to develop their own identity as they head into the tournament. Keep in mind that if an alliance was big enough to fill a world that mapping becomes one to one. If that became the case maybe the world could just take the alliance name. It’s interesting because that time together gives everyone involved a chance to see if they all want to ally together to truly solidify into a world. If not, you are still playing with your community for the glory of your alliance in the next restructure. But your community would be playing with other communities new to you and maybe this new bunch is a better fit for you and an opportunity for your alliance to grow.

The pieces for this idea comes from a number of posts in this thread. There are also some thoughts in there from some discussions I’ve had with several guild leaders. I just glommed it all together into something that I think could be a workable solution. I do want to emphasize though that this is all brainstorming

Let me know your thoughts and thanks again for all the great and constructive discussion!

John

This is a summary after a long discussion with John, which was followed by a scoring discussion and a siege troll and upgrade troll discussion. We already know they are fixing the upgrade troll issue with the new HoT maps. Perhaps we can hold out some hope that HoT will bring actual guild wars to Guild Wars 2? Well, in addition to the GvG that we know is coming to guild halls…. just a reminder for those of us who feel abandoned by Anet, maybe Alliances are coming and that would be pretty awesome.

Hey let’s try to be productive here and cut Josh some slack, if he can get more “events” to shake up WvW we should support him. Yes, the golem thing wasn’t great, but I have confidence he will improve over time and PLEASE!! a week of no rally!!!

Spartyr.6795:

I see Josh at the end discuss how he basically implemented this whole event on his own time as part of the marketing team just to try and add something new into WvW, and this is the reaction he gets.

I’m just really disappointed in the playerbase.

First of all, intention and effect are not equivalent. Just because he intended to do something good the effect was not good. A very small amount of prior investment in thought and a little research would have yielded an event that would have been good. So, now he knows and can move forward, and it sort of appears that he is doing just that. He did post in the “other event ideas” thread twice. As they say, the road to you know where, is paved with good intentions…. I think he can salvage things significantly if he does another event soon and it’s one the WvW community wants, not one the PvE community wants…. and as I said, if it had been in EtoM only it would have been just fine and there would be no complaints.

the video is at the bottom of the page and Josh is on at the end.

https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/points-of-interest-summary-shiro-and-golem-rush/

Hey Josh,
Just watched the POI and while I appreciate ANY attention to WvW, and I really do like the idea of having these special events, and I would LOVE to see a week of “no rally” happen (please sooner rather than later), it’s pretty clear that for the majority of the WvW community the golem rush was not the greatest idea, but could have been if it was limited to the non-competitive EotM map.

Now I have learned that you also turned on PPK, perhap I missed that in the announcement (reading fail). I LIKE PPK and I think it would be great permanent, but evaluating it in a week where you have driven off most of the core community means that ANY conclusions you make about PPK this week will not be valid as they relate to the real WvW structure.

And lastly, if these events are “so easy” as you stated in the POI why has it been practically 8 months since the last one?

Colin made point of saying how “important” WvW was but it’s very clear that what he is talking about is his idea of WvW not what we actually play or want as the real WvW players. Exploiting the situation with high server transfer fees when it doesn’t really matter anymore with megaserver, and is absolutely unrelated to actual server WvW populations just makes like a slap in the face. My guild is down to about 15 active players, 6-8 months ago we were 40 and a year and half more like 80….

I think this explains very well why many of us are serious disappointed with Mike O’Brian’s off the cuff comments and who poorly thought-out the Golem Rush was… When the CEO doen’t even remotely understand the different core players in his game… wow, just wow.

coglin.1867:

Seems like a great idea for a fun and crazy week to me. I like the idea of putting crazy twist into WvW for a week to break monotony.

yeah but even you can see that an entire week of this is going to get very very stale… It’ll be ok for a couple hours and then it just becomes even more monotonous.

Jski.6180:

Aeolus.3615:

Jski.6180:

Aeolus.3615:

Jski.6180:

DarkSyze.8627:

Jski.6180:

Tspatula.9086:

(…) based on the rate that large guilds jump from server to server….

(…)

Did you do research ?

Last:

where is evidence?

Well you did not say how to deal with it or any post here that is evidence. I love the post “there are countless ways” but dose not say any of them as if that realty an way to say how to fix something lol.

Theres a way to fix imba servers numbers for those who care and fix ppt based scores, but is based on a re-design of WvW into a megaserver map, also it would end with the resets on wvw, to a progressive conquest game with Risk similarities.

So you cap the same bl over and over? I am kind of at a lost how that would fix any thing if you megaserver wvw you end any type of point tracking system for a world and comply destroy all ideal of community in wvw. It would simply make wvw into EoTM x 4. I am sry but that not a real fix that more of “i want open pvp maps and not wvw any more.”

What bl? that would be a thing of the past, i was imaging a tyria wrecked map, in a Risk/Total War based system for guilds / alliances, there would be objectives to make players fight or defend for, declarations of war, missions to make players take small groups in far bl’s havoc, with some benefits, the more organized guild the better, but would be to much for most gw2 players anyway.. they dont want difficulty in game.

Sounds like you do not want wvw so its not realty a fix for wvw just a new type of open pvp zone. I am sry but your asking for a comply new game in effect its just not going to happen and its not hard to see why mostly becuse your asking for the death of one game type that ppl do play a lot of ppl for a hand full of ppl in comparison to have there open troll pvp map.

And this is the worst of it ppl who do give suggestion but are comply “bat crazy” in what they want that there is NO way to make or meet up to there expatiation. There is never going to be a game type that will live up to this point of views wants.

Jski,
You really should do some research about this, there are a lot of ideas out there, there are a massive number of simple things that could be “play tested” just like they did for no white swords and PPK, but we get nothing but the festering pile of status quo for WvW. the new map won’t fix it, guild halls wont fix it, glider wings wont fix it, and revenant definitely wont fix it. Anet won’t fix it, but they will take our money for transfers….

Yes, get rid of all the rewards in WvW that should definitely get rid of all those pesky players that seem to be there, get them back in PvE and we can just eliminate WvW all together