Guild Wars 2

dancingmonkey.4902:

Virtute.8251:

AOE target cap was put in to reduce WvW lag, and was not for damage balance reasons. Later, balance changes took the target counts into consideration.

That is absolutely false.

Virtute.8251:

Raising AOE target cap, at last dev response to the topic, still can’t be done. Technical limitation. Sorry!

Please link this dev post please. As I played this game when the limit was higher, I have no idea where your getting this “information”.

I would do, but recent changes to the forum have broken most of Google’s links for the search results, and the forum’s own search has always been broken. With that, I can only say that I distinctly remember a red post making the “technical limitation” argument against the topic. I believe it was this year. That said, different devs say different things at different times, and playing the game since release doesn’t mean reading every forum thread since release.

Sirendor.1394:

Lukhas.1962:

yanniell.1236:

Remove or increase the AoE cap would change the entire dynamics of WvW. Instead of stacking, commanders would say “spread!”. Would be an awesome and interesting change.

If you take away the AoE cap, then you have to remove the CD cap…and of course, the AoE Boon cap.

It is preferable that they leave the system as it is now, unless you want to play at 1fps in WvW or PvE.

Ehmm there was no AoE cap before and the game ran fine. The AoE cap came in a couple of months after game launched.

yanniell.1236:

Excellent ideia! And if they can’t remove the cap altogether, maybe increase it to 20~25.

That’d be an exciting experiment.

Guise, please!

AOE target cap was put in to reduce WvW lag, and was not for damage balance reasons. Later, balance changes took the target counts into consideration.

Even if “the game ran fine” for you in those first months, it didn’t for others, and there was data to back that up. In some cases, there were special circumstances involved, such as map-queued 1v1v1 in Stonemist lord room. We still get instances of skill lag in those fights. It happened to NA Tier 2 last night.

Raising AOE target cap, at last dev response to the topic, still can’t be done. Technical limitation. Sorry!

:(

Additionally, know that if a person blocks you, they can whisper at you while you can’t reply.

However, if a person marked “Invisible” in their own contact list decides to whisper you, you are able to reply despite their offline status.

Tamasan.6457:

Virtute.8251:

Michael, it looks like you need a spectator mode without your own character model being rendered. The match interference is in the fact that for whatever team you’re currently flagged as, the opponent teams will try to kill you with extreme prejudice. That alters their decision making, and causes group leaders to lose control of their teams.

I originally called it a mistake because I felt that the above should be obvious in deciding how such a GM account would interface.

Furthermore, the visibility of your GM guild tag is going to alter the behavior of nearby baddies.

-So when they’re invisible, complaints that the GMs are doing nothing are all you hear.
-Now that they’re visible, the complaints are that they’re altering matches simply by being visible because players choose to turn into mindless idiots chasing a tag kill.

Make up your mind.

I have no problem criticizing Anet’s actions regularly, but in this case, they are perfectly fine.

+1 in support of (sometimes) visible GMs running around with the ban-stick.

I have never complained that GMs were doing nothing. Different people, different opinions.

Remember, in GW1, the solution was a Reaper of Grenth ban-hammer animation. That would be fun, to see something like that again.

Torsailr.8456:

Now I kinda want to see Guild Anet turn on Godmode in WvW and just roll through a zerg on April 1st. Payback for the impossible kitten on the forums.

ArenaNet [ANET] is now recruiting! | www.guildwars2.com | 100% rep | TS3 | Privileged access to game-mode ruining tools! | 40+ hrs/week attendance required | Submit a bug report to apply!

Michael Henninger.7451:

During a fight we’re switched to friendly to all unless there is chat we need to monitor, then we go invis. Watch us in action and you’ll see we actually don’t get in the way. The screenshot above was taken after bay was turned and the team had no hostiles. I was showing them how the tool worked and assuring them that I wouldn’t die and drop loot bags.

So I can go back to laughing about this moment.

Now I kinda wonder who the other GM was. The one in BG TS who said that this thread should be made.

Ark Bladesteele.2943:

Well, I was close on b and c I guess. And it makes sense that you wouldn’t make yourself invisible because people might be wondering who the hell is talking in say/map chat if you had to say something and they can’t see them (and then assume it really is a hacker). Same goes with the team switching.

Glad to have you around, Mike.

It wouldn’t necessarily be strange for a user named “GM whatever” to type into chat as a “ghost in the machine”. All of us who are aware of admin or GM powers know that “ghost in the machine” is precisely their role in system. It would only feel weird to people with no concept of that fact, and even then it would be a short-lived strangeness. They would learn that it is normal here.

I doubt that it would need to happen often, if at all.

Michael, it looks like you need a spectator mode without your own character model being rendered. The match interference is in the fact that for whatever team you’re currently flagged as, the opponent teams will try to kill you with extreme prejudice. That alters their decision making, and causes group leaders to lose control of their teams.

I originally called it a mistake because I felt that the above should be obvious in deciding how such a GM account would interface.

Furthermore, the visibility of your GM guild tag is going to alter the behavior of nearby baddies.

Nokaru.7831:

Virtute.8251:

Judging the evidence while ignoring the hear say. That causing your brain to hurt is irrelevant to how evidence-based judgement should work.

• He was in World vs. World while unkillable with live players.
• He wasn’t invisible.
• He knew he wasn’t invisible because people were attacking him.
• While being aware of all of the above, he changed his teams twice.

If he didn’t want to disrupt the play of their customers, he would have made himself invisible. Most, if not all Game Masters are invisible. This guy was either incredibly stupid or being intentionally disruptive.

I’m not going by any hearsay of “swapping to Mesmer” and “portaling people in.” The things above are things he shouldn’t have been doing. If he was “testing something”, they have their own internal testing environment for that. Why? So it doesn’t disrupt live players.

That’s just it.

I have an entirely different judgement of your bulleted facts. To my view, his disruption was a mistake unworthy of vitriol. It’s even somewhat amusing.

Nokaru.7831:

I really like the people who keeps saying the guy “forgot to make himself invisible” after he was being attacked and nuked by many players. He sure didn’t forget how to swap his team though.

This thread makes my brain hurt.

Judging the evidence while ignoring the hear say. That causing your brain to hurt is irrelevant to how evidence-based judgement should work.

Nokaru.7831:

I would try to explain what’s wrong with someone who is invulnerable and swapping teams in a competitive environment, but that would be a waste of time since anyone defending it is clearly beyond any reasonable or cohesive thoughts.

Some would defend it, but mostly because they are not bothered to be angry about it. It’s a “mistakes happen” moment. It isn’t a mistake that should happen, but that’s the nature of mistakes.

Isredel.4302:

Virtute.8251:

You want something different from what WvW is.

That’s because what WvW is, isn’t good. At least not for servers in the lower tiers. The fact that you even need to mention funding transfers is very telling of this.

Yes, it is telling of that, and I am also not one to feel remorse for it. I left Anvil Rock at its height, as part of the exodus that would break it, dropping it from rank 14 to 24 in about one month. In the next year, my younger brothers would buy GW2 and choose Eredon’s Terrace before becoming interested in WvW. The one whom did want to try WvW would then delete his partially leveled characters, for free transfer to tier 2, on my advice. He was pleased with the decision, as I was pleased with my prior decisions.

Myself and likely 90% of the hundreds of people I have guilded and partied with in the past 2 years have moved away from the low tiers before leaving the game. It’s not about zerging, it’s about having a bustling population on all sides of the fight, because that’s the only thing that makes WvW compelling to us.

OP is just salty about the GM powers being displayed so brazenly. It tends to appear god-like and feel like cheating to players without those powers, especially when the observers have become immersed in the existent rules as a world that they’re experiencing.

The only abuse the screenshots show is a bit of callousness toward that. Normally, the GMs hide their power, to not be disruptive in that way. Dev probably did violate some office policies.

bubbachua.1243:

This doesn’t really work at all because say for example, the map is empty and white swords show, scouts call it out to a map float team. Map float team jumps over and the swords may go away but people already know which tower is being hit.

That still works. If the code reacts as you describe, then what has just happened in that scenario is still a fair play. The white-sword signal did its job, a response team was required to exist and then further required to actually respond. Teamwork and communication has occurred.

A counter-example would be the float team already being on map, causing no white-sword signal.

All this would change the nature and reliability of the white-sword signal, but I think that some form of it is preferable to complete absence of it.

Huehue, “Kill a Veteran Creature” is a Scumbag ANet moment.

Skeletor.9360:

I suggest that the ratio of players on the map influence how long they are delayed. If you have more people or equal than the enemy their should be no delay. If there are 3 on one side and 20 on the other they should not show at all.

This would be an improvement.

Skeletor.9360:

I personally think orange swords should show always when a group of 20 players is within a specifc area. This allows the roamers to avoid the zerg and gets rid of the advantage of zerging.

This would be disgusting and wrong. They may as well show enemy commander pins to all sides, in that case. It’s the roamer’s obligation to have situational awareness to avoid or escape oncoming traffic.

This is why I have only used in-game gold for transfers. I’ve done this, to be with guildmates and friends, five times since Oct. 2012. It’s never broken my in-game bank, and I’m almost exclusively a WvW player. I don’t even do dungeon speed runs, and am behind a few chapters in Living Story.

Meh. WvW is about beating people at their own game. I’ve played it since release, use the TP to profit from the PvE and WvW folks alike, and have little problem funding server transfers and gear for one of every class.

PvP-minded WvW players are wringing it dry of every scrap of fun it can give, and we have our own social community. I suspect that most people that want to complain as in this thread wouldn’t like the people (and wouldn’t be liked by the people) who are happy to compete for game wins without much reward.

You want something different from what WvW is.

Last time I wanted to complain about this, there was no “ruining my game mode” option for in-game reports, so I had to file a bug report about that omission, instead.

Jeknar.6184:

yanniell.1236:

Well, badges would be freakin awesome if we could, you know, SALVAGE the armors and weapons we buy with it.

Well, you can buy siege, sell siege on TP and buy salvageable armor with the money you know?

Incoming ban for obviously unintended use of in-game currencies.

In a way, there is such a system already, by way of bad consequences of previous design decisions. That is, when we buy exotic items with badges, as with karma, we can never salvage them. How’s that for permanency?

Perhaps related, I suspect, level 500 (ascended) crafting for jewelry is looking like it’s much longer delayed than projected. Its material slots have been in the bank collectibles section for a while. My bet is on some hand-wringing worry about how it balances against ascended trinket acquisition through other heavily time-gated or expensive currencies (laurels, ecto, tournament tickets, etc.). They’ve already made it irrelevant (and a massive mistake) to buy some things from certain vendors.

I think that separating WvW builds from PvE would do one of two bad things. Either it would introduce a new barrier to entry, if game currency was involved, or it would invalidate significant player investments, if current gear became PvE only.

I like the part where this change goes live in the middle of an on-going match.

The amount of Healing Power stat in this thread is too kittened high.

Aeolus.3615:

screamming to team when player decided to get overextended.

This happens all the time in GvG, when the same kind of guild goes to WvW for raid, or at least after the fight. For the same reasons, too: their survival and their team’s DPS depends upon being in range of the ally spells. Those spells are on rotation. Overextending means they miss a boon, screw the rotation, get caught out, die, and lose the match for their team. No, the builds aren’t the same. Yes, the mechanics are different. But, no, the concept hasn’t been entirely lost.

9460:

owait I can stack boon duration and autoattack on a guard, such deep gameplay brah ;p

That would be asinine, and it never happens in competent GvG. Auto attack, even for guards with loot sticks, is a filler between other skill casts. Team DPS will drop if you don’t do it. The opponent has to be punished for coming near you. If #1 is the only skill on cooldown, though, you’re losing that fight or the opponent is garbage.

Even mentioning “boon duration” shows that you’re typing from the side lines of a no-GvG server.

When moderate randomness was introduced to the server match making, many of the complaints-about-changes threads on the subject suggested 1-up-1-down. In a few cases, one in particular that I remember reading, the math was given which showed that 1-up-1-down on this leader board would actually produce a pattern of repetitive matches that are just as repetitive as what we get now, but with much increased incidences of even less fairly matched servers. Simply put, you can imagine one of the natural tier 3 servers, say CD or DB, trending toward always winning tier 3 and always losing tier 2. For most tiers, what would happen in 1-up-1-down is that each tier’s natural 1st and 3rd servers would move in and out each week, and the result would still be matches that a lot of people felt bad about.

There simply is not a great scoring mechanism for this many servers with this many people split amongst them as they are.

The scoring mechanism, any scoring mechanism, for WvW is entirely irrelevant to what GvG is and aims to do. That is inherent to the fact that us GvG players would really rather break the entire game mode off from WvW, keeping only the build and gear options. That is, in fact, what we already do. We completely ignore everything about WvW except the fact that there is PvP inside of it, and we have greater build variety and control than in the other PvP mode.

If ANet tries to give us a GvG mode that plays on their current PvP system, we’ll use it, but will still do GvG and fights-only raids in WvW as we do now. We’d just do both.

It wouldn’t solve anything, because we would still be in WvW maps, causing drama with the PPT-caring folks by farming kills off their counterparts on the opponent servers, just because there was nothing more fun to occupy us. E.g., what we’ve been asking for in the past year.

Liston.9708:

Basch.1347:

Instanced OS with participants not relegated to those involved in the match-up, as the bare minimum. This alone would do wonders for the GvG community. Means that all the GvG guilds don’t have to stack in one tier, and might even be able to GvG those on their own server.

That is what would need to happen to make it sustainable I think. If anet did that, would there also need to be parameters that didn’t kill wvw? Something like 2-3 concurrent os instances, matches que for the Instance lasts 30 min or until 1 team leaves. Or 1 hour wvw time earns 30 mins GVG time.

This way a guild can’t spend ALL theiR time there. I personally wouldn’t care if they did – just thinking anet might care and is the reason they haven’t done this.

Meh, ANet shouldn’t care about that idea of taking certain people out of WvW and into a GvG arena, and neither should any players. You should want it that way.

The whole frustration about GvG taking imagined WvW PPT-playing map presence away from your server is just your imagination at play. It’s not happening. What’s actually happening is people that like deathmatch play are finding a way to do deathmatch play with WvW builds, in numbers larger than 5v5. That’s it.

GvG players tend to intentionally avoid the PPT play that you want help with, even when they aren’t doing GvG. Other players and ANet should gladly allow for an instanced arena system tailored for that play style. It will help everyone involved. GvG guilds would buy the arena tickets for it, as in the private PvP arena system. My GvG guild maintains a PvP arena. We fight each other and other friends in it. We have done 10v10 GvG style scrims in it. We would do all of our GvG in it, if we could. It would be best if that arena used WvW build stats.

Simple.

TheBHSP.8952:

Gotta spam those ACs for open field siege yo!

Ballistae are superior mid-field. Git gud.

NiloyBardhan.9170:

shiri.4257:

Nah, the worst thing that can happen are the GvG guilds not contributing to anything but themselves.

If people wants to come here they will have to work together to achieve the common goal i.e. to win the match by metric Anet designed WvW (PPT).

Yawn.

Would you be offended and argumentative if a guild refused to leave a map to answer to a rally-call for assistance on another map?

If so, please tank your server out of tier 2. There’s no place for your egoism (disguised as teamwork) there.

Omega Mccoy.4237:

Virtute.8251:

wrong on every count, but have conviction that you’re right.

Prove me wrong, so far you have fail to do so.
All you have provided is your opinion on how you wish the game would be played, not the way it was designed to be played.

You aren’t making an argument that warrants proving of a side. You’re erecting a strawman that I refuse to acknowledge. The failure isn’t mine.

What you’re proving is that you are blatantly incorrect in understanding the topic of this thread, and you are using it as an opportunity to gain attention to yourself and a separate hobby-horse issue that you feel strongly about.

Here, in this thread, we want to talk with people that are interested in the ideas that the OP brought forth. That includes a potential server that would host such people. You are proving that you are not such a person, and that you believe that you represent a server that shouldn’t be on the list of hosts. Fine. Say that, and leave it at that. Don’t belabor your point with vitriolic misrepresentations.

Omega Mccoy.4237:

Ok another guy that doesn’t know how to play the game, when you can prove to me the game is designed for GvG then you will be right, until then, and according to how the creators of the game designed it, I am right. Most of the “competitive” guilds that quit use the reason that the game is not designed around GvG (Thank the Devs for that). This is WvW, everything revolves around the strength of the server, the community, not just the few.
If you want to prove how good your small few are, you can go tPvP and duke it out there, you don’t have to take the points, you can just see who can kill each other better.

But I feel sorry for you since you keep messing up the queue buttons and going into the wrong location to get what you are looking for.
Assuming you feel you need your gear and food to be competitive because you can’t compete on an equal ground in tPvP, you can always go to OS and spam your “elite” abilities there.

Thanks for allowing me the opportunity to educate you, hope you can find the right place to get what you want out of this game, I know I am getting my moneys worth in WvW by playing it like it is supposed to.

Thank you for the exemplary showcasing of:

Virtute.8251:

wrong on every count, but have conviction that you’re right.

I particularly enjoyed the self-righteous tone. The co-opting of external parties to your argument is exquisite. The air of superiority is flawless. The reading of, and subsequent arguments against, claims that I didn’t make are both prototypical and priceless. Bravo!

Absolutely looking forward to your next sermon.

shiri.4257:

Virtute.8251:

shiri.4257:

or we can let t2 bore itself out so the lines of each tier are more blurry.

You’re right about the tiers below #2. You’re wrong about tiers 1 and 2. It won’t happen.

happened to maguuma. heard SOS is bleeding out too. isn’t that the reason for this thread? to salvage the current top dogs of t2? =)

No.

This thread is an invitation for GvG and fight-focused players to continue planning how they will arrange to encounter each other for the fights they enjoy against each other.

What you said about Maguuma is irrelevant to what you responded to. It’s a reading comprehension issue.

shiri.4257:

or we can let t2 bore itself out so the lines of each tier are more blurry.

You’re right about the tiers below #2. You’re wrong about tiers 1 and 2. It won’t happen.

Omega Mccoy.4237:

An that would be exactly why YB would not be a fit in T2.
We play the game the way it was designed to be play, defend your stuff, use any advantage posible to accomplish that goal, and attack the enemy keeps and own their possessions. The fights that occur in the middle is just the ends to that goal and of course that is what makes it fun, the challenge of taking over something and fighting the people preventing it.

I don’t see any fun in running in the middle of nowhere in a blob, spamming all your skills and hoping you can crit harder than the other blob, and that they forget to step out of circles, use water and so on. That is no fun at all, hence why the game is not designed around it.

That is disgusting and foolish.

Disgusting because you are wrong on every count, but have conviction that you’re right.

Foolish because everything you offer as a weakness of tier 2 and fighting guilds are cheap caricatures of the real reasons that we absolutely destroy you every time to crawl out of your fearful EOTM fantasy.

YB4Tier8

Liston.9708:

Virtute.8251:

Liston.9708:

YB won’t need to tank postseason, Pvx / militia will go back to playing less just like every other post season. Besides, db is right there too…

DB full, yet is still a losing match against YB. Not happening. Both will get a resounding GTFO, regardless of what roleplay chairman chuckles says.

And you will continue to be in a broken 2 server tier until you all get bored like mags….

The GTFO will be primarily due to the fact that SoS and FA less-public voices tend to prefer an opponent that: A ) plays the way tier 2 has done historically; B ) wants to be in tier 2 with the other two servers.

YB and DB fulfill neither of those, and tier 2 won’t settle until something gives.

Liston.9708:

YB won’t need to tank postseason, Pvx / militia will go back to playing less just like every other post season. Besides, db is right there too…

DB full, yet is still a losing match against YB. Not happening. Both will get a resounding GTFO, regardless of what roleplay chairman chuckles says.

Buffy.9246:

Lol chris…t2 is officially a karma train tier since you said that.

QFT, RIP fights tier.

nirvana.8245:

Virtute.8251:

Reverence.6915:

We already experience every single play style possible in T1 due to a diverse population.

I’m glad you think so.

To quote a former guildie who came from a lower tier server, “I always thought BG won because of numbers and coverage, then when I came over I realised how wrong I was and the reason they win so often is because of how they operate”. Given a scenario where lower tier servers where merged or placed in an alliance and otherwise placed in a scenario where they were matched against T1 servers you would be forced to play the same way as everyone else, follow the meta, or get rolled.

Right, “numbers” and coverage: that’s how they operate. I get that. Your friend didn’t have a revelation. He observed the same thing twice, in different words.

I’ve played in all tiers. I’m in this week’s tier 1 match. Your playstyle is extremely unvaried. You’re welcome to it.

Reverence.6915:

We already experience every single play style possible in T1 due to a diverse population.

I’m glad you think so.

Reverence.6915:

Jim Hunter.6821:

The problem is stale matchups. Besides for the complete joke of a matchup this week because of the tournament, how many months has it been since you fought someone that wasn’t JQ and TC?

Here’s the thing. The matchups aren’t stale. One red tag replaced by another doesn’t make a difference. What would make the matchup stale is if a lesser populated server got matched up with us and couldn’t/wouldn’t show up to fight. It seems you want ‘diverse’ but balanced matchups, but with WvW being set up so that you’re essentially anonymous to the other server besides some different letters, what difference does it make?

The difference is in the diversity of various playstyles which are largely influenced by server culture. Your server has exactly one playstyle, and this is not a problem we experience with many other servers.

TexZero.7910:

Chris.3290:

Plus there is the fact that YB will tank like it’s 1942 when the season is over.

Too late for that. There in season play has them already rated above maguuma. No matter how hard they may try now, their hands are tied.

They’ll tank and fairweather away from post-season until they’re back in tier 3. Then DB will do the same.

Crystal Desert, you’re our only hope!

eithinan.9841:

Altie.4571:

eithinan.9841:

The other thread is about suggestions for solutions. I wanted to help actually identify the problem.

edit: mods please DO NOT merge this to the other thread. This is a different topic.

No, this is the same topic. Solutions identify problems or target problems. One cannot exist without the other. This thread should be merged.

No, this is tangentially related at best because there is no solution to this central problem with WvW match imbalance. You can NOT find a solution to this problem, ergo not part of that thread.

Same topic, merge the ego thread, please.

Jeff.5139:

The smaller the difference in glicko rating the less points transferred.

Glicko difference alone is not the important note. It is glicko difference used as a metric for prediction of what the score difference should be.

In the case of TC vs FA vs Mag, Maguuma is scoring very closely to what glicko predicts: that is, Maguuma is losing badly, as it should be.

The wide glicko rank difference between TC and Mag is actually preventing Mag from losing many rank points in that match.

Torsailr.8456:

John Corpening.9847:

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.

I think this might be over complicating it. The key is having dynamic databases that update with alliance membership numbers.

The way I see it is if Alliances are a collection of individuals/guilds then they have control over their own numbers.

Let’s go even simpler.

There is no need for user-control of Alliance membership counts beyond choice and something very like the existent Guild management system. This takes directly from the GW1 method, and builds it out as a GW2 variant of the same.

If Alliances are to be made into something that acts like World citizenship, then also reuse the existent World Transfer mechanic. Rename it to Alliance Enlistment, and impose the same restrictions as before.

Make Alliances sovereign to WvW in regard to their purposes and affects.

Allow Alliances to self-elect their allegiances with other Alliances, to form fighting groups (worlds/realms) for WvW, up to an ArenaNet-imposed limit analogous to the current world population caps. This is where John’s concept of recurring periods of allegiance shifts finds its use. It would, as John saw, have to occur after WvW tournaments, and before any other triggers for next-tournament build up. It would also need to impose a requirement that the total number of worlds ends up being divisible by 3.

The most important player limitation would be never introducing a power to kick other players from one’s own Alliance or World. This issue must be designed around.

However, thinking about this in terms of an alliance of guilds also demands a managerial function that almost inevitably leads to that very power.

Dayra.7405:

Virtute.8251:

First, rank your servers by the population count you use internally to set the world population status on World Selection screen.

No please, do not use this population count at all for WvW!

Absolutely yes. It has to be that way.

The reason: Server status (Full or not) is irrelevant to WvW. It’s only reason for existing is a matter of logistics for provisioning computational resources on the network.

The only reason we are being asked this question inside the WvW sub-forum is because if this is to be done, ANet would like to keep WvW-focused players happy in the process. You can not, however, have a WvW-centric server merger.

Sorry.

How to Merge Servers Properly

John Corpening.9847:

For merging servers, how do we determine who gets merged? Where would we merge them to?

This is the easiest part to answer. We discussed it in detail this past April.

First, rank your servers by the population count you use internally to set the world population status on World Selection screen. Then do the following:

Virtute.8251:

• Lock transfers for some short period before the merger.
• Sort tiers 3-8 into tiers 1-2 in reverse order.

This means:

• Rank 6 receives Rank 7-9
• Rank 5 receives Rank 10-12
• Rank 4 receives Rank 13-15
• Rank 3 receives Rank 16-18
• Rank 2 receives Rank 19-21
• Rank 1 receives Rank 22-24

Now, on to the harder topics.

John Corpening.9847:

How do we maintain any sort of world pride or identity they have?

This depends upon the depth of your database records, regarding what servers we have been on. I do not see much value in you rewarding me for having played on multiple servers for the past 2 years, but others may disagree.

There will be no satisfying some people on this. It has to be taken as-is.

John Corpening.9847:

How do we handle potentially merging with your mortal enemies?

You allow people a window of opportunity, perhaps an entire month, to select a server to be moved to when the merger is done. In that selection process, you leave the server statuses alone so that people can only willingly move to servers that aren’t “Full” status.

After that time ends, everyone else is distributed as I outlined above, and you include “Full” servers in that pool. At that point, they will all be full by today’s numbers.

EnemyCrusher.7324:

In this scenario, exhaustion wouldn’t accomplish anything. For supply wasting, if that troll has any sense, they will dismantle their own siege before someone else can come and give them exhaustion.

It’s worse than that.

The proposal for self-dismantling paired with exhaustion stacking gives the troll the ability to endlessly build and dismantle, without exhaustion.

Seems that in his excitement, John has let us paint him into a corner where he’s overthinking it, now.

Baldrick.8967:

The OP is complaining because he can’t tag the ele with his staff Guardian from inside the tower…..

OP is a ranger.

But, OP is still complaining in the same sense. It was also not just one staff ele that hurt him so badly.

Regardless, it screams L2P issue.

Outmanned originally had some buff to it. It was changed to a measurable reward, and no buffing, because there shouldn’t be a map mechanic that encourages a smaller set of allies to argue with a larger set of allies when the buff is removed from play.

It’s a closed case.

All your siege are belong to Disabler.

Daily Achievements are game-wide enticements to try different things, and this is a dead horse.

John Corpening.9847:

• Commanders who actually have people following them can bypass the bulk of the penalty and should easily remove the rest through normal play

John Corpening.9847:

It’s also led to a bunch of spin off ideas that I think stand on their own and are great so I’m hoping to hit jump until the mystery box is out of coins

John, the /squad system is terrible. Improving it should have been part of the work considered while RainbowCom was in the pipe.

You just gave yourself another opportunity to fix it.

When a commander is nearby, there should be a UI indicator that will show people that the squad function exists, and also give them one (at most, two) mouse left-click’s access to joining that squad.

Make squads a more significant and used part of the game, while you add features to it.