Guild Wars 2

John Corpening.9847:

If we tweaked Exhaustion to this would it work? :

1. When a player places a piece of siege they receive a stack of “Exhaustion”
2. A stack of “Exhaustion” expires after three minutes
3. If a player has five stacks of “Exhaustion” they can no longer place siege
4. If a player downs an enemy, destroys siege, breaks down a wall or gate their exhaustion is cleared
5. A commander’s exhaustion is reduced by 30 seconds for each member of his squad

Let’s have our troll use Ballista Blueprint as the cheapest option.

• 30 supply per print
• 1 Exhaustion per print
• 3 minutes per Exhaustion
• 5 Exhaustion per troll

There will be a burst of 150 supply consumed as quickly as the troll can move to build it.

Suppose that the troll moves at a rate of 5 seconds per 10 supply consumed. That is travel time between the build site and depot, including time to build. The troll uses Build Mastery WvW trait to spend 10 supply instantly, and Supply Mastery to gain swiftness.

The Ballista troll needs 75 seconds to spend 150 supplies, up to 5 stacks of Exhaustion. This will consume an entire basic tower or supply camp before the troll hits 5 Exhaustion. He has also hit the local cap for siege sites in his build area.

A wealthier troll makes the same play, but with Trebuchet.

Trebuchet troll spends 250 seconds to consume 500 supply per troll burst.

In all cases, because the Exhaustion is received in bursts of trolling, the stacks cooldown on the same intervals.

Ballista troll, needing only 75 seconds to build 5 sites, also waits only 1 minute 45 seconds to drop ballista #6. He also then begins dropping 1 Exhaustion every 15 seconds, while building his next troll burst.

Trebuchet troll has no wait time, because he spends more time moving between his build site and depot than he needs for the Exhaustion cooldowns.

In all cases, the troll can learn or plan his blueprint consumption intervals to mitigate his Exhaustion costs. He will learn this by doing it.

Hi, tier 8! Congratulations! You’re yet again complaining about “stacked servers” while trying to convince people to transfer to yours! Good job on the double-thought arms race.

Don’t stack on them, stack on us, because stacking is ruining the game!

It’s so much fun down here just as it is. Join us, and make our server more like yours!

MithranArkanere.8957:

Virtute.8251:

Daily PvP Match and Capture achievements can’t be done in WvW. Please remove them.

That makes no sense. They can be done in PvP. That’s why they are PvP dailies.

WvW dailies are supposed to be done in WvW.
The edge of the mists is a form of WvW.

By witching this one to work on all supply lines instead just caravans, people who just want the achievements can go to the edge to get them, and leave slots for those who actually want to do some WvW.

There’s nothing negative that would come from such a change.

Try this one: Daily Gathering shouldn’t be done in WvW because it takes people away from the zerg and that violates my game mode. It should be removed.

Jerus.4350:

Zaxares.5419:

My suggestion to make both sides happy.

You currently get 2 Gifts of Exploration for Map Completion. Split Map Completion so there is now “Map Completion: Tyria” and “Map Completion: The Mists”. Completing map exploration for PvE gets you 1 Gift of Exploration. Completing map exploration for WvW gets you another 1 Gift of Exploration.

Problem solved. Those who don’t want to WvW for their Legendary don’t have to do so. Those who don’t want to PvE for their Legendary can stick to WvW/PvP.

Quite possibly the best idea I’ve heard on the subject.

Unintended consequence: The Mists Gift of Exploration is unreasonably easier to get (within one day or less) on many servers that enjoy consistent wins. Those servers’ members then receive a disproportionate number of those Gifts across all of their characters.

So: Nope.

Inb4 “they still get that benefit on always-winning servers.” No… those people still have to go complete all the PvE maps: even when they don’t want to, and just like you don’t want to help them in WvW.

Beside which, every time this thread comes up, it’s always given as if Gift of Exploration is the hardest part of Legendary Crafting. It isn’t, and especially so for WvW players.

Daily PvP Match and Capture achievements can’t be done in WvW. Please remove them.

The primary purpose of /cheer is to make female Asurans be even more cute.

Tryxtr.6295:

Thoughts?

It’s very easy to imagineer systems from the outside, without any knowledge of their internal workings and specifications.

Zaxares.5419:

Royale.5863:

“Night time” for you is daytime for someone else.

Every time the thread appears.

Chris.3290:

Chaba.5410:

They’re already migrating from SoS.

The reason many are migrating was because there were many that sounded like the T3 voices here. “We have a good match. We don’t want to face the numbers of the next tier up.” By the time people stopped dawdling and realized we should push, people had already gotten bored and left.

That’s half true. SoS did have that going on in its PPT guilds.

SoS fights (particularly GvG) guilds argued against tier 1 push for one reason only. Their friends and frenemies were on FA and Mag, and they wanted to stay in tier 2 for the daily NA fights and gvg matches.

Those same people and guilds are now filtering into tier 1, not just to get away from PPT boredom of the new tier 2, but rather it is mainly for the fact that all of their peers (the fighters and gvg guilds they want to compete with) are agreeing that tier 1 is now the only stable place where they can make that happen for a little bit longer.

They’re going to tier 1 to play out their remaining time in GW2.

ArchonWing.9480:

If Mag drops down to t3 next week and someone gets moved up, then no amount of tanking is going to save anyone. When one’s at the mercy of the RNG, they need to be able to deal with any worst possible scenario, and digging heads into the sand isn’t going to help anyone.

Third play-through for WvW tourneys, and people still don’t remember how the match making for it works.

The week prior to the first tournament match is not thrown away and ignored. Its results for glicko are calculated before the tournament week 1 match is configured.

The match results that are calculated on Sept. 12th will determine the leaderboard for league placement. That means Maguuma has 2 more end-of-match rating losses (not 1) before it is settled into Silver League for the tournament.

Maguuma will lose more glicko rating next week (Sept. 5-12) regardless of where it is placed for that match. The most likely outcome is that one of the servers below rank #6 today will be seeded as #6 for the tournament. The only random factor is selection of exactly which one, because their ratings are so near each other.

Xillllix.3485:

“I’m really excited™ to see how this tournament will play out.”

FTFY

You can rent my commander tag for $500 USD per month.

EoTM in and of itself is meh, but the way it’s used is just what PvE types do in games.

It’s really gross that anyone considers EoTM to be part of WvW, as it is played now. It’s more disgusting than 2012 Eternal Battleground and zerging skritt or centaurs, combined.

Dragonbrand: Come hug your old buddies in gold league, pls. We haz malk and Saltine crackerz.

Pinkamena Diane Pie.8054:

Josh

Gotta hand it to server X who have come up from the bottom of bronze tier and showing the other veteran silver tier servers how to fight

Yes because yet again this wont be due to mass transfer of guilds to other servers, nor the tanking some servers may do again.

Please can we have someone who actually knows what they are talking about and knows the real issues in this mode?! Not someone who’s on blobgate!

P.S. Permanantly banned from posting on your twitch channel for asking about GvG. Thank you for letting us know you care.

Josh was in Anvils Last Stand on AR for two weeks c. 2012, while he was casting for guru. He wasn’t interested in WvW, and couldn’t be bothered to rep the guild or raid with it: just wanted to (barely) see what it was like in the biggest WvW guild on his home server.

He’s still casting and still playing Engi errday, so I doubt his WvW GAF has changed, either.

Don’t be surprised when an sPvP-focused employee behaves as if the WvW leaderboard is meaningful in a Team v. Team sense, rather than its reality as a descending sort on the server list in respect to manpower over time.

urieldhynne.2743:

Anet is who limited this game to NOT USE addons. Well, do your job.

This is not true. The ToS policy is that third-party software is unsupported by ANet, which includes the consequences of using them. Additionally, third-party software that leverages an unintended access to GW2.exe memory space (RAM) or data on hard disk, is bannable.

The GW2 API does not fall in this category. ANet will not support third-party apps for it, but will not ban for using it.

The GW2 Mumble positional audio data file does not fall in this category. ANet will not support third-party apps for it, but will not ban for using it.

Overwolf does not fall in this category. ANet will not support third-party apps for it, but will not ban for using it.

TeamSpeak does not fall in this category. ANet will not support third-party apps for it, but will not ban for using it.

All of that said: if GW2 gets in the way of one of those things working properly, and it is ANet’s fault, there is still a chance that they will “support” it by fixing the problem on their end.

This is all relative to a personal definition of “dead” in the context, and that is relative to the player’s goals and past experiences in-game.

sminkiottone.6972:

Virtute.8251:

sminkiottone.6972:

People are asking why since the first league was announced, wvw is a competitive mode but it’s also ment to be unbalanced and unfair, it’s how anet want things to be.

Not exactly. You’re taking personal offense at the potential unfairness, as if ANet has done something terribly wrong to its players by creating WvWvW as a 3-way battle. That’s not true.

If you don’t enjoy some measure of chaos, then WvW is not for you.

Some Devs already stated that WvW is not ment to be fair or balanced.

Semantics.

sminkiottone.6972:

Nah man, don’t take it too seriously

I will enjoy every single QQ thread of people whining about 2vs1 and not beeing able to complete theyr jumping puzzle.

Exactly.

WvW is casually competitive, in the sense that you’re meant to log in and be competitive, but without expectations of enforced fairness for any side. That WvW players often don’t grasp that fact is unfortunate for them personally, as they’re damaging their own ability to have fun with it.

PvP has a rule against match rigging because it is built as a competition on a leveled playing field, so that its tournaments can potentially be regarded as a sport. If you really need to be told why WvW is not like this, then you’ve some very deep misunderstandings about WvW. If you think that WvW should be like this and can be made like this, then you’re doubly mistaken.

sminkiottone.6972:

People are asking why since the first league was announced, wvw is a competitive mode but it’s also ment to be unbalanced and unfair, it’s how anet want things to be.

Not exactly. You’re taking personal offense at the potential unfairness, as if ANet has done something terribly wrong to its players by creating WvWvW as a 3-way battle. That’s not true.

If you don’t enjoy some measure of chaos, then WvW is not for you.

sminkiottone.6972:

I think anet wants to push pvers to play in WvW giving them shiny rewards and make them pay to transfer to overstacked server in order to alieanate the WvW population, driving them to quit or go sPvP.

No. ANet should not want WvW players to quit the game. That’s a silly assertion. Any player loss is lost potential revenue.

Encouraging PvE players into WvW is the opposite of that. That is a strategy of giving the players an on-going goal, to keep them involved longer.

The people that leave GW2 from the WvW population are in two categories:

1) WvW focused players, for which that game has grown stale because everything has a limited shelf-life
2) GvG focused players that fit into #1 and are also upset that their favorite play-style does not get validation from ANet

Neither of those qualify for claiming that ANet pushes them away.

Zanzer.6450:

The point of this thread isn’t to troll or try and convince the WvW community the class is useful. It’s not!

But what do players out there feel that WvW or the Ranger is missing that could be added to the class and keep it balanced and stay within the theme of the class?

Ranger can be annoying during large fights. It can get kills. It is not GvG ready, though.

What it needs is rebalance that negates all of those reasons that have been given for two years. Those are the things that this thread has also not given solutions for, yet.

But, ANet doesn’t balance for GvG, and apparently they don’t balance for Zerg v Zerg, either.

Basically, as was said all the way back at Beta, ranger needs to be able to completely remove its pet from play, and it needs to receive some balancing stats when it is in no-pet-mode.

T raw.4658:

And anet rejoices on a job well done…..

If GvG was ever intending to court ANet to get recognized for game changes in their favor, then they needed to select a spokesman that would behave toward ANet more like like Groucharoo and less like Sacryx.

cheshader.5081:

This:
You just don’t want/can’t properly test things before implementing them. And it is not just about WvW, it’s everywhere else in the game.
Basically you are killing your own game with this lack of testing/quality control. Holy hell…

To get data that represents what the real players will do with a game feature, it has to be given to the real players. Before the game was released, the place for that was live beta servers. Now, the place is still the live servers. It has to be, and no, EoTM is not the right map to test this feature on. EoTM doesn’t inspire the kinds and variety of siege play that the rest of WvW does.

The issue with pets in a GvG is not what they do or don’t contribute to the ally team. The issues are their mostly uncontrollable behavior, their counting as an ally target, and the ranger class being balanced so that it isn’t overpowered when the pet is in play.

Sea of Senpais confirmed as stack target.

Even that won’t remove the pet issue. I’d rather see a turret engineer in play.

Also, 3v3 is an apple where 15v15 is an orange and 20v20 is a tomato. GvG situations are completely different. 3v3, roaming, and s/tPvP, all do not normally need to follow frontline/backline rules. In GvG, that is an absolute requirement.

Doomdesire.9365:

Not because a lack of players, or one guild stacking great players

Agreed. Great players come and go, and that “stack” was extremely short-lived, anyway.

Omphaloskepsis.3465:

Virtute.8251:

The thing at issue in OP is not a bannable offense (even if it were due to ToS, it wouldn’t be enforceable), and that makes this a dead issue.

Well of course it is not a bannable offense. But it is so unfair for rewards in the tournament. But if arena net was against it, if they came out and said something like, “This is a tournament where 3 servers battle each other, no 2 servers are meant to ally in order to ensure top tier rewards. Any servers caught doing so will be receive 3rd tier rewards no matter what rank they place.” or anything like that people would not do it, they would have better luck trying to win on their own.

Fine. It’s also not a punishable offense, nor is it an offense against any rule. Again: even if it were these things, that wouldn’t be enforceable. ANet would be in a position of punishing thousands of innocent people.

What you’re suggesting can never happen.

felixdacat.3804:

I won’t bother saying Ranger is an ideal front liner for a GvG of any size

That’s why it hasn’t happened outside of “for a lark” situations. It falls squarely upon “anything you can do, I can do better” when considering what class+build you are removing from the group composition in favor of a ranger.

felixdacat.3804:

but I will argue that it can be viable.

If “viable” is taken as “we can get away with it”, then yes. Otherwise, no (at least not yet).

None of what can be offered for argument toward ranger viability will remove the fact that ranger is balanced in consideration of its pet’s presence in play. That pet is an actor which must contribute and be controlled. It’s a bad idea to put the pet in the frontline, the same as you wouldn’t put ranger spirits there: they’d lose their utility too quickly.

As an ally actor involved in the GvG, is the pet AI going to follow correctly through a veil? Is the pet going to soak up boons intended for the group? Is the pet going to be on-point with shadowing the driver, or will it constantly be chasing your tail? Can the pet cast skills during it’s movement animations, or will it spend most of it’s life being an expensive damage sink?

Please note that 15v15 and 20v20 are both divisible by 5 because 5 is a full party, and 5 is used in composition building for things like boon up-times. The normal exception to that rule is the periphery “gank squad” of a 15, which can often total 1 to 3 players. However, if you’re noting that staff elementalists are also on the periphery, then that brings it back to about 5.

We all know about muddy terrain and healing spring. We know that the ranger has boon sources. Entangle would be awesome to have.

The thing at issue in OP is not a bannable offense (even if it were due to ToS, it wouldn’t be enforceable), and that makes this a dead issue.

Speaking in the most general terms, the ranger can only be included in GvG if a compelling reason is given for the ranger to participate as a backline assist. There is no way that ranger can be made to work near frontline the way necro can be, due to what you’ve already pointed out.

The difficulty in slotting ranger for GvG is simply in the trade-off of the class utility that you lose vs. what you gain. It’s the same reasons that engineer isn’t used yet.

I suppose it’s worth noting also that the GvG meta-game may appear in PvP on the day that a deathmatch map is introduced.

Shrouded.6450:

Called it a few months ago:

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/Tier-2-Problems/page/1

Ya know with all these GvG craze going on in your tier, has anyone ever wondered the health of each server’s militias? Guilds come and go to greener pastures for its own health and well being. That is a fact, the militias however are the ones that will always be left behind.
This T2 “project” was bound to fail from the get go. :p A competitive WvW server needs a healthy balance of militias and guilds in order for it to be sustainable.

This is why there is one clear scoreboard winner of tier 2 every week: because there is only one tier 2 server that innately followed your advice.

Chaba.5410:

The current state of the GvG scene, as seen from the outside, looks as if one were to take all the best players in the NHL and stack them onto a single team.

He’s referring to [NaCl], the result of trimmed fat after [Agg] merged into [EP].

Screenshot is post-match emote lineup for [BMO] vs [EP] scrim the week of that merger.

Clownmug.8357:

Meditation based mesmer?

Mantritations!

atheria.2837 read this:

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/Commander-Tag-Changes-Feedback-merged/4313965

The dodging you’re seeing is from extra endurance from the Vigor boon, and possibly from Superior Sigil of Energy. Possibly Orrian Truffle and Meat Stew, but that’s a relatively rarely used one.

The constant healing could be a lot of things, and it depends on the class. Basic guess, though: Regen boon and a heal skill with short cooldown.

Johje Holan.4607:

You know a steadily declining number series can be considered steady numbers.

That captures it. The “steady number” is the fraction of WvW players over the whole game’s players, given as a percentage.

Jessica Boettiger

Whether you have three characters, thirteen characters, or even more, you will need to make this purchase only once!

Existing commanders will be grandfathered into this new system. If you’re already a commander, please enjoy this additional upgrade.

That’s a commitment. 300g for all colors, free to existing commanders.

Jessica Boettiger

Moving forward, we’ll be evaluating future possibilities for recognizing experienced and prestigious commanders.

That’s a promise, and it’s referencing this thread.

Jessica Boettiger

We’re also happy to announce that once you are a commander

“Excited™” edited to “happy”, but…

Jessica Boettiger

Right now, we’re excited to empower commanders with the ability to use all of their characters and choose the color that best fits their needs! We can’t wait to see all the ways this feature is put to use.

… the marketing-copy monkeys are real, this month, and they are super duper excited™.

Good idea. We’re excited™ to announce that the Server Chat Tab Unlock is now available at the gem store for 1200 gems!

Server Chat Tab Unlocks are server-bound, and must be repurchased if you decide to transfer to another server.

We’re looking forward to seeing all of the exciting™ things that the community does with this exciting™ new feature!

Gell.5907:

On a slightly related note, using traps, tricks, siege, food, whatever else directly from the inventory with absolutely no way of keybinding them is also very.. convenient.

A hotbar, a hotbar! My guild for a hotbar!

I like the thoughts, but have issues with some assumptions they’re based in, and I like the defense event proposal more than the score one.

Greenwolf.3625:

1) Upgraded towers/keeps give more warscore

Gives another snowball effect to the coverage-dominant team. This strengthens the problem that most week-long matches are decided in the first 24 hours.

http://mos.millenium.org/servers/view/37

Matches like Sea of Sorrows week 33, 2014, would become worse for everyone, not better. Their heavy point gains during OCX and SEA playtime would be much more severe.

Comebacks from first-day defeats would become even more rare. Losing teams would be less incentivized to defend after the already decided winner had piled up a day or more of tier 3 upgraded PPT.

The end result would probably be a significant increase in the “volatility” metric on every server’s glicko-2 rating. That increase in volatility would be systemic, because all servers would move around the leaderboard more. The snowballing effect of higher PPT for upgraded structures would demand that.

Greenwolf.3625:

2) Defenders should be rewarded equally to attackers

Defending rewards should be proportionate to how long the siege has gone on for and track how long the individual player has been participating in the fight for.

We all agree with the ideal, including ANet. Devon Carver said in a recent interview that their blocker for accomplishing it is that the game’s server+client code was never built for that concept. To me that sounds like an engineering problem on level with what leads to the AOE target caps, so I’m not angry about that one.

Greenwolf.3625:

Case 1:
A player has been defending a keep for 10 minutes, have constantly been in combat they finally rout the enemy and the repel invaders reward triggers.

Actively defending player characters rarely stay in combat throughout a defense event. They enter and exit combat multiple times. Having the combat flag switched on for your character is very easy: simply do damage or have damage done to you. Being flagged as in-combat is not equivalent to contributing to the defense event. Neither is consuming supply.

The way event contribution is currently decided can be summarized as “damage output during the event”. At a rudimentary level, this must require at least a single database table of the form:

Event Instance ID | Player Account Name | Damage Output

That captures the specific event being considered, the player, and the determining factor for event contribution. A table like this must be created at every instance of any event in the game world. Producing this table is relatively simple, as is checking its determining factor against a requirement for the event reward.

We want simple, because this thing has to compute and deliver the rewards at speeds that seem instantaneous to human players.

In that I see a compelling argument for finding places to add a reward for healing output. It should be equally simple to do in some contexts. It would be far less simple in others. Simply put: ask for healing to be counted during rewarded events, but not battle of any kind. The former is easy, and the latter is just a bad idea for the GW2 system (despite being a common-sense appropriate idea that can be done in other games).

Your cases are asking for many other data points that are much more complicated. They are complicated because they are subjective. That’s where solutions to programming this sort of thing break down. The logic of it, and the fact that any Comp Sci student should be able to write it, is not the issue.

The issue (as is always the case in a near-real-time system) is getting that logic to compute in series with all other requests, inside of the budget defined by the system’s responsiveness needs and capabilities.

All of what you’re asking for is possible in single-player and small-scale multiplayer systems: particularly if they are LAN, and not WAN. It’s probably all possible in an MMO, if the surrounding systems are built and budgeted for it.

The problem for us as players that would suggest such things is linked to the problem at ANet, where they have already built up and scaled the GW2 system to the limits of its hardware budget. This is evidenced by the server lag that still occurs during large battles.

For every such addition that is made, some other process in the system needs to be made to run just a bit faster, to make room for the new cool thing. If more hardware is what solves the problem (and that assumes that the problem is server-side throughput), then expect that to be offset by the gem store for the benefit of that other kind of budgeting.

I’m so excited that I successfully convinced all 1,700 of my Facebook friends to buy GW2 and also a full set of Rainbow Commandership Colors so that we can take Anvil Rock to tier 1 on a rainbow of exciting commandership awesomeness!

10/10 would pay for the exciting opportunity again!

Good idea. We’re excited to announce that it will be 800 gems for a WvW Defcon System 2 week pass, and 3600 gems for a permanent pass.

signahead.7281:

Right now a few good cannon shots can wipe out all of the rams at a gate.

You missed the point.

The point: Players that carry disablers are already smart enough to kill cannons. When you are being attacked by these players right now, they are using AOE to stop you from using the cannons or oil. Disablers are just giving them a different tool to accomplish the same result.

Therefore, choose a different example for your case.

gennyt.3428:

I wonder, would these tags be the badge of the GW2 1%? Throw me a pm for the occupy LA protest lol.

Competitor to the PvE commanders’ Occupy SAB protest?

signahead.7281:

The 45-second disable sounds awful. That’s enough time for a 5-10 person group to destroy all of the cannons on a gate before the defenders can fire a single shot. Bring a larger group and you can clear all of the arrow carts, cannons, and pots of oil off of a wall without any fear of reprisal.

That’s irrelevant to siege disabler. 5 or more people of the right classes (or with their own arrow cart) have always had little trouble removing cannons and oil. Disabler doesn’t make it easier.

Those sieges are irrelevant against an opponent competent enough to use the disabler. An opponent competent to use disabler is competent to defeat them without disabler.

Aren’t you excited?!

Offair.2563:

Imagine a couple of guys with +5 from masteries and +5 guild buff = 20 supplies each. So lets say 3 guys = 60 supplies = 6 of those traps before even touching keeps/tower supplies just to freeze all your siege in a 450 radius down for [45 seconds] each trap.

Exactly! Now you have to fight the 3 guys, they have to fight you, or you stalemate and your offensive group goes somewhere else (possibly to meet another 3 guys).

The only problem here is that losing that capture made you salty. That’s not an ANet problem.

“WvW Improvements” doesn’t include “Commandership Cashgrab”. Status symbol for PvE maps confirmed. It gets its own post because that will be a sales pitch for using them during Living Story events and world bosses.

At least ANet is always excited and remembers to tell us that everything they say is exciting!

Dreadforce.6980:

Virtute.8251:

No, there isn’t a better scoring system for the way WvW matches work. There are only different scoring systems.

The kind of matches that the OP describes will happen regardless.

The ranking algorithm is reacting appropriately, regardless.

It is not the fault of mathematics when people misunderstand it.

I understand the system and how it works.

The issue is the system is not effective in this environment and can not keep up with what is actually happening.

There have been plenty of suggestions on this forum alone that would make for a better system.

I was involved in and supportive of many of those conversations.

The fact remains that none of the proposed alternative scoring concepts were tested and backed by evidence that can show that they are superior as drop-in replacements for the current one.

All of the “this is better” claims are purely baseless.

None of the proposals really capture in their solutions the fact that “the problem” is born from people not having fun when playing for a consistently losing team. Yet, that reality is unavoidable in this system and math isn’t going to save you from it. GG.