Guild Wars 2

Lord Kuru.3685:

It keeps people like you strung along.

Towards what end? It’s not like they are getting subscription fees while we’re waiting with bated breath for WvW updates. Nor is there the constant introduction of new tiers of gear that we must chase, or even WXP traitlines. There is literally nothing stopping people from taking a break from WvW or even GW2 as a whole, and waiting for updates to return to the game.

Pinkamena Diane Pie.8054:

No matter how good your GPU, GW2 will simply not utilise it properly.
Until, IF, DX11 is ever supported; your best option is for a better CPU, not GPU.

He posted that his GPU is 100% utilization so I’m not sure how you can say that. He also can’t really improve on his CPU, it’s 4.3GHz i7.

Best advice is to get on your server’s WvW voice chat and see if there are people with expensive GPUs, what kind of fps they get and what settings they run.

Frvwfr.4307:

Yes, this would prevent 5 people from being able to defend a structure from 30 people, but how realistic is it for them to be able to do that anyways?

Oh, this argument again. Sounds like you are mad that your zerg can’t just karma train pvd a tower against lesser numbers that would have no chance in open field combat against you. There is no way 30 players should lose a battle of attrition against 5.

lordkrall.7241:

We HAVE gotten quite a bit of stuff in WvW, since release. But we have to keep in mind that developing stuffs in WvW most likely is much harder and take more time than PvE, especially since it is very likely that the WvW team is much smaller than the PvE-team(s) due to more people playing PvE.

It’s been over 12 months since that post on their WvW plans and correct me if I’m wrong, none of those changes have been implemented yet. I’m kind of assuming that we’re gonna see something before Season 3 starts…it’s even been around a year since they added any WXP traits.

johnpoc.8732:

You are giving your own opinion here, “who they fight or what server they are fighting against/representing in the fight doesn’t matter” I do care. What you are offering can be achieved in EotM, just log in with your guild group and encourage other guilds to do the same.
If you make borderlands another megaserver trash map then defending wouldn’t exist. Some of the best fights I ever had were defending keeps, now why would I defend if it’s worth nothing? No one’s time is gonna be wasted if I don’t defend, just let it cap we’ll get it back later. There you go… another k-train map for the pve funz
I also like to fight alongside people that are not in my guild but they are in my server. I don’t want to go into WvW wondering which people I’m gonna play with, I like how DR people do stuff and I want to keep playing with them.

Exactly, instead of clamoring to make the entire WvW system like EotM, why don’t people go to EotM? When it was new guild groups were there constantly. What guarantee is there that the proposed change wouldn’t just end up a karma train again?

Johje Holan.4607:

I agree we shouldn’t be harshing on the devs. We should be harshing on the executives and NCSoft. I’m sure the devs would love to have all the resources necessary to continuously make changes and improve their baby. But as you said, its the game industry, and NCSoft is in it to make a profit. Not put out a good game.

Gone are the days where the customer is always right. We’re in the era of the customer doesn’t matter because they’re always more customers – billions of them. (Witness the China release).

That’s why I like the kickstarter idea. Get away from the corporate greed and use talent to actually create something. Not just make a “product”.

This isn’t the service industry, the customer can’t always be right when you’re selling the same product to people who have differing ideas of what needs to be changed & added.

Kickstarter does not guarantee a good game, the final product may not reflect what was originally promised, or the game may never even be finished. What Kickstarter does is allow a niche audience to directly support a more niche product that may, key word may, resonate with said audience. I don’t think crowd funding will work well with a large scale broad MMORPG.

Jamais vu.5284:

You know, I’d rather pay for quality content. Free isn’t everything. It’s often the worst deal, actually.

And on the other hand, it sure beats paying for content that you don’t want or didn’t ask for. Having a sub fee or paid expansions doesn’t guarantee that the devs will focus on what you want or implement things in ways you approve of.

I still remember in SWTOR when the devs there removed the PVP dailies from the open world PVP planet and told everyone to do instanced battlegrounds instead because the planet was going to be redesigned due to complaints. By the time GW2 launched they still weren’t done, and shortly afterwards SWTOR went F2P because the population of the game had crashed due to lack of content all around. I never heard when or if they actually revamped that PVP planet. I remember looking at some updates for a few months afterwards and not seeing anything.

Posting here to also voice my displeasure with the decreased number of daily options. Dunno who on ANet thought this was a good idea, but it’s not.

ShroomOneUp.6913:

this rather a problem with your graphix card rather then the game. or evne your CPU. my CPU was glowing heat hot and kind melted when such bugs happend in my old comuter.

It’s a game bug, it only happened after this week’s patch. This kind of texture/shader problem has also happened in 2012 after a seasonal patch IIRC in your home BL spawn.

morrolan.9608:

DivineBeing.2086:

Don’t believe me? Look at the server populations, majority of the servers are high, very high, or full for NA. If that entire population were to contribute to WvW there would be no “coverage problem.”

Those include inactive accounts and so are misleading. If you actually guest to some of the servers its clear the PvE population is very small compared to the highest pop servers.

Unless they changed it, according to ANet it only reflects accounts logged in, not total stored on the server.

As of this moment there are no High servers for NA, all are Very High and 1 is Full.

The PPT per structure is the same, but you can see from the screenshot that points aren’t being awarded for any keep on the map, and only from 1 out of 4 towers. It’s possible that this is just a display error and the correct amount of PPT is added at the tick, I haven’t tried to verify that.

Who else sees point scores like this?

http://imgur.com/hWQinh1

phys.7689:

you didnt lose because 1 group wiped, you lost because 5 groups wiped, or your lanes allowed too many enemies through.
Everyone wants to blame the last group in the last platform, but really 1 group failing cannot lose the event on its own.
It takes 5 failures for chain if you play good defense, this means 5 platform groups failed, if these platforms had 4 people that means 20 people failed. 20% of people failing is not a small amount.

Also, it seems like either people are getting better at the event, or less people who dont know the event are playing. I have had more victories lately, less preparation time, and people getting farther even on fails.

When you’re talking about 100 people, I consider 20% failing to be small taking into consideration you’ve probably never played with any of the people on your platform before. A group doesn’t even necessarily wipe to fail, they just time out. Furthermore, you can’t pin failure on every member of the group, 3 bad players with 1 good player is doomed from the start. Or in the case of champion 2, it could be possible that it chases 1 person who is unable to kite it correctly.

As many people have pointed out, there is a stark difference between a challenge where entry is controlled and one where it’s no holds barred. Logically, you expect less out of the latter. I also expect content to be tuned appropriately.

I wish I could say I see the improvement that you do. I think I’ve seen champion 3 beaten by an entire lane once. Champion 2 still fails regularly, more often than it succeeds.

The bar was definitely set to high, at least if you’re requiring 5/5 platforms to succeed. I’m not sure how many times I’ve done the marionette, but I’ve never seen it defeated and I’ve never seen more than 3/5 lanes sever a chain. Zerging and instawinning is boring, but so is completing 4/5 platforms and then having 1 platform torpedo everyone’s efforts because of ineptitude. I really feel like having 4/5 platforms succeed should sever a chain to allow for a little, but not too much, carrying.

style.6173:

Huh? Defense in this game is already really easy. A group of 5 defenders with smart siege placement can hold of a zerg for a long time.

It sounds to me like you just need to team up with some people who are more experienced at WvW that you are.

A group of experienced defenders with smart siege placement can hold off an inexperienced zerg with poor siege placement for a long time, sure. Not so long if the attackers have smart siege placement. Even in t1 there are commanders who have numerical advantage in forces, but give up if they can’t just ram down a door because they’re too lazy/incompetent to kill defensive siege. They’d rather karma train a wooden tower somewhere else if they meet any resistance.

PvD is a terrible mechanic, the only people who want it are easymode karma trainers. If PvD stays, we need a perma retaliation buff upgrade on the door, at least.

Reverence.6915:

Eh, we don’t flip structures for wxp/karma. We flip it because it adds to our PPT.

In the early days of WvW, people would try to defend captured objectives, for PPT. You rarely see that happen now. The invaders just leave and let the other side recap so they can take it again later for more WXP.

Kazuto.2798:

I don’t see how reviving is an issue. It’s not like players can attack while they’re dead. If people are dead, they aren’t contributing anything to the group and the revivers aren’t really contributing either, they’re sitting there reviving, unable to use skills.

It doesn’t exactly take a long time to revive people. In most cases, the winning force can spare a few people, ensuring that their numbers don’t get whittled down.

RyuDragnier.9476:

Watch this be a complaint from T1 or T2. Most of the tiers don’t have that problem you’re experiencing guys.

Unless you are in a matchup where all numbers/fights are equal on a map at all times, mass revive affects you.

If you took 7 weeks to get the chest you weren’t putting much effort into it. Length of time the achievement is available is meaningless. Do you guys all complain about living story achievement rewards too? Look how long Tower of Nightmares and Nightmare Within have been running. The former has been up 6 weeks if it’s removed next patch.

I, for one, received numerous rares and exotics in these 7 weeks doing WvW. Would I have liked at least 1 exotic from the chest? Sure, but no biggie.

DevonCarver.5370:

2) How would it feel to have a system that gradually unlocked more commander abilities and icons, but that required dedication to WvW? Would requiring commanders to spend their WXP in this way limit them to the point that they didn’t want to do it?

Active and successful commanders are involved in all the large fights, defenses, and offense and attain large amounts of WXP. I don’t see a WXP requirement as being limiting any more than choosing current trait lines is.

Darketower.5218:

If you really want to have a gradual-unlock system, I’d rather see abilities unlocked as part of the Guild system as opposed to WXP. As a guild progresses up the War tree, they can unlock more abilities for commanders representing their guild. What’s more, I think it’s a better gauge of whether or not someone is actually a “leader.” If their own guild doesn’t back them up, then why should everyone else just because of a 100g bauble?

That would restrict a robust commander system to people who are in larger guilds. Which has nothing to do with the ability to command or not. Someone could be in a 10 man guild and be an excellent commander. Or maybe when they’re with their guild they run guildies only, only tagging up during off hours. This is already a very common occurrence in WvW.

Atherakhia.4086:

This game just doesn’t have any depth or synergy to exploit to make strategy/placement mean much of anything. The only realistic strategy that works is zerging and the whole buffing/healing aspect only encourages it.

Spoken like a true zergling. The difference between a group that has no synergy or placement is night and day. It’s the difference between seeing 20 guys go down in the first push or 0.

And what about servers with heavy SEA presence?

A Lizard Bolting Skin.7426:

In T1 you very infrequently have outmanned. Usually there is a queue for all borderlands, and especially EB. A change focused on the outmanned buff, does little to nothing. If you reduce the stored supply in all keeps/towers to 200, you make it very difficult for a zerg to fill up on supply for an all out attack. If you make it so that towers/keeps lose all their supply when they flip, then if the zerg performs an all out attack using a massive amount of supply, the attack ends when they flip their objective. With these two zerg supply limits in place, it then becomes safe to raise player supply capacity to 20. You don’t need the outmanned buff to dictate this at all.

Isn’t supply leftover from flipping camps a much greater problem than supply leftover from towers? I just don’t see much of an effect from removing tower supply on flip. It’s 100 max, that doesn’t even build 2 sup rams. The attackers probably blew more supply than that unless the target was paper/undefended, in which case it probably didn’t have much/any supply to begin with.

SaiKosis.4587:

If that were actually the case then they couldn’t ban any players just after launch for buying karma weapons or cooking ingredients for cheap and then selling them for lots of gold since it was Anet’s fault for letting it happen in the first place……oh wait…

Yeah, because something that impacts the economy negatively is completely the same as destroying a wall at your spawn tower which doesn’t even guarantee a cap. Let alone that you used to be able to build siege all over the place, and after they fixed that throw build sites onto places you couldn’t drop them. Those people weren’t banned.

MAGpie.7962:

I would really like to get an answer to this. Devon?

You’ve been waiting for 8 days for something you can find yourself by looking at his post history?

Drastic.8920:

IMO, increasing the supplies will increase the zerg size. Think of it this way:

Strategy:
1. The 20 man group grabs supplies from their BL camps/keeps at max value.

I don’t think it will increase zerg size as aside from guild groups, the rest of the server tends to blob up under a commander already.

Player supply should reset to zero upon entering a WvW map. That it doesn’t is just another feature that exacerbates population issues.

Carrying more supply is an interesting change. I’m not sure how this would affect zerging though. 60-80 man server blobs don’t exist because of supply IMO.

I used to get skill lag in keep fights between 2 sides and I haven’t since the patch. Haven’t been in any 3 way SM fights so can’t comment on those.

Boredom + queues haven’t made T1 destack yet. Will the population really take care of itself?

dagneyandleo.6378:

2) Fair enough, but I’d argue in that type of a population disparity, the quality of the rams would make very little difference. Siege can only hold off a zerg until you can get support… It can’t negate the need for support all together.

This is true to a point. Also veritable is that it’s too easy to quickly flip objectives, and when everything gets flipped people tend to leave the map. There is no reason, IMO, to make sieging easier. Those extra seconds can be the difference between contesting or not.

azizul.8469:

lowering the map cap in the first step towards balance match up.

it is just that ANET is afraid to experiment with that, even after so many of their previous experiments failed anyway.

They have lowered map caps before, as an experiment to reduce server lag.

If I found a Quaggan hiding in a keep, I certainly wouldn’t kill them.

dagneyandleo.6378:

The original complaint was that sup rams are so quick and powerful that they can’t be countered. As an above poster replied, one person with two ticks of treb mastery and a supply trap can stop those rams from being built and quickly kill them if they are. The response to that was that non-blob servers don’t have coverage. My response was that if you don’t have enough coverage to put one person in one tower to counter the rams long enough for the rest of the map to come and help, then superior rams with ram mastery are not the issue.

The guy you replied to wasn’t replying to the treb guy, but I’ll respond because you raise a valid point.

I think the idea here is that with low population you’re often forced to make a choice between continuing to sentry or do something else. This could be defending an objective being attacked, running supply to repair, running supply to build siege. Maybe said objective they were sentrying was breached, and now they are trying to rebuild a treb and they don’t have build mastery. What if there’s no supply in the depot, by the time you run supply that gate could be at 50%.

lordkrall.7241:

Visiroth.5914:

Because the intention is for population to balance itself.

A dynamic cap is the only way for there to be truly balanced matchups. But ANet has already vetoed this idea, so I don’t know what the point of bringing it up over and over is.

But it won’t balance itself.
It will simply make people stop playing.
It is most likely impossible to get every single server to have around the same amount of WvW-players, and as such a dynamic cap will always hurt at least one side.

I never said it would actually work or it was what was best for the game or WvW, was just playing a little Devil’s advocate. I don’t actually think a dynamic cap is a good idea. It sterilizes the gameplay and eliminates a lot of dynamic situations where you defeat a larger group of players in a siege or in the open field.

Not to mention that day by day, hour by hour people on 2 servers will probably get shafted by queues. Server population and coverage will always follow a trend barring mass transfers, but the actual number of people playing will vary.

Snorcha.7586:

MERGE THE LOWER TIER SERVERS… sorry for the caps, but isn’t this the easiest, most obvious fix? -

Not at all? Let’s assume we combine the bottom 6 servers into 3 servers. There’s no guarantee that these servers will be balanced against each other, or against whatever tier they now find themselves in. Population shuffling does nothing to address flaws in core WvW mechanics or the meta. And even if it’s balanced, there’s nothing stopping people from joining or leaving the servers, destroying the equilibrium.

dagneyandleo.6378:

If you have neither population nor coverage in off peak times, then it doesn’t really matter if there are superior rams, normal rams, or one bored warrior with a melee weapon: that door going down. Heck, you can have counter siege and that door will still go down if you have no one to man it. Even t1 ‘blob’ servers lose objectives when they’re not scouted.

No one is complaining about objectives being lost while they aren’t playing. That’s a different issue.

lordkrall.7241:

But a dynamic cap is not really a good solution either.
Why should my server be crippled and unable to play WvW because the server we meet can’t muster enough people?

Because the intention is for population to balance itself.

A dynamic cap is the only way for there to be truly balanced matchups. But ANet has already vetoed this idea, so I don’t know what the point of bringing it up over and over is.

Andrew Clear.1750:

Well, seems like the issue isn’t the revive sickness, or lack of revive sickness. Seems, the problem is killing people, and killing the people raising the people. It happens to every server. Just kill all you can, and kill more.

I’m baffled at how you came to that conclusion. The issue is that they can be revived indefinitely (or at all), there is no punishment for them being bad and being killed over and over.

Atrophied.8725:

Why not kill the people standing there ressing someone? I mean, they can’t use any skills (other than instant cast cantrips/shouts/mantras) while reviving, and can’t heal. What’s the issue? You get to free-cast on them for 5-10 seconds. If you can’t kill someone in that long, then there’s an issue in your playing, not with the ressing mechanic.

It’s not like those people can’t stop ressing, pop buffs, heal, then resume ressing, and repeat as many times as necessary. It’s not like they can’t just stand there in a 60 man zerg on top of a dead body so you can’t even guarantee you’re hitting the 5 revivers. Have you ever played outnumbered? Everyone in the game should be familiar with this.

Andrew Clear.1750:

So, you are saying that the small force should always have the advantage over the large force?

Let’s be real here. This is a core mechanic of the game, and it doesn’t need to be removed because a few people don’t like it. Did you ever consider that those people who died would rather be raised instead of running back?

How does lack of ressing give the smaller force an advantage? It works both ways.

More like the smaller force actually has a chance against a larger force if they can whittle them down. Maybe the people who died should stop dying.

mini.6018:

Chuck Zitto.2367:

Seriously something needs to be done about it. Nothing annoys me more than losing a fully upgraded tower cus a blob showed up and put down 3 or more superior rams and down the gate and cap tower in a minute or so. Now with ram mastery its just kittened how fast even a reinforced gate drops. Maybe the other superior siege can stay but the superior rams got to go or get there dps dropped a lot.

You do remember arrow carts got buffed by like 150% just for you to sit on one and kill those rams right ?

You do remember arrow carts got nerfed by like 75% against siege just for you to sit on one and shoot those rams in vain right ?

Terrahero.9358:

Unfortunaltly most towers and keeps are designed in such a way that Rams are kitten near impossible to properly counter. Something like Cata’s, Trebs and Balista are rarely able to hit Rams, and unhibitively expensive in case of the Treb.

Emphasis mine, what? And trebs are ~2 silver each on the TP. Or you can spend the endless badges you get on them.

Dawdler.8521:

… it already exist in the game. If you kill someone multiple times within a short period they instantly die (ie no downed state). Every time they die they come back with lower and lower HP.

It doesn’t matter if they die instantly when they can be revived instantly.

Khanswrath.1032:

You should never lose out on the capture credit if you’ve tagged a guard or done damage to a wall.

Unless they changed it recently, you don’t get capture credit for destroying a wall.

But the super cap speed of zergs is another bad mechanic that rewards high number of players.

Gudradain.3892:

Visiroth.5914:

Relying on players to destack themselves is a losing proposition. What incentive is there for someone to leave their current server for a lower tier server. And if it happens how do we ensure that the population doesn’t try to stack on a single lower tier server, which has happened many times.

You got the wrong question… The real question is : What incentive is there for someone to leave their current server. It doesn’t matter if they want to leave for a lower or a higher server. Why do they want to leave their server?

If a server start getting a lot of transfer, it will go up in ranking and the transfer will stop. Problem solved. Tier 1 server are staying tier 1 because they get a constant influx of transfer. It’s not skill, it’s transfer.

The question was framed around your suggestion. If we restrict transfers to higher ranked servers then that means you can only move downward. How do we destack the current servers? That is the problem any population shifting solution must address. You are implying that high rank servers will slowly die without transfers, which is a dubious claim as they have strong guild backbones. New players are also free to start on any server they wish.

Ranking up is faster than it used to be, but it is still not an immediate process. Mass transfers to the lowest tier would still take weeks to work up to T2, more than enough time to allow for bandwagoning. The problem of creating a new powerhouse rather than equally distributed population isn’t solved whatsoever.

Nuzt.7894:

I have posted my suggestion, I’ve put up the video to my suggestion and while it may not be what everyone wants it does address all the issues in WvW and doesn’t mess with PPT at all. Sure its not what everyone wants, the suggestion everyone agrees with will never happen. I think my part of his quote was pretty clear, PPT does not make unbalanced matches fun for the server(s) getting steam rolled. PPT is just a number at the top of your screen, it doesn’t make fights more enjoyable, it doesn’t make all sides even, it doesn’t prevent 1-2 servers dominating the actual battles/fun factor. Your entitled to your suggestion I just don’t see how it will fix the real issue, which is the lack of enjoyment that comes with 1-2 servers preventing another server from doing much more then killing yaks do to population.

I’m not trying to be argumentative either, just trying to point out the flaw in tweaking the PPT, which does not change anything when it comes to enjoying your playtime.

I guess some people might enjoy dying every couple minutes to a huge zerg that they cannot pull enough numbers on the map to compete with as long as the score tells them they won.

You keep completely ignoring the effect of morale when criticizing PPT adjustments. Then you make ludicrous “counter-arguments” against them like somehow a handicap would make the losing server into the winning server when no one suggested anything of the sort. This doesn’t strengthen your argument, it weakens it. I don’t think it is any stretch of the imagination to say that a number of people look at the score, see that the gap in total number is absolutely huge, and decide not to enter WvW. Or, they see their server is ticking some some insignificant number and likewise make the same choice. The whole concept is that with a closer score more players would be persuaded to come and play instead of thinking that nothing they do matters or will influence the results of the match.

In any case, PPT is only one part of the puzzle. As mentioned previously:
a) morale
b) power of zergs versus smaller numbers
c) incentives for zerging
are all elements that can be tackled in tandem by ANet without uprooting the entire system which is not likely to happen. Especially given that their current priorities are the GvG map, and the new overflowing map and they’ve made no indication that they’re willing to completely re-design WvW from an architecture level on up.

style.6173:

Wrong. Without touching world population (that would be a convenient name for a collaboration discussion), we are just putting a band aid on the problem. The only solution to keep servers balanced is to separate PvE server from WvW server. This way they can actively manage the cap of players on each server. That will force even numbers.

Without a “World Population” fix or discussion, people will always navigate to the winning server. That’s also the answer to why people bandwagon.

How do you define population? Total players on the server(terrible)? Concurrent users(works only at certain times/days)? “Active” players? What about casuals? How do you count population over the weekend versus throughout the week? How do you account for population at different time zones?

Nuzt.7894:

The people who keep suggesting a handicap system or giving ppt bonuses are not gettingit. The score means nothing if your not having fun, getting steam rolled constantly by far superior numbers to the point where logging off is more enjoyable than playing is what needs to be fixed. Don’t kid yourselves you didn’t win because the ppt was tweaked, you still got your kitten handed to you by 2-5 X the number of players. Would it really make people happy to say " we were spawn camped for 7 days, but we won because the numbers up top said we did".

You are viewing this problem too narrowly. There are many different issues at play here, such as:
1) coverage
2) morale
3) power of zergs versus smaller numbers
4) incentives for zerging

They all combine to create the problems we see. For at least the last 3, the current system can be tweaked without the massive overhaul that some suggest.

Gudradain.3892:

No transfer to a server ranked higher than yours.

All server will have balanced population in a few months and it will stay balanced.

It’s a long term viable solution.

And it’s ultra simple.

Relying on players to destack themselves is a losing proposition. What incentive is there for someone to leave their current server for a lower tier server. And if it happens how do we ensure that the population doesn’t try to stack on a single lower tier server, which has happened many times.

Radakill.3469:

I believe a “variable que” could be a solution to the problems of numbers imbalance. For instance, if team A had a total WvW population of 100, and team B had a population of 150, then team B’s que would drop down to equal team A’s until a balance was achieved.

Basically, the que would reflect the lower populated teams numbers, unless the teams balanced out by a given percentage.

When both teams balance is equal, the que for both teams would then be upped by a set amount, letting players from both sides join, until a mismatch occurred again, bringing up a que for the overbalanced team.

This would of course have to be a universal que for the entire realm, as individual map ques would not solve the problem.

The solution here would solve 2 major global issues:

1st: Players rage quitting WvW due to a feeling of hopelessness. The overall populations of all 3 realms SHOULD increase with the knowledge that victory is possible and any team you play on. Thus, even the team with the advantage in overall numbers would, in the long run, not be penalized by long wait ques as the overall populations on all 3 realms should stabilize over time.

2nd: The desire to transfer to a more populated WvW realm would be lessened knowing that such a transfer would be irrelevant. Realms would no longer experience population balloons due to players desires to move to a guaranteed winner. This method would in fact, encourage players to move to fewer populated areas and thus, decrease wait times to enter WvW.

It won’t stop rage quitting. Routinely, I see a full queued map lose the garrison then almost everyone leaves. The attackers stay to camp/farm though! You also see this when a commander leaves and no one replaces them.

What about the reality of player composition when facing organized guilds? Against a good guild you typically need many more players in order to win via brute force, but it seems impossible with your system as population “imbalance” cannot occur. However, population is not always the same as strength on a map.

Gamadorn.2659:

Maybe we can back off and be thankful they are even acknowledging and responding at all to these issues I know I am thankful!

The game has been out a year and not much has been done to address the issues. ANet’s initial stance was that population was up to the players and would fix itself, but that hasn’t happened. Yes, some of the super stacked servers have broken apart, but only to be replaced by new monsters.

Pertaining to population balance we’ve gotten:
1) a single in-game change, the breakout event
2) WvW Season 1 designed to, presumably, attract more people into WvW.
3) talk about Bloodlust becoming a comeback mechanic, not implemented yet

Maybe #3 will fix some of the underlying mechanics with population imbalance, but I’m willing to bet it will be a conservative change. Bloodlust should have given more stat to losing server and less to winning server on day 1 of its inception. People were asking for these kinds of changes to the Outmanned buff a year ago.

Cactus.2710:

I believe that all these posts suggesting score adjustments based upon population differences totally miss the point … which is that it is not fun to play when you are significantly outnumbered. In my opinion, the ONLY way to fix WvW is to come up with some way to roughly balance populations in a match. Otherwise we will get the situation where, in an extreme example, an undermanned server can keep the score close by mostly capturing camps or killing yaks. That’s not a full spectrum of the WvW experience.

At least on my server, the two issues are related. When we are winning in points, there are more players in WvW and activity across maps. When we are losing in points, participation drops.

I agree that for true balance populations would have to be closer than they are, which means abandoning the server v server model.

earendil.1290:

The real problem is not that servers do not have WvWers – it’s that they stop coming out to fight once it’s clear who will win the matchup.

It’s not that simple. More people stop coming when they are losing than if they are winning. ANet has to implement something that will encourage and allow smaller groups to keep fighting against vastly superior numbers. Siege is not an anti-zerg, because the larger group can build more siege than you, and can get more supply easier. They can also take down your siege with mass AoE.

The entire PPT system tends to favor the world(s) with larger population. Many times maps will be left lightly defended by the winning server while the opposing servers are struggling across 1-2 other maps. So the losing server(s) are either too preoccupied defending what they have or are too demoralized to get offensive on other maps.

It always seemed odd to me that a winning server could abandon their home BL and pretty much just assume that they get full PPT from that map because it’s almost always devoid of any opposing players. IMO empty maps where both enemy servers would be outmanned shouldn’t give full PPT.

What is the point of complaining about this now? After the initial outcry against ascended gear, they put it into the game and are rolling it out in even more slots. Every argument that could possibly have been made has already been made, at this point there’s zero chance that they’re gonna remove it from WvW.

Not to mention that as time goes on it’s been easier and easier to attain ascended gear & make money in WvW.
-ascended amulets or rings require 10 less laurels when purchased with badges
-IIRC monthlies didn’t originally give laurels
-achievement chests give laurels
-alternate method to attain back piece will be added
-WvW masteries make it faster & easier to cap objectives and get gold
-vastly easier to tag things in WvW to get loot
-allowing blueprints to be sold on AH for money, drastic increase in badge droprate
-champion bags
-WvW rankup chests & their improvement

GSTim.8094:

That was 7 months ago. Hope they’ve changed their position.
This is a suggestion.
This feature wouldn’t ruin any of game aspects but will definitely help people. They would queue for less queued map then. And they would also be aware of ETA.

They say it all the time, most recently was this month or last month. Not gonna search for you, but you can find it yourself if you look through ANet responses.

style.6173:

Your mistake is assuming that most people really care about the xp or wxp. I still find it shocking that people complain about zergs. I don’t think the people in this forum are a good representation for this particular topic. No one forces people to zerg. People play the way they want to. You have plenty of people who roam. You have plenty of people who roam as tagless guilds. You also have plenty of people who zerg.

If zerging wasn’t fun, people wouldn’t do it.

If people don’t care about rewards, then why do they “karma train.” Clearly, they are doing it for rewards. Server coverage has also been one of the most heated issues since day 1. Read server coverage as “the enemy has zergs more often than we do.”

You’re conflating the means and the ends. People zerg up for reasons, not necessarily because of fun. For most people, winning is more fun than losing. In order to combat guild groups, you probably need to outnumber them. Hell, in this game, the standard response to defeat is “we need more people” because you can’t really enforce tactical change on a server level. As you said, people play how they want.

Karolis.4261:

Collision detection.

Probably not viable for the same reason that they won’t increase the AoE cap.