Guild Wars 2

Jim Hunter.6821:

I stole this plan from JQ

Phase 2= Wait for Sea

Gaile Gray.6029:

Skritts are back on the job, doing what skritts do. Contract with them at your own risk, of course.

Did they fix the bug where the skritt get stuck in terrain and don’t open the stash?

Chaba.5410:

I’m honestly impressed that people will find something to complain about with this change. It’s a great change and one that has been needed for a long long long long long long time, especially after megaservers destroyed “server community”.

Next, I suppose, it is Anet’s fault that scouts don’t include numbers in their callouts.

Bad guys over there, best scout call.

It’s a good change yes, will just take some time to adapt to.

Xenesis.6389:

Jana.6831:

I usually always use map chat.
Back in the day we’ve had the rule: Team chat for all non offtopic, map chat for all offtopic, I still used map chat for my scoutings – I guess people will get used to it really quick.
And I have never been supressed.

Well good for you, I have, and it’s why many used team instead.

Map and say chat are really frustrating to use sometimes because of suppression

Straegen.2938:

X T D.6458:

It is important, because things have changed, you cannot compare builds and comps years ago to now. They buffed conditions remember, they stack now and do a ton of damage, they also nerfed anti condition duration food by half. Not to mention adding more condition based stats like dire, trailblazers, and vipers.

They nerfed condi duration food on both sides. Condi damage aside from a few tweaks (condi damage passive) is still relatively the same as a year ago. Dire has been in the game 2.5 years long before HoT and Resistance.

Condi clear is extremely strong in zergs and has been since pre-release. Nothing will change as far as comp, GWEN and power will still be dominant.

Food is basically the only way most people can reduce condition duration, while condition duration can still be increased to 100% with the new stats trailblazers and vipers. Lemongrass used to give a -40% reduction in duration, but nothing reduced damage, after it was nerfed, nobody uses it anymore.

Condi damage is not the same as before are you kidding me? Conditions stack now, and the damage can be increased by vulnerability and might stacks. Condi clear can be strong in zergs, but that doesnt mean you are not getting constantly spammed with conditions, to the point where constant cleansing becomes pointless, and so is focusing a large part of your build around it, hence why resistance is so important.

gaspara.4079:

X T D.6458:

BlazeQ.1095:

Think I will give this a little time to adjust to before I shed tears over it. But then again I am not one to shed tears over every little change….

That might actually be what starts to irritate people, because as time goes by they have to keep typing out which map every time, or have someone constantly ask which map if nobody states it in the initial callout. Not to mention the extra clutter in chat, you might be seeing a bunch of stuff in chat that has nothing to do with what is going on in your map. While this might sound like a good change at first, it might end up having the opposite effect over time.

Players will adapt over time.

This will allow scouts to call for help across maps at the cost of specifying the map. Currently the scout would need to either hop maps, thus losing vision to relay further information, whisper a specific person they know is part of a running squad, or use a communication system outside of the game such as server voice comms. None of those are very good solutions.

This will also allow commanders to advertise their squad and voice comms across maps so that more people will get in voice comms.

The thing that needs to be fixed is people using team chat to have irrelevant conversations because that is players causing a problem and not ANets fault.

Those are good points, having to leave a map to make a call was really annoying.

BlazeQ.1095:

Think I will give this a little time to adjust to before I shed tears over it. But then again I am not one to shed tears over every little change….

That might actually be what starts to irritate people, because as time goes by they have to keep typing out which map every time, or have someone constantly ask which map if nobody states it in the initial callout. Not to mention the extra clutter in chat, you might be seeing a bunch of stuff in chat that has nothing to do with what is going on in your map. While this might sound like a good change at first, it might end up having the opposite effect over time.

Dawdler.8521:

X T D.6458:

Resistance is too important for wvw

It is?

How on earth did we even play WvW a couple of years ago when resisance didnt exist?

Most if not all WvW power creep due to HoT comes from power builds, especially in zergs. The classes that are strong with condi now (thieves and mesmers most notable) havent changed much except for dire gear which I would be happy to see deleted along with a nerf to resistance.

It is important, because things have changed, you cannot compare builds and comps years ago to now. They buffed conditions remember, they stack now and do a ton of damage, they also nerfed anti condition duration food by half. Not to mention adding more condition based stats like dire, trailblazers, and vipers.

The sheer amount of conditions that can be spammed constantly make resistance necessary because there becomes a point where cleanses seem almost pointless and the focus shifts to negating the effects of conditions rather then trying to remove them constantly which simply cannot be done. Not to mention how they buffed siege as well.

The recent buff to stability, resistance, and durability runes allow groups to stop the pirateship bs that was plaguing wvw.

This is an ongoing bug, it happens randomly because presence of the keep for whatever reason is not getting applied properly. This has nothing to do with waypoints, it is a random bug with individual keeps, you can try porting to another keep with the buff and see if it works. This usually happens to me when I am supplying my toons before a reset, garrison is bugged, but bay or hills works.

Don’t need to nerf or change resistance, they just need to put an actual cap on duration and source stacking on boons so they cant be stacked to a ridiculous amount regardless of where the boon is coming from.

Resistance is too important for wvw because of how unbalanced conditions are. Considering its a boon that can be removed, if you make it an effect you remove that option, and since it doesn’t actually remove conditions, and the fact that only 4 professions can actually apply resistance on demand, only 3 of them can apply to allies, and only one of them can actually apply it reliably and consistently.

It says a New Build is available and guild functionality has been disabled, I restarted the client but didn’t see anything download, I also tried unrepping and re-repping.

Cough…Palawa Joko…Cough…

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

SkyShroud.2865:

Even if you nerf boonshare, you still have herald for conditions thingy, no?

It depends on how/what/if they change. A revenant in mallyx stance can basically pop the f2 skill Facet of Nature and pulse 50% boon duration for themselves and allies and spam resistance with Pain Absorption. Combine that with the extra 15% from the Herald Trait Envoy of Sustenance and 20% from Durability Runes, that’s already 85% personal boon duration and can be easily maxed out with food and/or utility. Facet of nature is something that needs to be changed in my opinion, because it is just to powerful for a passive buff.

I would suggest lowering the boon duration that it applies to allies to around 20%, and putting a slightly longer cool down on the passive boons on other facets, maybe 4 or 5 seconds between pulses rather then the current 3 seconds. This would help bring it more in line while still leaving it useful.

Exciton.8942:

X T D.6458:

Exciton.8942:

Resistance sharing is stupid and should be nerfed. It is a strong boon that should be mostly limited to self-applying.

The durability rune 4th bonus should be changed so that the defensive boons are applied to the equipper himself instead of to the whole party.

I would also like to see the mesmer glamour trait changed to additional boon ripping rather than applying resistance to allies.

Resistance is necessary with the current state of conditions and siege, there is no way around it. Limiting it to personal use means you would have to give more access to other professions, currently it is not really possible for most classes to get a use out of it unless applied by another.

Changing durability runes boons to only be self applied would have to go along with increased time on those boons, because currently it is to short to justify that kind of nerf. Durability is basically the only good defensive rune we can use in wvw, unless you run a gimmick gvg build and use mercy runes.

You need to consider balance for defense vs offense. I had a look at certain recent gvg and it takes so long for anyone to die. I would say in current meta, defense is too strong.

You never had durability rune before HoT and ppl were fine with other condition reduction runes and food. I don’t see why it can’t be so in current meta where condition cleanse from a lot professions are abundant.

There were a lot of changes Post hot with conditions, siege, and power creep. Elite specs have added to this in some way, although many legacy builds are still very good, especially for gvg. If you are looking at a gvg to get a decent picture of the current wvw scene, its not really the best way to go because they purposefully build defensively, they are not running glass cannons. They run very tight coordinated builds and have to sustain and rez constantly, because if everyone dies, they lose the gvg.

Yes conditions are ridiculously out of control in wvw and pvp because they are not properly and separately balanced from pve.

Condition damage relies on only one stat to boost its damage, leaving a lot more room for build diversity, whereas power builds basically need 3 stats. Conditions hit through invulnerability. Several conditions also have secondary effects like cripple, chill, immobilize, fear, vulnerability, poison, slow, taunt, blind, weakness. There are just too many kitten conditions that can be tossed around and spammed, and there is just not enough cleanse to deal with it. What good is a cleanse skill that can remove 1 or 2 random conditions with a 20s cooldown when you can be constantly spammed with a bunch of conditions that do thousands of damage per second. Conditions can also be extended in duration and stacked. Also there are very few options to mitigate actual condition damage, whereas there is protection and invulnerability to negate or mitigate power based damage.

Exciton.8942:

Resistance sharing is stupid and should be nerfed. It is a strong boon that should be mostly limited to self-applying.

The durability rune 4th bonus should be changed so that the defensive boons are applied to the equipper himself instead of to the whole party.

I would also like to see the mesmer glamour trait changed to additional boon ripping rather than applying resistance to allies.

Resistance is necessary with the current state of conditions and siege, there is no way around it. Limiting it to personal use means you would have to give more access to other professions, currently it is not really possible for most classes to get a use out of it unless applied by another.

Changing durability runes boons to only be self applied would have to go along with increased time on those boons, because currently it is to short to justify that kind of nerf. Durability is basically the only good defensive rune we can use in wvw, unless you run a gimmick gvg build and use mercy runes.

If this feature was to win out, which doesn’t currently look like it will reach the required super majority, can you at least disable the repairing of golems.

Ok little confused here, this thread is on server linking…what is all this nonsense about alliances and battle groups, and if I am not mistaken weren’t all these rumors shot down as not true by a dev months ago when they were first supposedly leaked?

Zenith.6403:

Taking…plans? What are you talking about?

Would assume he means ts/comms addresses, commander info, group strategies etc basically any info you might expect from server spies, that can later be used against a former host server.

This is a legitimate concern, because you want to make your partnered server feel welcome and work with them, but at the same time you know its only temporary, and in two months, you could end up facing them, which can also cause some people to feel uncomfortable playing with those on linked servers.

Gift of battle HA

There are/were some items exclusive to WvW, but it has never been about rewards or loot. It can never be on par with PvE in terms of gold gain, rewards, etc because PvE is just so much larger in every way and has a larger playerbase. You do WvW for fun, because you enjoy it.

We will have to see what, if any changes they make and go from there. If I had to guess, any new meta, assuming a strong nerf of boonsharing/stacking, will involve a mix of builds with more emphasis on passive healing bursts from traits for sustain. Could likely see more healing power in builds.

Exciton.8942:

I agree some restriction should be imposed on frequent server hopping.
I am tired of the excuse of that they need to play with friends.
Why can’t you and your friends just settle on one server for some time?

Who are you to decide where someone plays? Why should someone be forced to stay somewhere they are not happy playing. Should we also decide what profession people are allowed to bring to wvw because of how useful it can be?

Taking away options from players is never a good idea. Rather, they should focus on fixing the issues that promote constant server transferring, mainly server instability.

Guys I appreciate your input, but please try to stay on topic. The subject of tiers is not the main focus of the suggestion, its just a part of it.

And Diku you know we love you

Caedmon.6798:

Bandwagoning is and always will be the issue unless anet ups the cost alot for transfering.

Transfer needs to be 2k gems,it shouldn;t be something you can do every week.

Do you really believe players want to constantly move servers? Do you really think people find that fun? They do it primarily because server instability causes a lackluster playing environment, so they leave to a more active server. Since linking can cause so much instability, this effect will continue happening.

The focus should not be on taking away player’s choice and freedom, that never works out well. The focus should be on taking away the incentive to constantly shift servers. Unnecessary restrictions on where a player can go will just damage the game mode. Players move for a variety of reasons and it their right to do so. Servers also need to constantly recruit new players to stay competitive. Locking people somewhere they don’t want to be is just a terrible idea and will do so much harm.

Lower linking reevaluation to 1 month and unlink top servers, that’s how you disincentive constant bandwagoning and server stacking, and help server stability. Will fix all the problems completely, of course not, nothing will, but you cant just say we need to go to extremes just because other solutions people have suggested wont completely solve the issue.

Zelulose.8695:

That is good I wish more skills would miss if you didn’t use them right. (Except from tiny land bumps causing obstruction of course) Tip. Don’t use these skills right before someone stealths or at the edge (not outside) range limit because if they move further by time it activates it may cause issues.

I think you misunderstood, I am not talking about proper timing, or using skills properly. I am talking about the skills not functioning properly, for example unrelenting assault which goes through the ground can often get you stuck in terrain and cause you to miss attacks. Sometimes it will complete the chain, you can see your character going through the entire motion, but it wont inflict any damage.

I think some people are taking the 5th tier suggestion the wrong way. Reestablishing the fifth tier, which is one of the suggestions the other being keeping it a four tier system, is to keep the lower tiers balanced in terms of links so there would not be anymore tri/quad server messes like we had before. If there was a fifth tier, then tiers 3/4/5 can be 2v2v2, if we keep the 4tier system then tiers 3/4 can be 3v3v3, this would be done by unlinking tiers 1 and two (which is also something Tyler hinted at awhile back). The other part of my suggestion would be to have the relinking evaluation schedule set to 1 month in order to provide faster adjustments to matchups this would help compensate for glicko which can take a long time to adjust matchups.

A couple of months ago, I was in TS during a raid and a WvW dev was with us in our channel, wont say who, but they were really cool and didn’t mind answering questions. I think it was during one of the tournaments, I might be mistaken, when they had the adopt-a-dev program where they would join guilds and communicate more personally with players. They are not all repping the anet guild 100% of the time, some actually do belong to other guilds and do talk with players.

Johje Holan.4607:

It would actually work for EU even better than NA I think.

In fact something similar was suggested awhile ago. So are you proposing to create an impenetrable wall between T2 and T3?

Also what if one of the high tier servers needs a link to be competitive at the top? What if one of the bottom tiers servers gets bandwagons to? What if 2v2v2 doesn’t produce good matches? As mentioned above Anet balances by population not number of tiers.

No it wouldn’t be impenetrable at all, if the relinking reevaluation was also done on a one month basis as I suggested it would also result in better matchups, because the linkings could be changed much more quickly rather then having to wait 2 months. A server at the top doesnt need a link to be competitive this is my whole point. The link is only a temporary boost, because eventually that link will be removed and that winning server will start losing and drop, the link is only a short term boost. As long as the server is not full it can recruit people.

If the 2v2v2 doesnt produce good matchups, it can be changed a lot faster with a one month linking schedule.

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

X T D.6458:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

ArenaNet balances by server and not by Tier. They use data and analyze actual numbers to determine proper links. It’s not as simple as all the lower tier servers get a link and all the higher tier servers do not. If they took this approach it wouldn’t prove to be beneficial at all. Considering people play where they want to play, every 2 months ArenaNet forces people to move and they always move to the tier they wanted to be in in the first place. Also, as I said BG doesn’t have a link. What incentive does BG have to destack?

ArenaNet also recently released a statement saying the issue with having a 1 month cycle.

I think you just seem to be focusing on one server and not looking at the larger picture, the instability this creates for upper tiers as I know you have seen in your server as well is clear to everyone. I am pretty sure I have read in other threads that you do not like the linking system and prefer the old style, would this not basically revert the upper tiers to the older system, while helping the lower tiers with the population problem which is the whole point of linking, not to mention discouraging stacking and bandwagoning? Instead of having a random and constant cycle of rise and fall each linking, why not try something a little more stable?

I’m not just focused on one server. But from where I’m sitting BG has no incentive to balance or move off their respective server to create balance. Because they don’t utilize a link for their coverage. So in fact, unlinking the higher tiers would do nothing but give BG consistent wins. Are you hoping that BG would then get bored and spread to other servers to create balance?

Each linking is going to produce the same results, imbalance, stacking, and instability as I explained above. If you were fine with the system before linking, why wouldn’t you be fine with essentially the same thing as I proposed. If you get a link and rise up, you will eventually lose the link, lose coverage and numbers and drop, it only produces short term gains for upper tier servers it is not a long term solution. One linking your server will see a rise in numbers, and the next linking, another server will rise and fall same as yours.

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

ArenaNet balances by server and not by Tier. They use data and analyze actual numbers to determine proper links. It’s not as simple as all the lower tier servers get a link and all the higher tier servers do not. If they took this approach it wouldn’t prove to be beneficial at all. Considering people play where they want to play, every 2 months ArenaNet forces people to move and they always move to the tier they wanted to be in in the first place. Also, as I said BG doesn’t have a link. What incentive does BG have to destack?

ArenaNet also recently released a statement saying the issue with having a 1 month cycle.

I think you just seem to be focusing on one server and not looking at the larger picture, the instability this creates for upper tiers as I know you have seen in your server as well is clear to everyone. I am pretty sure I have read in other threads that you do not like the linking system and prefer the old style, would this not basically revert the upper tiers to the older system, while helping the lower tiers with the population problem which is the whole point of linking, not to mention discouraging stacking and bandwagoning? Instead of having a random and constant cycle of rise and fall each linking, why not try something a little more stable?

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

How will this help unstack BG When BG doesn’t have a link.
How will this help unstack MAG, when MAG is open
As it stands, it appears every server needs a link except 2 servers.
The games population isn’t big enough for 5 tiers and 15 servers.

I believe they should just perma merge servers and be done with it.

The current 2 month linking schedule encourages stacking on a new server each time, basically a new flavor of the month type of thing. The lower cost of transferring to a linked server adds to this effect, so we will basically see people constantly shifting from one server to another each linking. If you remove the links from the top 2 tiers you remove that incentive and encourage players to look at other options instead of just automatically stacking to a upper tier server.

Linking is an interesting idea in theory, however it needs to be implemented properly. Adding a tier 8 world to a tier 1 world adds very little in terms of population, you can have that temporary surge of population because of transfers to the linked server thus causing a the rise and fall that we have been seeing. It just causes to much instability for upper tiers. This especially becomes true when a server that was rising up loses its link and then begins to decline, it is not a stable system for upper tiers because you never know if you will get/lose a link.

Linking can be beneficial though for lower tiers to help boost their populations if you add 2 or 3 worlds together and instead of having an imbalanced matchups like the last linking where it was 4v3v2 for example, just allow it to be 2v2v2 or 3v3v3. Allow linkings to do the most good where it can, the lower tiers.

This is mainly for NA. I posted this in another thread, but wanted to see if others thought this would be a good idea, and add their own ideas and suggestions.

The idea is simple for NA, basically unlink tier 1 and tier 2 servers, create a fifth tier and allow tiers 3/4/5 to each have a 2v2v2 matchup. And reduce each linking schedule to one month, it doesn’t necessarily mean each linking has to change each time, but would just be reevaluated each month instead of the current 2 months. This could potentially help encourage players to destack the top servers and help populate the lower tiers, while also discouraging bandwagoning.

Another option would be to keep the 4 tier structure, but make tiers three and four 3v3v3 matchups.

Thoughts, ideas, suggestions?

PvP is not a 24/7 constant competitive game mode involving hundreds of players and multiple servers like WvW. PvP is random 5v5 matches that lasts minutes. WvW is heavily dependent on a sustainable population. And unlike in WvW, in PvP your basically just playing for personal advancement.

I have recently started playing my revenant more often and while it is a fun class, I really wish you could change the way some skills work so they could function more properly and not miss when they should be hitting. Sometimes it is just slight terrain/height differences that can causes the skills to miss, or even standing next to a wall that cause the skills to completely miss without causing any damage.

Some problem skills are:

*Unrelenting assault
*Temporal rift
*Coalescence of Ruin-Also causes a lot of issues in WvW, as it can sometimes hit through gates and walls.
*Phase Smash-Sometimes causes a visual glitch where it looks like your character is stuck midflight

SniffyCube.6107:

X T D.6458:

Boon sharing/stacking is fine as a strategy because it involves certain builds and group comps, the problem is the current state where groups can stack up a ridiculous amount of each boon and have them up permanently, leaving little counter play because even with boon stripping/conversion they can just be reapplied to easily. It just needs to be toned down and brought into line, not totally eliminated as a tactic.

imho just quickness nerf of a 5-6 second hard cap would mean more coordination instead of prebuffing

Quickness definitely should never be allowed to be stacked anywhere near a minute or even close to that, that is absolutely ridiculous.

Boon sharing/stacking is fine as a strategy because it involves certain builds and group comps, the problem is the current state where groups can stack up a ridiculous amount of each boon and have them up permanently, leaving little counter play because even with boon stripping/conversion they can just be reapplied to easily. It just needs to be toned down and brought into line, not totally eliminated as a tactic.

This is something that has been brought up numerous times, and there are many problems that prevent gliding from being implemented in wvw.

-The maps would need to be redesigned and have no fly zones around all towers and keeps to prevent people from being able to fly in and out, which would close off a lot of space that players could fly in.
-Gliding would have to be disabled in combat so you cant just fly off during fights.
-The desert bl and other maps are still available to non-hot owners, who do not have access to gliders. Would there be a gliding wxp track, skins, gliding skills, etc. It just creates more issues.
-If a player is already in midflight, they can only be attacked by ranged skills, which is unfair to melee players.
-Basically gliding would only be usable in the spawn area, leaving it essentially useless in the rest of the map.
-And as many have already stated, the developers time and resources are better spent on more important projects.

A better option for the dbl in my opinion is possibly to add a fall damage reduction buff to bloodlust/monuments that would take effect for all players on the server that own the buff.

People need to remember that damage is not just about numbers, there are many factors involved that contribute to a skill being useful in a given situation. You have to consider these factors, line of sight, terrain, target selection requirement, facing target requirement, area of effect, combo fields, etc.

A ranger in a zerg will likely use a longbow, the skills require target selection and facing the target in order for the skills to go work properly, which can put the ranger at a great disadvantage when an enemy gets up close. A necromancer on the other hand with a staff can free cast marks and wells because there are no target requirements, they are also aoe and some have combo effects.

These are important things to consider when evaluating how useful a profession or build is for wvw, because of the constant movement and positioning for better terrain advantage. It’s a war of strategy not just mindless blobbing and skill spamming.

Xenesis.6389:

X T D.6458:

Can you people please stop with the double teaming talk, it is so incredibly absurd, biased and shortsighted to even suggest that scoring be changed so as to encourage this. You do understand it can work against your server as well, and then you same people will be back on here complaining about how anet killed wvw because your server is being double teamed all week. Just seriously stop.

Hi, Hello, It’s a 3 sided game, there’s always a double team. You just don’t hear about it every minute of the match because the front lines change so often. When you do hear about it’s usually the losing team giving up all their space to the other two heavily fighting for their points, as in k-training their entire borderland, and nothing can be done until a commander shows up to gather up numbers, or wait it out until the trainers leave.

Really the only time the double team happened big time was when BG managed to get double teamed by JQ/TC that actually lasted for more than 5 mins during a season. Which by the way is a good example of what can happen if you pit the 2nd and 3rd teams against the 1st team.

---

I had a really long post typed up, but let me put this as short as possible.
Team games award a win/loss record, sometimes they do points so 2-3 points for a win, 1-2 points for tie, 0 for a loss. So we really should be scoring this 2-0-0.

Team games are based on even sides, with skill, strategy, and team play getting you the wins, in wvw we’re just awarding points for coverage. Hi thanks for showing up you get 3 gold points for buying poeple, you there get 2 silver points for managing to hold on to your people, and you over there get 1 bronze out of pity.

As mentioned the double team is always in effect, so essentially it’s still a 2 sided fight with 1 random side swaying back and forth. So award it, 2 points for the win, 1 point for the try, 1 point for the king maker.

There is a difference between Map politics, and organized weeklong double teaming. Nobody likes it, everyone complains about it, and yet some people think the scoring system should be changed to reward this playstyle so we always have 2 servers focusing 1 server. Like I said, some people dont seem to understand IT CAN HAPPEN TO YOUR SERVER to, and then you are going to be the same people back on here complaining to anet to do something because wvw is dead. Just stop with this ridiculousness.

What about removing links from tier 1 and tier 2 servers, and only linking servers that are in tier 3/4 and possibly creating a fifth tier. This would make it harder to just bandwagon up to upper tiers because of the lower prices for linked servers every relinking.

I would suggest there be 2 servers linked together for a total of 6 servers each for t3/t4/t5 (for NA), no more tri/quad server messes. Keep tier 1 and tier 2 unlinked. I think this would be a much more balanced approach and would give players more choice when trying to find a tier that suits their playstyle.

They are not planning tournaments because it caused a ton of player burnout which resulted in a permanent drop off in player levels and activity in WvW. The current state of wvw is not suitable for tournaments, at least not the way they were done back then. There is to much instability to handle tournaments. While it might have been good for some servers, it destroyed others.

I was on SoR for all 3 tournaments, and each time it was devastating to the server, many people got burned out, and there was an exodus after each tournament destroying the servers wvw population until we fell all the way to the bottom. Personally, after the first tournament I got so burned out, I didn’t even step foot in wvw for a few months, before the tournament I was almost living in wvw, that was all I did.

How would 1 up 1 down affect servers that place second in a matchup. I kind of feel that such a system could greatly increase the potential of burnout for players creating an even bigger rift between those that just want to find fights finding it harder and harder because servers will become almost entirely focused on grinding PPT. For all the faults of glicko, and there are many, it can sometimes give a little breathing room for servers.

Can you people please stop with the double teaming talk, it is so incredibly absurd, biased and shortsighted to even suggest that scoring be changed so as to encourage this. You do understand it can work against your server as well, and then you same people will be back on here complaining about how anet killed wvw because your server is being double teamed all week. Just seriously stop.

McKenna Berdrow.2759:

Changing the number of Victory Points (VP) awarded for Skirmish placement is something we are considering. So far we’ve intentionally held off changing the live values (3/2/1), to avoid altering too many variables at once. First, we wanted to see how, if at all, WvW play patterns would evolve just with the addition of Skirmish scoring, before making any further iterations on specific VP values. That said, internally, we’ve been graphing-out current match results, using various sets of adjusted VP scoring to see how, if at all, existing match results would change when scored using updated values. We have also been investigating if adding something like a time-of-day or population-based scoring multiplier would have any noticeable impact on match results. For those interested, so far it hasn’t. Worlds who have been winning are still winning even if we added the time-of-day multiplier, but we will continue to evaluate if it will make a difference.

Time of day score calculations kind of defeat the purpose of skirmishes in the first place and would be counterproductive. It is not fair to add more weight or diminish the significance of players contributions simply because they play during a certain timezone. The nice thing about skirmishes is that it equalizes all time zones in regards to scoring, changing it to be based on time of day just flat out contradicts that.

Population based scoring would be easily manipulated and just encourage people to not play on maps, not to spread out, and all basically stack on one map, again basically contradicting the way skirmishes are affecting play styles. Coverage is an entirely different problem which is causing those issues you and others have mentioned, scoring changes need to be kept separate. Sometimes it is better to keep things simple.

Honestly one of the biggest factors affecting matchups is that there is no reason to win, aside from keeping your servers place in a tier, but many people simply don’t really care about that anymore because of world linking and the increased glicko volatility. Many players simply dont care enough about grinding ppt and getting nothing out of it, especially when there is a really good chance they might be thrown into an unbalanced matchup the following week where either they are outnumbered all week or they are matched against 2 weaker servers.

You can see the increased activity levels and players putting in overtime when they wanted to rise up in tiers, can see this with Maguuma currently, we saw this with TC, YB, JQ, and TC. But aside from that, without any proper reward structure for server placement many will not put in the effort to grind ppt when it could actually negatively effect their server because of glicko.

Liston.9708:

X T D.6458:

Hesacon.8735:

X T D.6458:

Gunner Morton.8340:

I thought this system was supposed to nerf nightcapping. On Gunnars Hold I don’t see a difference compared to before, scores still run away with an utterly large gap.

Then again that might be due to the horrible server linking you guys come up with: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/What-happend-to-Gunnar-s-Hold/

Nightcapping happens because of coverage gaps. The need for coverage is still there. Skirmishes changed the scoring system so a server could not simply gain 50k points over one night and end the matchup in one day. Now, even if your server ticks 0 for 2 hours you still get a victory point. It equalizes the scoring for all timezones. Coverage and scoring are not the same issues.

I agree.

This is a great change because it minimizes damage during bad coverage times. Even if you get totally blown out during a certain time slot, you can make up the difference during the next one.

In T3 a lot of skirmishes are really close until the end, being off by as few as 20-50 points. That’s the sort of difference in score that provides urgency to defend something or go attack something, when that couple more PPK or that one camp can’t decide the difference between 1st and 2nd or 2nd and 3rd.

At no other time in wvw’s history has flipping a camp been able to provide as much of a difference in the entire matchup as with this skirmish system. Pushing your server up that one level gives a point that can matter in the final tally.

I think it’s a great change, and the 2 hours is about as long as I can play in one sitting, so it works out really well.

Absolutely, one skirmish last night ended with something like 12 points between us and Maguuma, was exciting to watch lol. It does put more emphasis on prioritizing so you can maximize points during a skirmish. PPK actually becomes important now and can tip the scales of a skirmish because those points matter more in the short skirmishes, 100 kills for example gives 200 points which can be huge in a skirmish.

for the third server, this system is a means of having some control in a match winner as well. Even if you can’t win, you might be able to steal some 2nd places from a server that ends up with the third server winning the week.

I wasn’t sure skirmishes would accomplish much at first, but I do like them now that I have seen them…..

I’ve noticed that as well, its been interesting watching YB this week kind of playing the spoiler/ninja role coming in out of nowhere to take 2nd place in a skirmish. I think the heavy PPT focus of skirmishes will work out good for servers like YB.

Hesacon.8735:

X T D.6458:

Gunner Morton.8340:

I thought this system was supposed to nerf nightcapping. On Gunnars Hold I don’t see a difference compared to before, scores still run away with an utterly large gap.

Then again that might be due to the horrible server linking you guys come up with: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/What-happend-to-Gunnar-s-Hold/

Nightcapping happens because of coverage gaps. The need for coverage is still there. Skirmishes changed the scoring system so a server could not simply gain 50k points over one night and end the matchup in one day. Now, even if your server ticks 0 for 2 hours you still get a victory point. It equalizes the scoring for all timezones. Coverage and scoring are not the same issues.

I agree.

This is a great change because it minimizes damage during bad coverage times. Even if you get totally blown out during a certain time slot, you can make up the difference during the next one.

In T3 a lot of skirmishes are really close until the end, being off by as few as 20-50 points. That’s the sort of difference in score that provides urgency to defend something or go attack something, when that couple more PPK or that one camp can’t decide the difference between 1st and 2nd or 2nd and 3rd.

At no other time in wvw’s history has flipping a camp been able to provide as much of a difference in the entire matchup as with this skirmish system. Pushing your server up that one level gives a point that can matter in the final tally.

I think it’s a great change, and the 2 hours is about as long as I can play in one sitting, so it works out really well.

Absolutely, one skirmish last night ended with something like 12 points between us and Maguuma, was exciting to watch lol. It does put more emphasis on prioritizing so you can maximize points during a skirmish. PPK actually becomes important now and can tip the scales of a skirmish because those points matter more in the short skirmishes, 100 kills for example gives 200 points which can be huge in a skirmish.

Gunner Morton.8340:

I thought this system was supposed to nerf nightcapping. On Gunnars Hold I don’t see a difference compared to before, scores still run away with an utterly large gap.

Then again that might be due to the horrible server linking you guys come up with: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/What-happend-to-Gunnar-s-Hold/

Nightcapping happens because of coverage gaps. The need for coverage is still there. Skirmishes changed the scoring system so a server could not simply gain 50k points over one night and end the matchup in one day. Now, even if your server ticks 0 for 2 hours you still get a victory point. It equalizes the scoring for all timezones. Coverage and scoring are not the same issues.

I like that it equalizes all timezones. in terms of scoring and that every server can get a victory point each skirmish. I would like to try a longer skirmish though and see how that goes, maybe 3 or 4 hours, and perhaps change the number and/or way the points are awarded because it seems too standardized with the 3/2/1 model, if a server wins a skirmish by 1 or 5000 points the points awarded is the same, which is a good and bad thing. Also some small reward for servers at the end of the week would be great, nothing fancy maybe some reward track potions, badges, proofs, etc. Overall its a great improvement.