Guild Wars 2

Skynet.7201:

X T D.6458:

zhonnika.1784:

If the goal was to make it so that T1 NA wasn’t linked, they should have unlinked DB tonight, and tossed their link onto YB or something. Then it would have made sense.

That is one of the problems with this current linking structure, it did not create any equal starting point for servers like the first one did when all servers were linked. Any problems that occured afterwards regarding stacking was caused by players, but that can happen anytime on any server. The current system created a massive inequality in matchups from the start, and they clearly did not take into account how any changes with servers rising or dropping tiers would affect matchups. They also have not given any information about any possible mid linking adjustments for such matchup changes, using DB and YB as the current example.

After being in T1 for so long (prior to the linking stuff that is), no one ever really complained about the matchups being stale. The fights were good, we were all in a love-hate relationship, etc.

It seems as though at least one T2 server will be popping in and out of T1, depending on the “rng” (or wherever the darts land, as someone said earlier).

And T4 is like… whoa.

I really still feel like some of the super low pop servers should have been closed and the people given free transfers.

And some lag adjustments. That’s just my $.02 copper, though. :p

The lag…good lord it has been almost unplayable to totally unplayable lately. It feels like they raised the map cap but I dont know for sure. Yea t4 looks like a clusterkitten, idk what they were thinking there. Tier 1 in NA is used to having the same matchups for a really long time, we’re talking over a year with the same servers so a lot of people have felt it has been stale and wanted to see some new opponents. Personally I am very happy to have DB in Tier 1 with us. My issue is with how anet mismanaged the mechanics of the current linkings. Hopefully the next one is done better.

Chaba.5410:

You guys got this all wrong. Anet can’t predict when a server population is going to tank (YB) or transfer off or fairweather. You’re trying to ascribe to Anet something that is completely within the realm of players, guilds, and how well server communities organize themselves. Anet is making links only every two months based off that server’s data every two months.

That was my point with anet not creating an equal starting point with the current linkings, this left no room for them to make adjustments and any changes like we have now would just create more unbalance matchups. Regardless of whether or not the scores are close or not, the matchups are not started on an equal footing like in the first linking where every server was partnered up. This is what is anet responsible for along with applying the same rules across the board regarding transfers, population etc. Player actions determine things like stacking and such, and again that can happen anytime on any server, this has always happened, because any server can be the flavor of the month.

Yes nothing is more rude then popping a unicorn, llama, or quaagan over someones body after stabbing them repeatedly…For shame!

zhonnika.1784:

If the goal was to make it so that T1 NA wasn’t linked, they should have unlinked DB tonight, and tossed their link onto YB or something. Then it would have made sense.

That is one of the problems with this current linking structure, it did not create any equal starting point for servers like the first one did when all servers were linked. Any problems that occured afterwards regarding stacking was caused by players, but that can happen anytime on any server. The current system created a massive inequality in matchups from the start, and they clearly did not take into account how any changes with servers rising or dropping tiers would affect matchups. They also have not given any information about any possible mid linking adjustments for such matchup changes, using DB and YB as the current example.

Poorly thought out linkings and lack of anticipation as to how the new linkings would affect match ups. The artificial lock downs just made the situation even more unbalanced. Basically everyone is stuck until the new linkings, DB is open for some reason with a linked server against 2 closed unlinked servers. TC for some reason was open after the new linking allowing them to get a lot of new transfers, and YB which dropped after the linking is now unlinked and matched against 2 linked servers including JQ which for some reason is also open.

Anet basically screwed up badly, instead of changing the mechanics to produce better matchups, they screwed up every tier. GG anet.

Josh XT.6053:

X T D.6458:

Xenesis.6389:

casantis.3106:

It does not matter if the guilds can´t join a full server, but at least to a guild already in a server let the players join (to play with my friends). This system has flaws but i think is a good idea.

Invite random guy.
Random guy transfers to BG.
Random guy leaves guild.
+1 to BG population.
Repeat until bandwagon complete.

No gold or gems to move when you’ve been on BG for how long now? ok stop buying wings off the gem store?.

To the guys crying about losing members due to the links, you kitten well knew the link wasn’t permanent, if you cross server recruited that’s a risk you take. Every server except BG has been taken off full at some point already since the links happened. If you plan on moving prepare your gems.

The only servers that have this problem with players locked is all the current/former t1 servers, the 20 other servers don’t care, they’ve been losing guilds to your recruitment efforts for the last 3 years, no sympathy.

You seem a little confused. The issue is not that people did not know the links were not permanent. The issue is that since all the hosts server were artificially locked when linking was introduced, the only way to play with that server was to transfer to the linked server. Therefore there were people who were in guilds that were ready to keep moving to linked servers until a host opened up. The problem is that with the second relinking, all tier one servers were unlinked and BG was kept full meaning that all those players on ET that transferred to play with us were locked out with no way to get on the server. Whether or not any of you like or hate BG is completely irrelevant, this is about people wanting to play on the server they choose with their friends and guilds, and instead were locked out with no advance notice whatsoever.

Hey don’t get me wrong, I loved my time on Blackgate when I was there. But I don’t think they should be allowed to stack any more from my experience of actually being ON the server, not being against them. In fact, I haven’t been AGAINST BG since the last WvW seasons when I was on Maguuma.

The reason I left Blackgate was the massive queues every day about a month after the linking happened with ET. I am sorry that I can’t really feel bad for guilds on BG that want more people over, its already full and its full for a reason.

If a server is full through normal means, that’s fine and all. The biggest issue I have with the relinking is that there was no word given in advance about how the linkings would change (tier 1 unlinked, t4 quad server etc etc) which made it harder for some to adjust, specifically guilds for us, and other host servers like JQ that were artificially locked. It seems like a little to much micromanagement from anet. It should not be a hard concept for people to comprehend that people in the same guild want to play together and not be subjected to silly game restrictions and server politics. People want to have fun together, simple as that.

Xenesis.6389:

casantis.3106:

It does not matter if the guilds can´t join a full server, but at least to a guild already in a server let the players join (to play with my friends). This system has flaws but i think is a good idea.

Invite random guy.
Random guy transfers to BG.
Random guy leaves guild.
+1 to BG population.
Repeat until bandwagon complete.

No gold or gems to move when you’ve been on BG for how long now? ok stop buying wings off the gem store?.

To the guys crying about losing members due to the links, you kitten well knew the link wasn’t permanent, if you cross server recruited that’s a risk you take. Every server except BG has been taken off full at some point already since the links happened. If you plan on moving prepare your gems.

The only servers that have this problem with players locked is all the current/former t1 servers, the 20 other servers don’t care, they’ve been losing guilds to your recruitment efforts for the last 3 years, no sympathy.

You seem a little confused. The issue is not that people did not know the links were not permanent. The issue is that since all the hosts server were artificially locked when linking was introduced, the only way to play with that server was to transfer to the linked server. Therefore there were people who were in guilds that were ready to keep moving to linked servers until a host opened up. The problem is that with the second relinking, all tier one servers were unlinked and BG was kept full meaning that all those players on ET that transferred to play with us were locked out with no way to get on the server. Whether or not any of you like or hate BG is completely irrelevant, this is about people wanting to play on the server they choose with their friends and guilds, and instead were locked out with no advance notice whatsoever.

Many guilds had their players cut off because of t1 servers getting unlinked and with BG going full. If this was something that was announced in advance ok thats one thing, however it happened suddenly and without any notice which screwed over a lot of guilds and players that were on a linked server who were expecting to be able to play on the same server after the new relinking.

And some of you people seriously, the hypocrisy and bias is through the roof. You criticize stacking and bandwagoning, yet your yelling at a guild and players for not stacking on another server and wanting to keep their guild together. How about players get to play wherever the hell they want? It’s ok for everyone to stack on your server, but kitten them all for going somewhere else…just wow. This is not about stacking, bandwagoning or whatever you want to call it. Its about guilds and players who had no way of knowing that they would be completely cut off from playing on the server THEY chose, with their guilds and friends.

Also CL is not a new guild on BG, they have been here for quite a while now.

Good God let it go already, this change is not just about queues, its about players who have no interest in wvw going onto the map and taking up limited space with no regards to anything but their own convenience to do something that has nothing whatsoever to do with the content. This is something that has been asked for many times over the years. Learn to adapt like everyone else and go to a city to do all this crafting that you claim you need to do so often.

xBrutalityx.3507:

1 tick of meteor shower should not be hitting 8k damage that’s more than half my hp bar, the damage should be reduced by quite a bit its not even remotely balanced .

Well the damage of skills is something else thieves can hit even harder with melee skills, what kind of gear are you using?

What does any of that have to do with tempest or reaper? Your describing what you see as a problem with fights, not anything to do with the classes themselves. Every class has access to some form of aoe, some of them are more effective then others. Organized groups use them more strategically and rotate for, cc’s, bombs, range hazing, and combo fields. If you see a lot of aoe circles, move, dodge, block, etc etc they all have aoe limits of 3 or 5 targets.

This is not something to fix, aoe is a part of the game, should we all just run up to people and hit them with sticks? Learn to counter properly, if you just expect to walk through everything, of course your going to have a bad time.

Tobias Steele.2071:

X T D.6458:

Tobias Steele.2071:

Wow the flat out lies from the BG players in this thread are unbelievable.

Neither tork or eN are sea guilds. The only sea guild that TC has running atm is hire, and they raid sporadically.

TC essentially (with a couple of exceptions) always ticks the lowest of the three servers on SEA regardless of which servers they are.

If your referring to my post above, notice I said “right now” I was commenting on TC’s groups that were out that day at the start of SEA and throughout the night because I was replying to another poster’s comment about the ppt score of a specific time of that day and mentioned what groups TC had out during that time and day. I was not calling TORK or eN SEA guilds.

No I would have quoted you if I was aiming that at you.

Fair enough, assumed you meant my post, but all good.

Tobias Steele.2071:

Wow the flat out lies from the BG players in this thread are unbelievable.

Neither tork or eN are sea guilds. The only sea guild that TC has running atm is hire, and they raid sporadically.

TC essentially (with a couple of exceptions) always ticks the lowest of the three servers on SEA regardless of which servers they are.

If your referring to my post above, notice I said “right now” I was commenting on TC’s groups that were out that day at the start of SEA and throughout the night because I was replying to another poster’s comment about the ppt score of a specific time of that day and mentioned what groups TC had out during that time and day. I was not calling TORK or eN SEA guilds.

Relinking is done every two months. What servers get linked and how they choose to link them is anyone’s guess atm.

Well most linked servers are open, and more will be after Monday. I mean if a server changes tiers there should at least be an equal starting point, using YB as the current example being dropped into a matchup against 2 linked opponents just seems really imbalanced and unfair, and would be demoralizing for any server.

@Taxidriver, I don’t think 2 months is a bad thing, personally I find it to be the better option. The issue is how they messed up the linking and don’t seem to have a backup plan to adjust for changes in matchups.

That seems like bad planning. And rather unfortunate for YB because they are in that situation now, dropping while unlinked right at the start of a new relinking schedule and now they are facing 2 opponents with linked servers. Hypothetically speaking, if the quad server combo in t4 were to rise to t3 that would just cause an even bigger imbalanced matchup.

I am curious about how relinking takes into account changes in match ups. DB which has a linked server is in tier 1 and YB which is unlinked has dropped into tier 2, does this mean that both servers have to wait the entire two months before there is a new relinking for them? Or would there be an adjustment made in between assuming the glicko settles them into the new tiers in these kinds of situations.

Tumult.2578:

Did you get this resolved?
Did you find any possible use for those proofs beyond siege?
The wiki doesn’t look accurate.

Proofs can also be used to unlock hero points on a toon, and can be used to purchase HoT recipes, runes, and sigils. It’s all on the wiki page. The rank requirement, which is most likely the issue here is not listed on the page.

Seriously it is unplayable, did you raise the map cap or something, lately it has become just incredibly frustrating, the skill lag is out of control.

McKenna Berdrow.2759:

It will not be tonight, or next Tuesday, but sometime after that.

I can’t give you an exact day yet, since there are still some technical changes that need to happen before we can run different Borderlands at the same time, but I will let everyone know once we know for sure it is ready to go out.

Will there be a midweek reset of scores if this is implemented on a Tuesday?

Cybil Song.2359:

I used to craft foods for the players on my server (banquet). I can’t justify the time and nuisance to go to Lion Arch to do this anymore.
That is certainly one drawback of loosing the stations last night i had to go to refine my daily in Lion Arch and come back so, i had no time to answer to a distress call on my server.
I’m sure this is a great improvement for the WvW community.
See…, my time online is limited there is a real life as well so i try to do my priorities and WvW just went down the list.

Are you serious? Craft the food in advance and put them in your bank. Your trying to make a problem out of nothing for the sake of making an argument against this change. If you care about helping your server, try actually going into wvw and doing something instead of standing at a craft table doing something that could have been done well in advance.

DB cant get up here fast enough. And also please stop complaining about BG being super stacked when TC has blobs running all day especially during EU, and not just this week. Not enough ktraining on TC or something?

Had this happen to me today while fighting…Had to do dance emote in front of an enemy zerg…

McKenna Berdrow.2759:

The poll has ended! After removing all votes for “Don’t Count My Vote” the final results are:

78.5% Simultaneous Borderlands
21.5% Rotating Borderlands quarterly

This means that the team will add the Desert Borderlands back into play as one of the Borderlands maps and will keep the other two maps as the Alpine Borderlands. Thank you to everyone who voted!

Which color will be Dbl, red? And when will this be implemented? And thanks for the update.

This is a really annoying bug that has been going on for several weeks now, after spending a certain amount of time on a map, trying to wp makes loading take a very long time and sometimes causes graphical issues like weapons and effects not rendering, can you please fix this.

Lilah Pink.9361:

yes, I have gotten a chest for the level up in WVW but no proofs. I’m hoping its a rank req. thank you for your help.

Rank up a little more, you should start getting them after rank 6 or 7, the wording on wiki is a little confusing.

Ok get a rank in wvw, and you will get a bouncy chest above your minimap, open it and see if you get any proofs. Aside from that the only thing I can think of is that there is a bug or a rank req before you get them.

Think this might be the problem, the first 5 chests are different and you are still Rank 5

From Wiki-
Past rank 6, the World Rank Chests are the same. The earlier chests have slightly less loot because they are easier to acquire.

Lilah Pink.9361:

so I have that light purple line at the bottom, and it levels up. I think that is what everyone is talking about. I stopped like halfway through level 5, because I don’t want to be going nowhere with this.
I have looked at all the guild wiki references to these, and it just says you get it from leveling up… but I think I’m leveling, and not getting anything. sad face

What level is your toon, not wvw rank. If you were on a pve map, what level would it show?

Chrono.6928:

X T D.6458:

You can buy memories of battle and shards of glory on the tp if you don’t want to do wvw. You can also go to eotm but the track will progress slower. There is also a new guild hall boost to make a reward track progress up to 10% faster. Unlike before where you could simply buy the Gift of Battle without ever really spending any time in WvW, you actually have to now, this is a way of making the legendary process go across gamemodes.

holy crap ty. lol lets see spend 10g on a stack of 250 of them or farm forever for a month or 2 for the same amount. When you can easily get 10g in pve in a few hours or less.

You’re my hero <3

Happy to help, but I hope you don’t give up on WvW and do give it another try someday, or even hop into EoTM, to get a feel of how things work.

lil devils x.6071:

X T D.6458:

this is a way of making the legendary process go across gamemodes.

THAT is exactly what set GW apart from the rest and now they are seriously messing that up with recent updates. The primary reason I played GW1 was due to the promise of NO GRIND. You could PvP without having to ever touch PvE To access game content and everything could be gained just from PvP alone. It was one of their strongest selling points for the game model. In fact people were just talking about that being the reason they tried the game in the first place just last night. Making things NOT go across game modes is one of GW most attractive features, messing that up just throws GW in the pile with the rest of the grindy MMOs that players who want no grind have no interest in.

What they are actually doing is removing one of the games most attractive features. They need to do the opposite to bring players back they are running off, they need to make WvW self sustaining, never needing to leave WvW to get what you use in it, same for PvE and PvP.

Well some recent changes have made that easier for mainly wvw players. For example the heroics notary selling HoT stuff for proofs of heroics, making gear you buy with badges salvageable, and of course the reward tracks. In regards to the legendary debate, the thing to keep in mind is that it is optional, there is literally no need to grind for it and this can be completely avoided for non HoT legendaries by buying them off of the tp.

Personally I don’t really like dungeons and fractals, and have no interest in raids. I don’t really care about instanced content. But if its required for something optional that I want to work on, then I wouldn’t say it needs to be changed to fit my preferred play style.

I made a suggestion in another thread, but that thread ended up being deleted, so I will put it up here. Instead of putting the Gift of Battle in a reward track, they should implement an achievement track similar to what we had during seasons where players can at their leisure complete a series of tasks like capture X number of Keeps/Towers/Camp etc. And After completing this achievement track they can be rewarded the gift of battle. Or be given a title like Battlemaster and gain access to the Vendor to be able to buy the Gift, so this way they wont have to keep redoing the track over and over. Just complete it once and unlock the vendor. The important thing is to not encourage farming or afk’ing on a map until you have to tag an event to keep participation levels up.

You can buy memories of battle and shards of glory on the tp if you don’t want to do wvw. You can also go to eotm but the track will progress slower. There is also a new guild hall boost to make a reward track progress up to 10% faster. Unlike before where you could simply buy the Gift of Battle without ever really spending any time in WvW, you actually have to now, this is a way of making the legendary process go across gamemodes.

DeWolfe.2174:

mulzi.8273:

Soridormy.8132:

BG should be open cuz sea is so weak

This is the problem that was not addressed. Sure, the score is closer this week. However, the score is only closer because of night capping. Take a look at scoring trend: BG holds sway over much of the NA day…Then at night, TC holds SMC at night, pads the score a bit until the following day when BG wakes up again.

I want real balance throughout the day, not having one server sitting in an empty EB at different times to make the score close.

Right now as Sea is beginning, Bg is ticking 130 and TC is only ticking 42. BG’s Sea is not weak by any stretch of the imagination. Also, you can’t have “real balance” throughout the day. Not when the player base is split in half and divided into NA and EU data centers. Beyond that, human civilization is simply not equally spread across the planet and time zones for “real balance” 24/7. They’ll always be high’s and low’s.

Simply looking at the current ppt score is not a reliable reflection of coverage. TC has just as many if not more ppl on right now including guild groups TORK and eN running right now and they have been running pretty large all night. BG for much if not all night has been running a pug zerg for the most part. We have just been moving around a lot more and capping stuff, that is why our ppt has been so high. TC has a tendency at night to not recap their stuff for a long time, even though they can do it quickly with their numbers and choose instead to stay on EB.

Wow settle down folks geez… There are a few examples of this already in the game, not exactly 100% similar to your idea but close enough. The Overgrown grub by blue keep in EB, the Arboreal Spirit by Speldan in EB, and 4 veteran creature events wurm/varg/harpy/ascalonian ghosts on the borderlands. Also the Bloodlust ruins I guess are similar to what you propose except there is no npc to fight.

Problem is, most of the time these pve events are usually ignored except for when its a part of the daily and then its just done quickly so there wouldn’t be much interest in going further with these types of events.

Gotta love when people want players to stack on their servers but complain when they go somewhere else.

zhonnika.1784:

If you care at all about balance from the top down, do not open BG. They do not need any help.

TC is open whats the problem? If people are not transferring there, its not our fault.

Liston.9708:

X T D.6458:

Good change thank you, artificial restrictions should not be used, people should be able to go and play where they wish.

what about no such thing as “full”? let the queue length sort things out? not saying I am for or against it, just wondering what people on a full un-linked world think (as this is artificial as well)…..

Well its understandable that there is a certain threshold to have some stability and balance so as long as a world is naturally full through normal means and that the metrics used to determine that are calculated properly, it is reasonable in my opinion.

The downside of course with basing server status off of activity is that when a server needs to get people in, whether its for coverage purposes or that they know there are people/guilds that want to transfer for whatever reason, the server will basically have to stop/slow down playing until it opens up. Its not that a server wants to do that but essentially has to in order to stay competitive, and if a server cant stay competitive people will leave and the server dies. In the past it was a lot easier to get around this on an individual level because server status was based off of population, and there was typically certain times of the day when a full server would open up.

People transfer for a variety of reasons, they want to play with friends/family/guilds, they like the community, they want a different playing environment. Unfortunately some people seem to think people who transfer just want to bandwagon or stack, people just want to have fun. I never heard anyone say they transferred to BG so they can blob over an enemies map and farm loot. What I hear is that they came for and enjoy the fights and love the community. After all who really wants to keep spending all that real life money or grind gold just to hop servers constantly.

I am personally against something like artificial lockdowns, not because I am on BG, but because I believe people should be able to go to whichever server they want and do whatever they enjoy. If people are not having fun and have to face unnecessary restrictions, that’s the best way to drive them away from WvW.

Good change thank you, artificial restrictions should not be used, people should be able to go and play where they wish.

antidote.7201:

Some of you seriously need to calm down. Throwing around insults at anet, ignoring their reasons for this change, and not bothering to be constructive or objective will not help anything.

This was asked for many times, and there are more technical reasons already put out by Anet for why this change was made. They also said that a bank vendor would be placed in every maps spawn area so that’s a great thing. Plan ahead and place whatever siege and consumables you use on your toons, in your bank, or shared inventory slots.

I made a suggestion earlier that Craft tables be placed in HoTM since it would be pretty much the same as going to WvW but would not conflict. Or Adjust the areas in Obsidian Sanctum to create a kind of WvW lobby with a condensed crafting station and craft merchant.

Do you seriously think that 3-5 people at a crafting table have a decent impact on wvw queue ?
Like for real ? Not defending the people insulting ; but come on, there’s no queue on home bl 96% off the time. So, for the extra 4% of the time where there’s queue, the 3-5 ppl at a time are a problem ?? Come on …

It just make the things more boring to do and for no valuable reason

Tossing around numbers gets us nowhere unless you can account for every home bl for every server at all times. It is also not just about queues, like others have explained multiple times it can affect how server status is determined.

They are changing the scoring system, among other things with incremental updates rather then shipping them all out with one big update. This was discussed a lot on the forums, there was plenty of notice given, even a poll done, on what was going to be done and how. This allows the changes to sink in a lot easier then it would if it were all done at once.

Some of you seriously need to calm down. Throwing around insults at anet, ignoring their reasons for this change, and not bothering to be constructive or objective will not help anything.

This was asked for many times, and there are more technical reasons already put out by Anet for why this change was made. They also said that a bank vendor would be placed in every maps spawn area so that’s a great thing. Plan ahead and place whatever siege and consumables you use on your toons, in your bank, or shared inventory slots.

I made a suggestion earlier that Craft tables be placed in HoTM since it would be pretty much the same as going to WvW but would not conflict. Or Adjust the areas in Obsidian Sanctum to create a kind of WvW lobby with a condensed crafting station and craft merchant.

Teon.5168:

darkaheart.4265:

if they give us 2 alpine maps and 1 desert, i bet this will more than proof of what a fail the desert maps were.

I am failing to see the logic in this conclusion. Please help me out.

With the simultaneous implementation, it is the best way to avoid the dbl altogether. If there is a rotation all the bl’s will be replaced by the dbl for 3 months at a time which could prove disastrous. At least with the 2abl/1dbl it is limited to one map and we get to keep alpine. The other problem is that a lot of of people also do not want dbl as their home map…really no winning with this map, its basically just a lesser of two evils vote, but then again aren’t all votes all that

Waffle.3748:

X T D.6458:

In order to make something like this possible they would most likely need to implement a new combo field, for example an Earth Field which could be blasted for 3 seconds of aoe stab, something like that. And I am not sure such a thing would be a good addition.

I wouldn’t be opposed to having stab as a blastable, but I’m not sure what skills you would change to be an Earth Field (or whatever name they went with in your example). Maybe the Rock Wall on ele staff?

There are a couple that come to mind, it would have to be limited if it produced something like an aoe stability effect. Definitely Unsteady Ground could be one, Eruption could also be changed, but its also a blast finisher so probably better its kept that way. Earthquake or Churning Earth can be changed to become an Earth field while the other stays as a blast finisher. Dust Storm another one. Overload Earth as well.

For Rangers, Vine Surge, Muddy Terrain, Quicksand (Stone Spirit), Entangle.

In order to make something like this possible they would most likely need to implement a new combo field, for example an Earth Field which could be blasted for 3 seconds of aoe stab, something like that. And I am not sure such a thing would be a good addition.

lil devils x.6071:

X T D.6458:

lil devils x.6071:

I hope PvE players that were only coming to WvW to bank know they can do so just as easily by entering heart of the mists without interrupting the PvP matches in progress. :p

As far was I was aware the guild registrar already had a drop down bank access option.

The guild registrar allows access to guild banks, not account banks which is what the craft tables were also useful for aside from crafting. The only other way to get access to the bank was to get a t3 keep. But luckily now we will have an always accessible bank vendor.

I wonder if it would be acceptable to put crafting tables in the HoTM lobby as a compromise.

I have been using the guild registrar to access MY bank for a LOOONG time now. Did they change it? You just select the drop down menu to vault and there it is. Doh! Ninja’d over and over and over again. XD

I agree adding crafting to HotM would help solve the problem.

Oops sorry about that, did not know you can access account bank or at least part of it from the guild registrar. They could also try changing part of OS to be like a WvW Lobby that includes a condensed crafting station and merchant.

I am fine with them removing the craft tables, but I think it would be better for everyone if they replaced it by putting them in another area like HoTM or OS because there is the convenience factor of not having to port to a slow loading city and then port back to the map you were on. If its on a mists map you can just load in, craft, exit and be back where you were, and not conflict with wvw maps.

As someone who weight lifts on a regular basis and does full body work outs, I never understood why some guys neglect exercising their lower body. It is a rather immature attitude to just focus the so called “glamour muscles”. Maybe artists use that model in a game to portray that stereotype idk

lil devils x.6071:

I hope PvE players that were only coming to WvW to bank know they can do so just as easily by entering heart of the mists without interrupting the PvP matches in progress. :p

As far was I was aware the guild registrar already had a drop down bank access option.

The guild registrar allows access to guild banks, not account banks which is what the craft tables were also useful for aside from crafting. The only other way to get access to the bank was to get a t3 keep. But luckily now we will have an always accessible bank vendor.

I wonder if it would be acceptable to put crafting tables in the HoTM lobby as a compromise.

To many times we would be trying to defend something and we would see a bunch of ppl afk in spawn around crafting tables. WvW maps have caps, they are not like pve maps where even if you reach a cap you can still get people in, its always a hard cap. Trying to fight off enemy zergs while people are waiting in queue because a bunch of people wanted to save 1 silver and went to a wvw crafting table with no thought whatsoever of actually engaging in wvw or even if it was causing issues with their home server. It is a shame that these people had to ruin it for everyone but its not hard to adapt to this change.

McKenna Berdrow.2759:

Hello everyone,

Many of you have been inquiring as to why we made the decision to remove the crafting stations in WvW. We made this decision because we have been seeing an increase in queue times with world linking. Upon observation we found there have been players taking up space in the maps who are only crafting and not participating with their teams. However, we’ve been listening to your feedback today and we wanted to let you know that we will be adding a banker to each team starting area in EB, Alpine and Desert. Thank you for the continued feedback!

Excellent!

Josh XT.6053:

X T D.6458:

Problem is though if they reset glicko then they don’t know which server belongs in what tiers, because its used to move servers up and down. If glicko was reset they would have little to base a new matchup on aside from population which is not reliable. I am not a fan of glicko personally but I am not sure a total reset would help.

They’re pairing based on population, not glicko.

This is where it gets messy because part of a match up is determined by glicko ratings, where its a natural progression or decline. Then we have anet personally determining match ups with factors such as population since linking was introduced.

Problem is though if they reset glicko then they don’t know which server belongs in what tiers, because its used to move servers up and down. If glicko was reset they would have little to base a new matchup on aside from population which is not reliable. I am not a fan of glicko personally but I am not sure a total reset would help.