Guild Wars 2

Galandil.9641:

“…about these new items as I am!”

This is obviously the last paragraph of the news post made by Linsey Murdock. Since the other thread is very long, with single users posting multiple replies, I just had a little idea.

Let’s see, for real, if anet really “listens” to the players.

Just make a single post and nothing else in this thread, replying at the “hope” of Linsey, with a simple “Yes, I love the new ascended items” or “No, I hate the new ascended items.”

And let’s show anet, at least for us people browsing the official forums, how many are the nays and how many are the ayes.

My vote is:

NAY

The dungeon sounds like it would be fantasitc, if it wasn’t for the fact that you have to grind gear to do it. ANET, you killed the game. Now people won’t do all the great content you guys made and will only focus on this and 1000s of others, like me, won’t even bother playing anymore. I regret the $200+ dollars I spent on the game and if you go through with this gear grind crap I’ll simply quit.

If I wanted to play a gear grind treadmill game I wouldn’t of bought GW2 nor spent over 200 dollars on it (that’s more than a sub for year). GG ANET way to go back on your promises and vision to cater to PvE masses that simply jump from game to game to game. Hope it works out for you.

The fact the commander title is a money sink is itself kitten It should be a community vote thing. Say 10 commanders per server?

Sure why not 10char

Caps might still be total cap, not by server.

The next patch (22nd) is going to include more than just Halloween stuff. I wouldn’t be surprised if it is heavy PvP as well.

When is this server not full? Its seems like all the servers that have decent population when I play for anything are all FULL cry

I dont think anything needs to changed about down state. Maybe make it easier to interrupt players resing?

Please change stop free transfers to restrict free transfers further. All stoping free transfers would do is cement the already over populated servers dominance.

And it would also ensure that the current over populated servers stay that way

Dimok.6187:

I won’t deny other changes are needed. But I’m not a game dev, I don’t really know what will fix things for the meta, all I know is WvW is fun for 3 days, then sucks until reset.

And it will only be fun for a day and a half if its shortened. Granted, it will switch more often, but it doesn’t really fix anything. Thats why band-aid fixes like these are terrible. It stops people like from complaining, but it doesn’t make things better really

I feel like I should state why. The reason why matches are decided so quickly is because points are allocated the same throughout the entire match, outmanned and orb buffs are backwards, and server abandonment. All shorting the matches will do is make it decided in a day and a half instead of two.

That doesn’t solve any of the issues. It simply masks all the problem. You still will have the same server dominating. It fixes nothing but make it so you fight different servers more often. Same issue just on faster repeat.

Chessrook.8643:

Xpiher.5209:

Chessrook.8643:

At this point I’m wondering if you’re trolling…

I really didn’t know that it was a full server because I had no interest in it. I know that rpers typically dont pvp. Its still sad that TC is almost full 24/7 but can’t muster more in WvW at non prime time hours

Well if the server is mostly Americans is it really THAT surprising? And I doubt TC is the only server like that.

When its full, yeah it is.

Chessrook.8643:

At this point I’m wondering if you’re trolling…

I really didn’t know that it was a full server because I had no interest in it. I know that rpers typically dont pvp. Its still sad that TC is almost full 24/7 but can’t muster more in WvW at non prime time hours

Zoula.5139:

At certain times the server has been full since launch. There’s been threads on GW2roleplay about how to actually time it to get on for some time now.

Then you are telling me that there aren’t enough RP PvPers to make it so you guys do better in WvW? …. WOW

buzzkapow.8465:

The score is not what makes people stop wuvwuving. It’s the difficulty in trying to claw your way back onto the map after one server has held it for a long time.

Full upgrades, keeps/towers full of supplies. Waypoints. Orb bonuses. And when you log on the next day, that’s what you have to try to take back. And because there’s less interest in WvW, you will generally only have 1 server pressing 1 server.

The idea is that as 2 servers start to push against the 1 server, things will fall easier, because their zerg is split. They have to send scout groups to towers or camps. Thus, making it easier for the other 2 servers to begin getting back on the map. Unfortunately this rarely happens.

Instead, what really happens is, Server A will control the map. Server B will come try to take stuff, while server C has already given up. Server A now only has to try to hem in the vast majority of the forces from Server B, and the matchup is basically done. Even if Server B or C take something, it will simply get trebbed from the next tower/keep. And because that tower/keep is upgraded, fully stocked and sieged up, server B is screwed.

Therefore, once your server loses map control for a significant period of time, WvW becomes a one-horse show.

You are right; however, this is less likely the case if a person signs on and sees that the score is only 50k to 40k. You can easily take down fully upgraded keeps with a little bit more cash and some good coordination

trawley.9517:

Xpiher.5209:

trawley.9517:

Salamol.7963:

Server 1 wins 4 in a row, servers 2 and 3 can’t win. I don’t see how this changes much.

If a server that is behind on points wins a daily battle, give them some kind of “underdog bonus”. This will give people incentive to keep fighting the daily battles even after the weekly war has been lost.

(This has been added to the opening post.)

It won’t change anything. People will see, oh they won two games already and no ones really on, no point to play when they’ll just win again because we dont have anyone on to oppose them.

Until point allocation is changed or ANET gets rid of EU/US server designation and resets populations etc you’ll always have thiss

trawley.9517:

Xpiher.5209:

This changes nothing. Why? Because the way the score is tallied is the same throughout a matches duration. When a sever is out manned they should earn more points per structure, when a server is outmanning the others it should receive less points. This would lead to less drastic leads because the most points would be awarded when most servers are active.

Could also just put a cap on how big of a lead a server could get, but you would still have the problem of people opening their WvWvW map and seeing another server controlling everything and deciding it’s not worth playing until reset.

Execpt, if ANET does it right, the lead from capping everything when unopposed would be only a few thousand points (between 1st and 2nd). Plenty of reason to try and make a come back at that point.

I agree that it wouldn’t fix every problem, but I believe it would be an overall improvement.

Even changing the weekly battle to a 3 day battle would help. Three days is still plenty long and more frequent resets would help the problem that was presented in the opening post.

Three day matches simply mask the issues that are present in WvW. its a band-aid fix that will quite people that don’t care about anything other than WvW all the time. ANET needs to fix the core issues with WvW (population, how points are tallied, orb bonuses, exploits, bandwagoning, and smurfing) before looking at more frequent matches.

Mid week would only reward those servers with high populations as well, especially on during this time of day (for NA servers anyways).

trawley.9517:

Salamol.7963:

Server 1 wins 4 in a row, servers 2 and 3 can’t win. I don’t see how this changes much.

If a server that is behind on points wins a daily battle, give them some kind of “underdog bonus”. This will give people incentive to keep fighting the daily battles even after the weekly war has been lost.

(This has been added to the opening post.)

It won’t change anything. People will see, oh they won two games already and no ones really on, no point to play when they’ll just win again because we dont have anyone on to oppose them.

Until point allocation is changed or ANET gets rid of EU/US server designation and resets populations etc you’ll always have thiss

trawley.9517:

Xpiher.5209:

This changes nothing. Why? Because the way the score is tallied is the same throughout a matches duration. When a sever is out manned they should earn more points per structure, when a server is outmanning the others it should receive less points. This would lead to less drastic leads because the most points would be awarded when most servers are active.

Could also just put a cap on how big of a lead a server could get, but you would still have the problem of people opening their WvWvW map and seeing another server controlling everything and deciding it’s not worth playing until reset.

Execpt, if ANET does it right, the lead from capping everything when unopposed would be only a few thousand points (between 1st and 2nd). Plenty of reason to try and make a come back at that point.

A 2:1 ratio for trading might work, but it leads to the same problem. Tokens shouldn’t be the only reason to do dungeons though, so maybe thats the primary issue.

This changes nothing. Why? Because the way the score is tallied is the same throughout a matches duration. When a sever is out manned they should earn more points per structure, when a server is outmanning the others it should receive less points. This would lead to less drastic leads because the most points would be awarded when most servers are active.

zastari.1730:

We had this problem in Maguuma once until we found the giant botfarm ball that was in the ocean farming krait. I don’t really care about botters, but botters occupying my queue space makes me want to hack a gibson to stop it.

Well the issue is the server itself is full. Unless theres a bunch of PvE early morning players, I don’t see how that changed all of a sudden

Rpgtabbycat.5869:

There’s a rumor floating around that Blackgate recruits people to go over to TC server and just sit in our BL doing nothing but taking up space. I don’t know if that’s true but it’s a possibility.

Really? LOL! Thats too funny.

AndrewSX.3794:

Simple as that.
Imo, they should directly get rid of server separations EU/US, cause if mixing the timezones is the only way for servers to get competitive (US guys on EU night, and viceversa) that’s what everybody will try to do – making EU/US split useless.

Exactly! Support the idea and bump the thread with that title in the suggestions forums and here

Meyagi.2183:

Xpiher.5209:

Meyagi.2183:

Dude if i could award you with a freaking medal I would bravo! I believe this could solve the server issues but it would have to be perm or pay to move at a price that would make people choose wisley.

I posted this same idea in the suggestions section and someone brought up the fact that in EU, they can’t play on non-eu servers if they bought the EU edition of the game. It might not be legally possible But yes it could

I would say this is untrue since there are eu guilds and german guilds on the top tier na servers unless they got a us copy

I hope you are right

MistyMountains.3751:

EU players would have worse connection ping if playing on US servers…kinda why they have them seperated in the first place

Simple fix is to end free server transfers but the main issue here is, server transfers will only cost GEMS to transfer…know how cheap gems are in game with in game farmed gold?…wont even slow anyone down…once theyre on a server thats losing poof X gems bye bye losing server …farm gold for server transfer for next week

They’ll experience a on avg an increase of 50-60 increase to latency. Its the aussies and perhaps russians will suffer most. This is assuming that EU servers are located in or around Germany. But with a tab targeting game, the latency isn’t as big of an issue and programming can be done to make it less of an issue (which should be done anyways).

The free transfers isn’t the only issue. Right now, NA doesn’t have enough players from other time zones to offer 24/hr coverage expect for a hand full of servers. Even without server transfers that allows smurfing and bandwagoning, these servers would still have erratic ladder position. EU has less of an issue due to having a wider time zone coverage, but some of their servers are suffering as well.

Rok.5074:

Easier fix.

1) End free transfers.
2) No transferred accounts can participate in the current WvWvW match-up.

<Poof> Everyone wins. People can still change servers to be with friends, alliance-members, etc, but the servers have a chance to stabilize in their tiers.

Mis-matched server inbalances aren’t fun for anyone, “winners” or “losers.”

That will simply cement the current over populated servers. Free transfers need to be more limited even if this idea is implemented, but this idea would lead to more diverse time zones. Even if all the Aussies went to a single server, they would only be match against a small number of people for a couple hrs, rather than half the day. I’m basing this off the fact that GMT + 2 is 8hrs behind Aussie and 9hrs ahead of EST.

When did this happen? I thought TC didn’t have a large enough crew for this time (7:34 AM EST) to put up enough of a fight for WvW. But the server is full! WTH lol. If this has been the case for some time and I’m just now noticing it, they should be doing better. If only they could recruit more PvE characters to do WvW

Meyagi.2183:

Dude if i could award you with a freaking medal I would bravo! I believe this could solve the server issues but it would have to be perm or pay to move at a price that would make people choose wisley.

I posted this same idea in the suggestions section and someone brought up the fact that in EU, they can’t play on non-eu servers if they bought the EU edition of the game. It might not be legally possible But yes it could

The LZ.7891:

I wouldn’t want an NA server anyway. Yuck.

Why? Latency for most of EU would only increase by 50

inathanlite.1769:

Bad idea. Server resets could mean Guild Wars 2 losing players due to them getting annoyed picking the same world over and over again. Guilds and other communities will break apart.

Guilds that break apart due to a server population rest aren’t real guilds IMO. Some people may quit, though so thats a fair point. Worth the risk? I don’t know

Squirrelbane.2510:

Doubt this could work simply due to digital rights issues across regions.

Thats a fair point. I did hear that EU players who bought the EU edition of the game are locked to the EU servers :/ I had forgotten about this. kitten /p>

This is another way to provide servers with 24/7 coverage in WvW. Yes, it has the potential to destroy current server communities, but the great server communities and guilds who play together would all pick the same server. International populations would spread out and cover more servers. Furthermore, with this set up, ANET could potentially have less servers since NA and EU prime times are different.

Thoughts?

RamzaBehoulve.5640:

A few Australians would be perfect.

But wouldn’t NA guilds serve this as well? I don’t know the exact time zone your server has, but lets assume its GMT + 2, that means NA guilds would be 7 hrs behind you and Oceanic guilds would be 7 hrs ahead. Either one would give you coverage when you don’t have it.

There shouldn’t be seperate NA and EU servers IMO. It would make WvW matches more meaningful. And lets face it, Tab Target games don’t terribly suffer from latency issues. Most people in EU would only see an increase of maybe 50 latency. The only people that would be hurt by it are Aussie guilds, but that increase shouldn’t be too much either.

Complete Server rest. Tabula rasa, the big wipe. Well not really but sorta. Hear me out. Why not reset server population and remove the EU/NA tags from the server list. Then have everyone pick new servers? This would move around populations and mix match Euro guild with NA guild giving better coverage.

Thoughts?

How much competition did you have when you took the map over?

Thats how baddies play WvW. Coordinated servers are more tactical.

A group of 15 people can take keeps by themselves. Just got to know when and where to attack. Hell, I was in a group of about 5 that set up siege to take out enemy siege in strange areas that allowed the enemy to pummel our main base. That ensured that they couldn’t take our keep and eventually lead us to taking theirs

declan.3968:

I’m a member of a 400+ strong carebear alliance on SOS. Even if we moved to another server what good would it do? Less than 50 of us actively WvW.

This thread is addressed to the 50 members you have that are dedicated WvW players. Not about the PvE players who never do WvW

Tzash.5748:

Xpiher.5209:

Yes, I know there aren’t enough of you to go around, but if you weren’t so concentrated on what 2 servers, there wouldn’t be an issue for WvW.

I’m curious as to where you got this idea that only 2 servers have an Oceanic presence. There are actually quite a few servers with off peak players, its just the numbers that vary.

Hence why I said concentrated? I know there are “night crews” on all servers. The issue is that none of them have enough players to actually have decent fights against the servers who are dominated by “night crews”

Sokar Rostau.7316:

Again, changing the length of matches is a very simple and elegant solution to many of the problems we are currently facing. Every single solution offered to every problem with WvW is more complicated than simply changing the timer.

The problem is changing the timer doesn’t fix anything. It simply leads to more match-ups. That band-aid fix may be ok for you, but it still leaves the ranking system pointless due to the host of other issues. And yes, I’d rather endure 2-3 months worth of half finished WvW games than get this band-aid fix.

lepri.6504:

3 day matches will not solve anything if not make it worse. Weekend and weekday matches have completely different characteristic. Some servers are very good during weekends but have poor performance during weekdays. If you make it 3 day matches, win/lose will be heavyly dependent on the weekend/weekday ratio of the match. Therefore this will not be an indication of being better at pvp.

This

Brynna Stormclaw.9621:

There are far less Oceanics than NA players.. there are simply not enough of us to go around. We shouldn’t have to sacrifice our enjoyment of the game so that others can benefit. I just don’t get it sometimes – we are either the game’s hottest commodity, or we are kitten dirty nightcappers. It’s impossible to please everyone.

Guesting would allow you guys to be on a different home server and still get the community of another server. It needs to be implemented. Yes, I know there aren’t enough of you to go around, but if you weren’t so concentrated on what 2 servers, there wouldn’t be an issue for WvW.

Sokar Rostau.7316:

The quote button is missing again…

I didn’t say 2 weeks was perfect, just that 3 days was too short

The only reason I disagree with 3 day matches and prefer 60 hours is because 3-day matches will always end at the same time of day and favour the server that can muster the forces to be there for the last few hours.

I agree with you. If match up times are reduced below a week then they need to start at odd times if ANET also cannot mess with population in some way

Population unbalance leads to one server able to build orbs and thus get even more powerful

Population unbalance has nothing to do with being able to capture Orbs. While I agree that the Orbs need to be changed, they are irrelevant to this discussion.

Yes it most certainly does. If two server time zones are incompatible, the server that has more people playing on the other server’s off time will able to easily get the orb. So say a match starts at 0000 GMT – 8. Well then a server with a high Oceanic presence will be able to easily capture the orbs when faced against server with little to no Oceanic presence. Now say a match starts at 3PM PST. Well a server with high NA presence is matched up against servers with EU or Oceanic presence, but little to no NA presence. The NA server will be able to easily get the orbs. Obs = power.

Server population/time zone distribution isn’t fixed by a 3 day match. This is what causes servers competing in higher or lower tiers than they should

Time zone distribution and server population are two different things. 60 hour matches solves the time zone issue because no time zone is favoured by the match starting or ending at the same time each week. I’ll get to population below.

I like your idea better than the OPs, but I’d rather ANET simply spread out time zone population around to the different servers some way. If they aren’t able to or can’t do it then this type of solution will help in that regard. Doesn’t mean that its not a band-aid fix

3 day matches doesn’t fix the bandwagon issue

The primary cause of the “bandwagon” is people having nothing to do for three or four days every week. Instead of being too bored or frustrated to go out to WvW what is being suggested here gives people a reason to stay on their server.

I disagree. The primary reason the bandwagon issue exist is because transfers are free and instant, and people hate losing. Restricting free transfers also gives people a reason to stay on their server by forcing them to. Which needs to happen to get any kind of server community going anyways. If people stuck around for 2 matches then the ladder wouldn’t be as broken either, which isn’t solved by reducing match up times. Smurfing and Bandwagoning will still exist with shorter match up times.

Again, the first couple of days of the matches right now are played on the weekend which is the peak period and the only time of the week when a majority of players can play for extra time. You are far more likely to see someone sitting up for 24 hours straight playing WvW on a Saturday than a Wednesday. With shorter matches this means that no two will play the same way because of the numbers of weekend players. A match that starts on Tuesday morning and ends on Thursday night will play out very differently to one that starts on Friday night and ends on Monday morning. “Night capping” (I’m Australian so it’s more like “day capping” for me) is a problem because of the length of time of the matches. It’s very rarely a significant issue on the first few days because any points gained or lost overnight can be quickly made up. It’s when you have a week of night-capping that a small difference in points compounds into an unassailable lead.

As I’ve said, that lead shouldn’t exist period. The reason that lead exist is because points are rewarded evenly. When you are outmanned and own structures you should be award more points. When you outman and own structures you should get less points. So when a server is able to take over a whole map unhindered they shouldn’t get nearly the numbers advantage that they do get. If its set up in the proper way a server that has no competition when it plays while the others do should hardly get any points. A smaller lead directly counters the morale issue.

With a 60hr match up time, servers benefit by getting easy wins still for playing against structures instead of players. The only difference is that they lose the same way sooner. It doesn’t fix the problem.

Lets fix these problem first, because they’ll lead to a better experience overall even with a shorter match duration. If you don’t tackle these issues all you get is a shorter match time with broken mechanics and an ever more erratic ranking.

I’d also like to point out that I don’t want free transfers to end. I want them to be more restricted to prevent people abandoning ship or smurfing. 60hr match ups sounds like a good idea, but again its a band-aid fix to the problem I’ve already listed. Fixing those core issues should lead to more even matches, which would solve the OPs issue while allowing enough time for a come back to actually happen and come-backs are a great thing to witness.

Point advantage is determined that way because of imbalanced server population coupled with the fact that points are awarded evenly even when there isn’t an active fight. That won’t change with a 3 day match up. That aspect is still broken with a 3 day match up. All a 3 day match up system does is make the ranking system more volatile.

R E F L H E X.8413:

I get what you are saying and this isn’t trying to fix anything. This is keeping world vs world playable, you just aren’t seeing the difference between keeping the game playable and trying to fix something.

I see the difference that’s why I said its a bad idea. If you fix those issues, then your play-ability 24/7 is fixed as well.

R E F L H E X.8413:

This is not trying to bandaid fix anything.

This is trying to keep people playing and encourage them to not transfer so they can actually do something in world vs world.

This is to make it so when the winning server has the full map they don’t have to stand there and have nothing to do for the rest of the week.

This is not trying to fix anything this is trying to keep world vs world playable for both the winners and the losers.

There is a huge difference.

You aren’t getting what I’m saying. This “fix” masks those other issues, thus its a band-aid fix for those issues even if you don’t intend it to be. I get what you are saying; however, I think your issue is less likely to be an issue when those other things are fixed. With server population in constant flux (regardless of the reason), with out manned and orb bonuses being broken, when points are awarded evenly even without competition, a come back is less likely to happen and thats why a match is decided within the first two days. Don’t you want to see comeback be possible?

Its basically putting the cart before the horse.

REFLHEX, its not off topic and its not trolling. Your purposed fix is a band-aid fix for all those other issues I’ve brought up. In my experience, game developers are less likely to address core issues if a band-aid fix gets enough momentum

But theres no point in us arguing anymore. We’ve exhausted our points.

tldr; 100 people is nowhere near enough to do everything a server has to offer. if you think so, you haven’t really thought about it long enough.

You are assuming that those 100 people are the only ones on the map. Yes, a little more may need to come over, but from what I’ve seen each server has 30-100 people on off time. 100 more people would be enough to use politics and good tactics to stop a complete shellacking.

ANET needs to fix some other issues, but politics and spreading out a little bit would certainly be a little bit more fun that simply dominating an entire match during your prime time IMO. If not then meh whatever.

R E F L H E X.8413:

Xpiher.5209:

R E F L H E X.8413:

Here’s the only thing that matters :

Haker.5067:

The battle is pretty much decided within the first 3-4 days, and after that, people stop playing so one server dominates, or people transfer over.

What he said was the truth, it doesn’t matter what or why it was decided maybe one server had more night coverage, it doesn’t matter how it was decided the point being the match is decided more than likely in this time frame and the other servers will either quit or worse TRANSFER.

But it does matter. Those mechanics remain broken with a 3 day match up, which means the band-aid fix (this fix) is an easy way out to cover up the other issues. Its the easy way out. Without those fixes, ladder ranking remains volatile

I see no broken mechanics in wvw, I see points being taken and rewarding you for what you have taken. That is not broken.

• Outmanned vs Orb bonuses are broken
• Points being awarded evenly throughout the entire length of the match is broken (it rewards equally when you aren’t actively fighting anyone which is stupid).
• Transfers cause population fluctuation and issues of guilds transferring to lower ranked servers in order to get easy match ups

Those 3 points make it so there the tieres remain volatile with 3 day matches. Fixing these 3 issues perhaps could also fix the issue of people giving up by giving more even matches. If not then 3 day matches should be looked at.

R E F L H E X.8413:

Here’s the only thing that matters :

Haker.5067:

The battle is pretty much decided within the first 3-4 days, and after that, people stop playing so one server dominates, or people transfer over.

What he said was the truth, it doesn’t matter what or why it was decided maybe one server had more night coverage, it doesn’t matter how it was decided the point being the match is decided more than likely in this time frame and the other servers will either quit or worse TRANSFER.

But it does matter. Those mechanics remain broken with a 3 day match up, which means the band-aid fix (this fix) is an easy way out to cover up the other issues. Its the easy way out. Without those fixes, ladder ranking remains volatile

But hey, if you are ok with a band-aid fixes thats all well in good.