Guild Wars 2

I payed for the game, and I should be able to play it whenever I want.

Breaking into time slots is a terrible idea. Terrible. I want to play whenever I want, for how long I want. And because someone doesn’t want that, I should be forced into playing at specific times, when I maybe don’t want to play it? Why not make dungeons only available from 5-6PM.

Population imbalances do not ruin anything. If I play for 12 hours, and then a server brings in their night pop and take everything, does that mean I did not have fun playing for 12 hours?

In case you haven’t noticed, you get nothing for winning a WvW match. And you get nothing from losing. Why do people place so much on winning and losing when it doesn’t matter?

Asura look like they won’t make a jump, but they do.

I have learned jumping on my charr, and I am used to the animations and distances. But it changes when you get a much smaller body with different animations. And that is where your difficulty lies. Make sure you are on the edge before you make the jump, else you come up short and fall to your death.

Hope you reported them, if they indeed hack/exploit.

And why should people who refuse to play WvW, or never do, reap even more rewards without helping at all? That is like beating Zhaitan and everyone in your server gets the chest as well, because that whole server could have helped in his defeat.

There are plenty of rewards as it is, and we don’t need to add more because people want to be rewarded extra for winning. Your rewards come in the huge karma, exp, and gold you gained through taking and holding more objectives consistently.

I agree, BG has been very formidable throughout.

Mainly from an EB viewpoint, overall you guys have been very aggressive, and I love it. You guys are constantly harassing everyone, with coordinated smash attacks at key locations. Take pride that you are being hit as hard as possible. That just means you are a threat, and we have to give it everything we got to make sure you don’t take us down.

I was not trying to inflame anyone at BG. They just happened to be from BG. So i thought I would say that it happened, and that everyone should report these people right away when they see them doing this.

Not meaning to accuse anyone. I purposefully left out their guild (although named above) so as to not call anyone out. I understand 99% of the player base don’t support this, and I just wanted to urge everyone to report as fast as possible, and stop these people from ruining the game.

Have to say, I am regretting to inform everyone that certain players from BG have been seen using an exploit to steal the orb.

Not meant to cause drama, but anyone who can should report these people, whether they are on your server or not. Play fair, or don’t play at all. I really hoped that the 2nd tier would not be subject to the constant hacker/exploiting issues other tiers seem to have. If we get these people banned now, in the future exploiters will think twice before they use their exploit, and we can cull the bad players from the herd, and improve our gaming experience.

So disappointed.

There is a difference between hiding in a keep that you are in and porting people in and jumping through every part of the castle to take it.

WvW has siege for a reason. it would be pointless to make it so siege was no longer needed so you could just walk in and take something without any challenge involved. If you want that, it would ruin WvW entirely.

if you want mesmer portals, GO MAKE A MESMER. Like, seriously? That is like complaining that elementalists can use meteor shower, and how they only have access to that skill. If I want to use meteor shower, I will go play on an ele. Like really. Really.

Yes, that may be what is happening in EB. But that’s maybe just because you had two servers hitting you at the same time, and both those servers are ranked higher than you.

Do not equate other servers being better to you having a disadvantage. The blue and green servers are ranked higher than you, and it is expected they will do better.

Redkeep screens:
1. Placing the catapult there can yes, cover you from above attacks. But guess what? That also puts you in a very vulnerable position from behind, and it is very close to red’s spawn point. AKA, you may get cover from the one arrow cart up there, but the enemy zerg is most likely going to take out said catapult within 2 seconds.
2. Maybe you were there are the wrong time. I believe it should have all the upgrades like other gates. Either you looked at the wrong time, or there is a bug, which should be fixed, obviously.
3. The carts can actually be placed even further back, and like I said earlier, if you let them get in range of your cart, shame on you. Any arrow cart can keep many foes at bay and punish any trying to get close.

Lastly, I was mainly discussing the sneakability of these 2 backdoors. Redkeep is extremely hard to sneak into back there, while blue keep has multiple ways in and better chances of successful sneaking. And that was my main point.

No, those are both good servers. And I have seen them make some good placements. There are times when the Red keep has trebs that are virtually impossible to take out unless you sneak very well and have luck, or you break down the first set of walls. And these trebs can hit the entirety of your map, with little to no chance of retaliation. Seems like a huge advantage to me.

Also, I have been in the top-tier matchup very often, and I see blue keep fall more often than red. Actually, I almost never see the red keep under invader hands. That should show you how defensive it really is.

1. Arrow carts can be set up on the stairs behind the door. They are hard to hit unless the enemy has a ballista, and an arrow cart should take out the ballista before that happens. And any arrow cart can make any ele or ranger trying to get close second guess their decision to stand in the AoE. If they have enough time to AoE down the cart, you are doing something wrong. So if you don’t notice the cross swords on your keep and do not think to look at the less obvious entrance, that is your fault for not defending correctly. Once you discover the enemies, they are easily dispersed with a single arrow cart, with a 30 sec time from spawn to the backdoor, to surround the enemy. (Yes, green keep has the best hidden attack point. I agree, and I hope Anet fixes this very soon. But if you have to use the secret point to even consider breaking in, chances are you are not going to take the keep anyways.) Blue keep also has a hidden backdoor that is set up in an even worse position than the redkeep. Try sneaking into red’s backdoor, and then try blue’s. Red def has the advantage.

2. No. You have people that are bad at placing. There are plenty of places that you can stick the trebs that are impossible to hit from SM. Trust me, we are being hit for hours at SM by red trebs up there. Any treb being set up in range can easily be trebbed by the redkeep trebs. Any siege setup on the vista side can also easily be taken out. Don’t blame your map for bad defense and scouting. If I never look to my left at the ranger shooting me, is it bad cameras because I didn’t look? And some trebs can even be placed out of range of a ballista at the vista. It can happen.

4. I have set up many a treb in that area. And there are plenty of ways to break the siege. First, any organized group can hold pangloss and run enough supplies from there to keep the tower up indefinitely. The hill to the right of the choke can be used to gain access into the camp, with the correctly placed jump. You can easily circle around and take out the siege from behind. (Happened many times) Most defenders do not expect an attack from behind, and can be easily cleared. And Pangloss is easily the easiest defended supply camp ever. If you lose it, shame on you. A dedicated 5-10 man team can hold off 30-40 people easily.
5. Well-placed defensive weapons are a lot harder to hit, unless they planned poorly and laid it all in one spot.
6. Same could be said for you. Any of your towers under attack, throw stuff at them from Keep. Problem Solved. Almost every red tower taken will instantly have trebs firing on them, preparing to take them back.
7. Back to poor defense. If you have no one at anzalias watching enemies file up to that ledge, sucks for you, you may lose some siege. if you can’t be bothered to watch key areas, then you can’t be bothered to think you will win.

Lastly, the western half of red is open mainly because of the mole NPC camp. I have ran through there and hit your camps countless times, never running into anyone. Us being green, we have people watching our supply camps. We report when we see people running past our towers. Time and time again, entire zergs run past Anzalias and meet no resistance. We run past a tower. And you are mad that you don’t see us? Once again, bad playing.

The biggest advantage green has is that we are very close together. That is pretty much it. But the minute we lose a tower, we are in huge trouble, because those towers can treb other towers and all our keeps. So our biggest advantage is also a weak point. Stop QQing and play the game.

I tried to bring this thread back to decency, but all it is is people whining. Or talking crap. See post above.

Seriously, this has been a fun time. It is in the best interest for BG and IoJ to hit us at SBI hard, so that they can take the lead. If they focused on each other, we would retain our lead. Got off early tonight so it will be interesting to see how our SBI night crew holds out. When I left, BG and IoJ were hitting us hard from both sides (EB) and it is some pretty crazy battles, running from one area to the next.

So please, let us keep this thread respectful, have some good laughs and memories shared, and just have some fun. We are all very good servers, if only some attitudes matched the skill.

I did not. Between giggling and then the guardian killing me, slipped my mind. :P

Well see, I am not as devious as you. Never thought of that. O.o

So little old me, running back into the SM fight after I died. All three servers were there and fighting in the main room. Right when I pass the destroyed wall, the enemy takes Stonemist. The wall repairs to full health, and I am trapped inside.

I could have WP’ed out, honestly, but I wanted to see what I could do. And I never managed to kill anyone or do anything damaging.

I could hit any enemy on the wall with my AoE skills, and I could tell many were confused as to where I was hitting them from. I eventually was found out by a mean old staff guardian, and had a few laughs while I turned into a tornado… inside a wall.

Anyways, just thought I would mention it. Someone could take advantage and kill defenders and/or siege from inside the wall if they time it right, or just wait for it to pop back up.

Enough of the kitten talk. (And yes I used kitten, not the real word.)

SBI started off slow, but through a lot of persistence we managed to slowly gain the lead. I was playing in EB from reset to 4am. 11 hours if you will.

There was a lot of struggling over Stonemist, and those were some awesome fights. We had servers ninja’ing the castle multiple times, long sieges, and many hard-fought victories and defeats. We had mesmers porting in zergs, flanking maneuvers, and everything under the sun. It was a LOT of fun. When I logged off, SBI had managed to take and hold SM reliably, with a full set of guild buffs.

These threads should be about the fun, not about whining about your server being attacked, or who can win in a pissing contest. Mention the battles and the fun you had in them.

Congrats to IoJ and BG. SBI was going in strong and expecting to dominate straight away, and quite a few were surprised that we were in last. You guys are great servers, and I had a blast fighting against you.

This is one of the best threads I have read! Mad props to all those being hilarious. <3

SBI:
I have to say, it is a blessing that we at SBI are losing. It is a huge blessing, and I even hope we lose some more.

I am sick of hearing SBI whine and moan and complain that HoD is unstoppable blah blah blah. That is all they have been doing. Yes, we lose to them. But all that makes me want to do is try harder, not give up. So I am thankful to those who are smashing us in the face. Our queues are instant. I can get an entire group of guildies and go have FUN.

The general attitude on SBI has been “No.” No, don’t take that. No, don’t do this. No, we can’t beat HoD. No, we can’t take that tower. No, we can’t take out the siege equipment. Over and over again, that is all I hear in our chat from leaders. When they tell me “No” I make it a point to take out the trebs (and I do) and do whatever it is they are telling me I can’t. And the more we lose, the more these people rage and leave.

So I am glad we are losing. We are culling the herd, and I hope to god all of these people who are giving up, whining, moaning, and trash-talking leave our server. After they leave, SBI will be a better place. SBI just has never had a chance to win because the attitude has always been that we won’t win.

HoD isn’t unstoppable. That much is clear. GL to JQ and ET in your battles, I hope you have it in you. SBI will return, be it next week or the week after that, or even a few weeks, and we will be better, and we will know that we can win.

Currently, all influence and upgrades are server bound, so that it is a big problem if you try to move a large guild that already built up their crap to restart entirely and do it again…

First off, I am looking at the server list right now. ET, when I checked maybe a week ago, was “Full”, and now it is considered “High.” So now that my need to correct a mistake is rectified, I an apologize and agree with you.

I would love to be on Kaineng. I would love to have the underdog fights, and have to fight for every inch of ground. I would love that.

However, Anet currently has ZERO support for entire guilds transferring to a different server. My guild is 300 strong, and is not specifically aimed at PvP/WvW. So I must think for the general good of the members, and right now Anet has made it where there are very few “pros” to having my guild move 300 people to an entirely new server.

But, I can only dream of how fun their fights are in WvW. And how they are all working for a common goal. :/

I do urge Anet to work on guild server transfers, and give an incentive for a large 300+ guild to leave a densely populated server and join a lower pop server.

We defended a few, and we cut off supply. By the time you took our area, we had already finished for the night. We also helped defend our towers, and took out a few trebs along the way.

It is not karma farming, it is disrupting your supplies and forcing you to recap your points. We are a small group and we don’t like to zerg. So we did what we could, taking supply camps across the map. And if we pushed a tower, we would have been overrun in a minute or less. We would be hard-pressed to break into the tower in very little time. Especially a fully upgraded tower.

So you think we deserve DR because what? You couldn’t stop us? We were consistently doing the same thing, and you guys failed to try to stop us, and failed utterly in keeping us away. So why should we be punished because you didn’t try to stop us? We were doing something highly effective, you failed to stop it, and you want us to be punished? Very logical.

@Tzash
No. I never mean outnumbered. I mean a large group of players. A zerg is a zerg, whether it outnumbers the enemy or not. 50v50 is a zerg fight, and that is how I use the term “zerg.” And yes, a zerg can outnumber the enemy. The problem lies when there is an insane advantage in getting all your players in one spot to take objectives insanely fast. All I suggest is slowing that rate a little. Nothing major. There is a reason why modern battles are no longer zerg tactics like in WWI, and that is because there are disadvantages to zerg tactics, and the game should make such disadvantages apparent.

In the top servers, zerg tactics do not work during primetime. Skill plays a huge role in the fights, as well a tactics, and often lots of luck. Saying there is no skill means that the top servers win because they have 50 players in the map, where during primetime each server fields the same numbers, and thus the battles are much more strategic and skillful. So your point is wrong.

@Noizemaker
Does real life have cats with goat horns calling down meteors to hit a wall? Did you have to target an enemy in order to shoot them with a ballista? Wait, you mean that doesn’t happen in real life? Then why should this game be based directly of real life. This is a game that is played for fun, and therefor it is logical to balance the game to ensure that all players have an equal chance at fun.

Also, the scaling would never drastically change things. If the 50 man zerg wants to take the disadvantage and keep hitting a tower, they can. All it does is slow their progress, and suggest to them that they should be more strategic. It does not ruin gameplay for anyone, it creates better gameplay.

If you look at last week, HoD was in last place because ET and SBI both hit HoD hard. The first ngith of the reset, HoD nearly lost their entire holdings in EB, which is generally unheard of during primetime. And while ET lost, they still had the guts to actually fight HoD with us, and we dominated until the nightcapping took effect.

And now that JQ is back, a I predicted, SBI would not take 2nd. Why? Because JQ is never one to hit HoD aggressively. I have seen time and time again JQ just sitting on their side, or fighting at umber/pangloss. HoD will take mutiple towers in quick succession from JQ, and JQ will take them back, and then stop pushing. I have rarely seen JQ making a push into HoD lands, so I am very surprised you actually attempted to take SM.

You claim what you want, but your track record is that you are afraid of HoD, while SBI fights HoD every chance we get. Sure, we hit JQ as well. But hey, we aren’t afraid of laying a siege, and we are not afraid of any other server. So before you complain about us, look at your track record. You made it abundantly clear during the weekend that you wanted us out of the top matchup, and had no qualms hitting us with HoD. I even had HoD coming and breaking up sieges SBI put up against JQ, which is suspect in itself. xD

So if you made it clear we were not playing for first during the weekend, then that is what we are playing as. You amde your choice to only get 2nd, and now you complain because we won’t help you? LOL

On Pangloss: It is a very defensible camp that can be quite fun to hold. And while JQ sends large forces at the single supply camp, they are doing nothing elsewhere, so it hurts them ultimately. And don’t believe it is just SBI taking the camp. HoD holds it about the same amount as we do. I have even had a huge HoD zerg come to take Pangloss from SBI for no reason accept that they could. That’s right. SBI and HoD fighting at a camp in the JQ area. So don’t whine about SBI taking a fun objective, when it is always a highly targeted camp for various reasons.

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/pvp/wuvwuv/DR-in-WvW/first#post325497

Doing well in WvW also has it’s drawbacks. I made this post, but it is very relevant to this post.

@Guild Wars Fan
But why should the only way to stop the zerg be to zerg them with a zerg of your own? Anet has stated that a good group of 5 players should be able to defend an objective against larger numbers if they are organized and smart. But this is just not true at the moment. A small group is just not capable to defend well, or stop the enemy from entering the objective easily. The scaling NPC’s is just to slow down killing them even more. And idk what server you are playing on, but on my server, no one would be willing to lose their spot in a map and have to wait in the queue again after they already got in. No one would log out to increase chances. The only thing the scaling would do would be to buy defenders time and slow the effectiveness of the zerg down, not create a situation where it encourages not playing.

If there is not a single defender in an objective, than the scaling shouldn’t take effect, because let’s face it: Without a single defender, you stand no chance at defending an objective, and so no scaling should happen because that objective is essentially lost anyways.

@Everyone else
I agree in capping around the zerg 100%. The issue is that you need a large number of defenders to even stand a chance against an enemy zerg at your gates. The more numbers you have, the more chance you stand at stopping them. And that is flawed.

But if your are outnumbered or being hit hard from both servers, it is hard indeed to leave enough defenders as well have a big enough force to go on the offensive. And that is where the scaling would help balance. You can give yourself enough time to counter the zerg, set plans in motion, prepare a better defence, etc., instead of being destroyed in a few minutes because you couldn’t field enough numbers to do the anti-zerg zerging strategies. Backcapping is never a reality when you face losing fully upgraded towers while you insist on retaking the ones you lost. Losing a fully upgraded objective is a huge loss fr a server, and takes a lot of time and effort to recoup that loss.

And in no way would the scaling mean that the enemy would be stopped. The scaling would just ensure that the zerging is slowed so that players who may have limited numbers can effectively organize counter-attack, hold longer for reinforcements to arrive, and just have longer to say their final prayers.

And yes, in accordance with night-capping, it would never solve the issue that your server is fielding less players. However, it would make sure that a zerg can’t take 4 fully upgraded tower and a fully upgraded keep in less than 30 minutes. Just slowing said zerg down would be a bonus for the outmanned server, give them time to try to find more numbers elsewhere, give them a small chance to actually defend, and give the server more time to hold their points and gain more points, while limiting the time the nightcapping server holds the points, and slow down their massive lead increase.

Tyrshar.1782:

But, back to the OP’s topic, I can understand the need to make zerg tactics less rewarding and preferable (let’s be honest, it’s cheap, especially when the attacking force dramatically outnumber the number of defenders). The idea to make guards scale to the size of the attacking force is a decent suggestion, but it needs to take into the consideration the number of defenders. For example, if a keep has 50 defenders, is it fair to punish 50 attackers (which would be a zerg)? If a keep (or any base, in general) “event” scaled based on ratio of defender/attacker, then that would be interesting (of course, you are going to get a lot of hate from people who strictly rely on zerg tactics to accomplish anything). If there are < 75% defenders, I would be in support of guards starting to spawn more rapidly (or even higher tier champions if totally imbalanced). Additionally, it would be nice if guards were actually “intelligent” and gave priority to attacking siege equipment. For example, having roaming guards attack NPCs over real PCs is upsetting. Ah well, it’s an interesting idea, and would make WvWvW more interesting for me, at least.

That is basically what I said in my first post. If there are 50 wailing on the gates, and 50 up on the walls, the scaling would not take effect. And if there are less defenders, at least a ten man difference, the scaling would take effect, the walls and gates would have more health, and the NPC’s may have the same.

Back in beta, you could right click them and just PM them straight from there. I would PM people to stop hitting me. xD

Karma DR is very real. Was getting less than half of what I would be getting without DR. It was insane. 340 for someone without DR, around 70 for those of us who had been doing it for awhile.

No, you can kill players in a siege of a tower. You can. But can you take the tower without killing a single player? Yes, you can. When the major zergs break through the gate, they rush the lord, and kill all the players on the way. But if those players left the tower right before the gate went down, does that stop the tower from being taken? No. The tower is just as much taken as it was with killing players. And likewise, you can hold a tower for hours and days without killing a single player. Does that mean that objective is not gaining points because no players were killed while holding it? no. If you use an arrow cart to scare off potential attackers without killing any, does that mean that you achieved nothing?

Like I said, killing players has it’s uses, but it is not the ultimate goal. The goal is to take and hold objectives for points. That is what wins WvW. And killing players can be useful in stopping defenders from getting in and the likes. I agree with you there.

But implementing a system JUST for killing players is not the answer. There is no basis for it. The killing is not the goal, but the taking and keeping of objectives.

And so I suggest that a rank system be based on ALL thing relevent to winning in WvW, with an emphasis on taking and defending objectives. Along with all the other effective things you can do in WvW. Killing can be a part of that system, but it should not be the sole objective in said system.

So my guild has recently started doing what we call “Black Ops.” We get together when there is no queue (been doing this in SBI EB, just fyi)and form up in a small strike force. And then we proceed to run around taking supply camps, sentries, dolyaks, unfortunate players, and harass the enemy across the map. We are small and mobile, and get things done very quickly and efficiently. (We even did a “surprise siege” at the back entrance of the Red keep in EB with 8 of us, where we set up a golem and started to smack the gate. We got it down to maybe about 10% before we had 30 people come and smash us. We had a blast!) We are constantly on the move, and rarely stop to defend the camp we just took. I noticed however, that I was receiving less and less rewards for taking these objectives.

Sure, we were doing a ton of events in short amounts of time. I get it in PvE, to stop people from doing too much and botting. But this is PvP, and it is different. We are fighting the top 2 servers in NA, and we are hurting them and disrupting their supply and forces, causing them to come back and retake their camps and sentries, and even having some players stay back to defend dolyaks instead of fighting on the front lines. So why are we being limited? We are fighting at the highest level we can, so you can be sure we are not farming anything, nor are we taking advantage of a large difference in numbers to farm these events. We are playing skillfully, effectively, and should not be punished for that.

You don’t see players in SPvP getting less glory because they manage to capture a lot of points, or players getting less rewards for being an efficient killer of enemies. That would just seem ridiculous, so why is it acceptable in WvW? Skillful, efficient, and useful tactics are being punished because we are succeeding too well too fast at them.
This system needs to be removed, and allow people who play well get the rewards they deserve.

If it was about killing players, then player killing would have a say in the points system. As far a I can tell, points are based on gaining the objectives. Winning in WvW, obviously, is about taking and holding objectives for point.

Killing players is, yes, something that can be done. And it ha it’s uses. But in no way does killing 500 enemies mean your server is winning, so why should there be a system that promotes something that is not directly tied to winning in the match.

I am not saying there is no skill, but the essence of WvW is unbalanced fights. And so by making a system that completely rewards those that do not participate in the real goals of WvW (taking objectives) is a flawed system. So yes, there is skill, but you want to show skill based on something that is not pure skill.

A true rank would be better off displaying things that make sense for objective-based fighting, which is what WvW is. Sure, you can factor in kills into a system, but kills should not be in a system of itself.

PvP is Player Versus Player, not player killing player. Attacking a tower is still going against the enemy players, and it actually makes sense within the system of WvW, and yes, you can make a few kills in the taking of the tower. But killing players without doing anything else is detrimental to WvW as a whole. If you want to spend your time killing players, then go to SPvP.

I just made a post that would also help with the nightcapping phenomenon, so here is the link: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/pvp/wuvwuv/A-Limit-on-Zerg-Tactics/first#post325377

Tell me what you think!

The solution is simple: Event Scaling

A huge component of all DE’s in PvE is the scaling involved in it. If you have 30 players, that event scales up, creating harder enemies that take longer to kill. So far, this has been a great system that works well in PvE, with little or no possibility of griefing whatsoever.

When I walk into range of any obtainable point on the WvW map, I get a notification that there is a new event in the area. When I complete a capture or defense event, I get exp, karma, and moneyz for completion (or failure) of said event. So if it looks and acts like a Dynamic Event, why is it not scaled the same as one?

When 50 people start smashing a gate with multiple rams put up in seconds, they can easily break into a tower within a few minutes. Hours of spent holding said tower, spending tons of player-earned money on upgrading the tower, and it can be taken in minutes because an entire server came to hit it so fast, the defenders have little time to react and defend. So I ask, why are these events not scaled? If there are 50 players hitting the gate, why is that gate not scaled upwards? Why does getting a huge attacking force give such a huge advantage. That being said, having the 50 players will not cause you to lose, it will slow you down, nothing more. To be clear, the idea is to scale taking objectives according to the number of players present.

And the scaling works logically. If you have 50 players outside a besieged tower, and 50 people inside the tower, no scaling would take effect. It would be like all the usual primetime tower fights in EB. And if there are only 5 defenders against 20, the favor would be in the outmanned defenders. And neither would this break gameplay, or ruin it for anyone. It would simply promote better usage of numbers, better planning, and not promote getting 50 people and just running over everything.

And if a server has the outmanned buff, the scaling goes up even more. (Recently at an off-peak hour in SBI, HoD got most of their map’s numbers, and wiped us off the map in less than 30 minutes. Four fully upgraded towers and a fully upgraded keep lost in less than 30 minutes. We made some mistakes, for sure, but it happened so fast, there was little we could really do.) With this scaling of the gates, walls, and even NPC’s, it would slow the zerg down, and give time for the outmanned and beleaguered defenders to mount a decent defense, prolong defeat, and give more time to try different options and strategies to break the siege.

So instead of the 50 HoD hitting one tower at a time, and moving from there, it would be better and more efficient to have the 50 players to split up into 2, 3, or even smaller groups to take the towers. As my server was outmanned, with only maybe 20 players actively fighting, we would be hard pressed to defend all four of our towers at once, and keep/take back our supply camps simultaneously. But at the moment, there is even less chance of the 20 players to stop the 50 players at a single tower.

This scaling would promote more efficient defense, better offensive coordinating and tactics, and slow the snowball that can happen when you lose one tower.

Fun fact: This system would also limit the “Nightcapping” phenomenon and give favor to the outmanned defenders, give them time to surmount an appropriate defense, use different tactics, and ultimately slow down the zergs that appear so often.

I am sure this system has flaws, but I think this is the single best way to promote more skillful play, limit zergfests, and balance WvW overall. Most other suggestions seem to force players to either play, or not play, and this one does not limit a single person, while still balancing the outstanding issues.

P.S. Please keep this thread on topic, and avoid the craziness of other threads.

You wants ranks for killing people? Go to SPvP. Those are ranks specifically for killing players on an even playing field. Ya know, where it takes skill to do it. In WvW, you could easily be a 5-man team looking for single players to kill to gain their rank. How is that based on skill? Oh wait, it isn’t. I believe there is already a large achievement centered on how many kills you obtain in WvW.

But making a rewards system based on uneven matchups and such would be a terrible system. All it would encourage is easy kills in order to show supposed “skill”. There is no skill in 3 people killing one person, and thus should not be treated as skill. As I already said, go play SPvP.

Another flaw in this system is that WvW is not about killing enemy players at all. It is about objectives, supply, and points gained from objectives. So why should they endorse a system that completely goes against the WvW design as a whole?

However, a rank system would be awesome. Based on objectives captured, objectives held, supply disrupted, and so forth. You know, ranks for doing stuff that is actually relevant in WvW. The rank system can even be attributed to guilds. Like x amount of players from guild x took 25 objectives last night, held 42 objectives, repaired x amount of walls, escorted x amount of dolyaks, etc.

I am sorry, but Anet will never implement this system as it goes against the very nature of WvW. Your suggestion is flawed because you apparently fail to understand what WvW is actually all about.

The Ogduk waypoint is permanently contested in this area. The waypoint is contested, and this bugged event has caused the nearby skillpoint and PoI to be closed off behind an impenetrable Inquest Gate.

This is stopping many players from completing this area, and it is really frustrating. Rumor has it that this bug has been present since almost the beginning of release.

It would be nice to get a response and have this issue dealt with.

if you can’t find the problem in the code, and are still looking for it, maybe you can just disable the gate. This way at least players can grab the skill point and PoI while you work on resolving this bug.