Guild Wars 2

Has anyone used the LFG tool in WvW?

I had a quick look at it; there are sections for Squad groups (for tags) and Party groups. I can access it in WvW and in PvE (only tried these two). But PvE maps and cities are megaserver… so how does that work out?

If I create a group and advertise it, who gets to see it? Only my server? All the servers in my link group? ALL servers?

PS: If there aren’t any players who can answer this, please can we get a Dev response.

Of course WvW has an LFG, it always has – you go to a map and look for a tag.
You can even start a group by tagging up yourself.

In addition to both these LFG modes, I sometimes roam with a friend or two, and if someone wants to join party they do although this is more of a Found A Group system.

Not sure what “improvements” Anet will make to these though….

PvE is not a lobby for WvW – not since the introduction of Megaservers.
I remember calls going out in the PvE cities for help defending in WvW. Occasionally you’d get “WvW – what’s that?” and a chance to introduce a new player to the game…

This has now gone.

I’d be happy with a WvW lobby, with crafting stations, mistic forge and the WvW vendors. Just like PvP there could also be a set of NPCs to test builds against – perhaps the DBL bosses? And small duelling arenas (just import the Guild one would do).

@Zenith – I’m sorry but I can’t agree that it’s enough to measure hours played. I’ve seen too many players afk at spawn to trust time on a map as a measure of active participation.

@Straegen – I understand, but which servers are you talking about? Host servers I suspect. Part of the idea in changing to personal score is to allow competition at player level and guild level, as well as server level. It would also allow all servers to earn score, which would go a fair way to restoring the identity of the guest servers.

Is the idea of allocating score to individual players rather than lumping it all into an overall “server” score really that much more complicated?

@Djamonja – if scoring can be done personally for each player it’s easy to do work out scores for individual servers even if they are linked. Simply add up the personal score for each player on the server.

The real question is how do you achieve an individual player score?
I had thought of WvW XP gained, but then XP boosters become score boosters. Perhaps WvW participation could be used, but then what about the “tap and AFK” method suggested for those who want an easy Gift of Battle?
Or could the current scoring system be used by assigning the points to each player individually instead of to a server?
If you have better ideas please suggest them!

One key advantage of personal scoring is that WvW could be developed into something that allows player choice, accommodates population changes and promotes server identity. The idea could work something like this:

• Keep the existing tiers but allocate different population caps to the maps so T1 now allows large group fights, T2 works with medium groups, T3 smaller groups and T4 small parties and solo/duo players. Group size would be limited by map population cap.
• Remove server based matchups and allow players to select the Tier they wish to play in every time they enter WvW. So if you want big zerg action one day you go into the T1 map and then if you fancy something a little smaller you’d change to a smaller group tier.
• Allocate servers to a colour for a fixed period of time (a week? a month?).
• Introduce Player Leader boards, Guild Leader boards and Server Leader boards with scores made up of individual player scores. This lets people play for fun, or with the aim of being the highest scoring individual, or to contribute to their guild score/position, or for their server.

Please note there would not be a colour score so this is not about creating factions, the colours are just a way of allocating servers to a borderland map, and might be a way of balancing the total population per side. Sort of a mega-linking that doesn’t actually change the scores.

Something like this would treat large and small servers equally in terms of identity, no one would ever be stuck in a poor matchup for weeks, and since players can choose the tier they play in (up to the map limit) it would be easier for players to even out fights if they wanted to.

I think it could work and bring a much needed rejuvenation to WvW, but it all hinges on changing to a viable personal scoring system.

Personally I would prefer a scoring system where each player gains score on a personal level. This would allow:

• player score leader boards
• guild leader boards (using the sum of the personal WvW score of the guild members)
• server leader boards (using the sum of the player scores for each server)

This could introduce 3 levels of competition where we only have one at present.

It would also allow ALL servers to compete, instead of only host servers gaining score.
It may even be that arranging server links using individual server scores might be more reliable than using the current WvW population metric.

I’d be happy enough to keep AC damage as it is but reduce the rate of fire.

It does seem like glicko is broken:

• Current scores are still partly based on historical data that is has been irrelevant since linking.
• Host servers retain the glicko score earned from the host-guest combination, even though links change regularly.
• Current scores are being tampered with – manual adjustments and occasional changes to the match making algorithm.

What are the alternatives?

• Replace glicko. But with what? Any replacement would need to accommodate both PPT and PPK play.

• Keep the current scoring but allocate score to every server involved? This would allow “guest” servers to gain score once again, and could lead to a full league table once more, or two tables (Hosts and Guests). But how do you fairly allocate score between the servers involved in a kill/capture?

• Is there a better alternative system?

It’s always been this was sadly.

A couple of years ago there were four T2 level servers in NA. The odd one out each match spent all week mercilessly destroying T3 in a bid to climb back into T2. This went on for NINE MONTHS continuous and led to a lot of grief for players in the real T3 servers.

Anet didn’t seem to care then and it doesn’t look any different now – I don’t think it’s specifically aimed at SBI.

Looking back at it, I’ve found myself playing less since they linked servers. No one talks about the guest servers anymore, it’s always the host server name that is used. I know that many people don’t care and just transfer around but it is server-loyal players who stay on in hard times because their server needs them. Take away the server and you take away the incentive for players like me.

The second problem I see is that WvW is not a nice place for new players. It’s very hard for a new player to get into WvW and learn how to play without getting squashed so often they say “kitten this” and drop out. In PvP tournaments Anet attempts to match the top ranked players against similar abilities, and even this brings salty posts about mismatched fights. In WvW there’s no matching algorithm and new players are likely to run into experienced, well equipped players quite often. Very few who get persistently beaten will return to fight the same odds, so few new players stick around and the total population declines faster than it grows.

Two things:

1: Balthazar doesn’t actually fight us. He attacks the mirrors, and sets his mercenaries and hounds on us, but doesn’t actually engage in combat against the player characters.

2: When you summon Hounds of Balthazar during the combat, why don’t they turn on the player or at least our allies? Why don’t human characters who selected to follow Balthazar at creation suffer confusion when trying to fight him, or at least hear his voice tempting them like the Sylvari heard Mordremoth?

3: Balthazar is trying to absorb more energy. Taimi’s plan to stop him is to overload the machine until it breaks. Balthazar disappears (presumably absorbing the overload energy because that has to go somewhere right?) – so are we trying to kill him or re-power him?

I’m confused!

What else do you expect when you put a PPK server up against a PPT server? They are very different play styles that’s all.

It’s not a case on either server losing since they measure success in different ways, and the glicko system is worthless anyway these days.

You do realise that not everyone runs in a zerg?

Conditions are much less of a problem in a large group – both for doing damage and for clearing them, and I agree with you here. However, small parties and solo players can’t just throw in a water ele or two and a couple of extra revenants… So what do you propose for these players?

Also how do you propose to balance condi damage and physical damage abilities when conditions are easier to stack, you can stack multiple types at once and you only need two stats to maximise condi damage compared to three for physical?

It’s simple and it’s true. Consider both these situations:

Three players attacking a camp supervisor with purely physical damage. They each do a different amount of physical damage (eg: one has force sigil, one has green weapon, one has ascended). The damage is calculated at each hit and applied immediately. Repeat until combat is over.

The same three players, now with condi builds, attack the same supervisor. One player does base damage, one does +25% condi and one does +50% damage. The first tick of the fight is the same as physical damage – calculate who hits and apply the damage. However for the second tick the server must now calculate and apply the damages from each player from the conditions applied in the first tick, and the separate damages from the newly applied conditions. And most methods of applying conditions also rely on a physical hit too, so there is still physical damage to be calculated and applied each hit.

By the time the three heroes get to the third tick of the fight the server is calculating 3 physical hits, three first tick condis, three second tick condis and three third tick condis. That’s 12 damage calculations and we have not yet added sigils or proc effects.

Now scale the fight up into a small zerg meets small zerg, and it’s no wonder the servers can’t cope.

If lag is a problem in WvW, conditions make it much worse.

I agree with the OP and, along with others, have said so before in other posts.

Fundamentally there should never be any boon/trait/stat that negates 100% of damage so resistance needs to be changed to a -33% condi damage single stack boon in the same way that protection works for physical damage. It should stack duration not effect.

A extra stat (Constitution) should be introduced to act for conditions in the same way that toughness works for direct damage.

The main reason for suggesting these changes is simple:

There should always be a trade-off between maximising damage and maximising survivability. For physical damage that trade is, for example, zerker vs soldiers stats. Condition damage builds do not face the same trade off at the moment, and this is part of the reason condi builds are so popular.

It is also important that the stat that reduces the physical damage (toughness) should not be the same one that reduces condition damage – again players should have to trade between damage and survivability against physical damage and separately against condi damage.

Using Constitution, the ultimate bunker build would be Constitution, Toughness, Vitality. Pure survivability but with the offensive properties of a rabid lettuce.

Actually I don’t think this would make much difference. A commander who is more interested in gold would most likely be either k-training or in PvE leading world boss trains.

There are two types of commander in WvW.

• Dedicated Guild commanders run a group that is usually in TS and may or may not be open to join. They are usually experienced and skilled, and part of their job is to train new commanders within their guild.
• Pug commanders are more casual, tend to run open groups, and since linking started are not usually on TS (which TS would you use, and are you able to verify new players?!). Pug commanders rarely train up new commanders but do a useful job filling in when Guild groups are absent.

Neither Guild commanders nor pug commanders are leading for gold, although I’m sure few would say no to a donation if you sent one!
Guild commanders are motivated by their community and team, and the fun they have together.
Pug commanders are motivated by a desire to return a map to it’s rightful colour, to gather enough players to actually have a chance of doing stuff, and for the fun the group can have together.

If you want to entice Commanders to lead then encourage them, follow them, help them and don’t abuse those who do tag up. If a commander doesn’t know what to do, offer advice and support.

We had this in GW1 and it was useful.

In WvW I’d really like to be able to OOC and change from a roaming build to a support build or assault build…

The way it used to work was you had to get the equipment and traits etc and then you saved the template for that build. When you wanted to use that build you went ooc, selected from the drop down menu of your saved builds and, if you had the equipment required, it applied the build. You could even message people the build string so you could share builds easily.

This would be even better if there was dedicated storage for the equipment so it doesn’t take inventory space. Anet could make money here by selling a soulbound “Build Storage Bag” for 800 gems, and they’d sell like hot cakes too.
One “bag” per build you can save – so if you buy one you can save one alternative build. Want two alternative builds? Buy two.
It would be an alternative “Equipment” screen so you can store a full set of armour and trinkets and weapons, but not accessible as inventory items unless you are wearing them.

I can see the accountability of the pop up window, but I doubt this actually stop it happening. The fact that the player name is shown to everyone would simply embarrass new players and feed the trolls.

Making tactivators useable by only the guild that set them is not the answer either.
I know it’s a pain if they get trolled, but I see that behaviour far less often than I need someone to pull a tactivator in defence of an objective.
Locking tactivators to a specific guild is great while players of that guild are on the map and present at that location, but literally useless otherwise.

If this is caused by Rune of the Guardian then it is an unintended consequence of Anet making condition damage affect siege.

It has to be unintended because it does not require the Guardian to be able to hit the siege.

If it’s unintended then it’s a bug or an exploit.

I’ll give you an example then. I don’t run a “set” of armor. I could choose to mix Soldiers and Marauders and Knights items to get a mix of stats that I can’t get from a fixed single sPvP style amulet.

LOL – I wondered if the “nearly equal” might be a bit contentious, and I know the map could be improved a bit, but whatever you think of the layout in EBG the fact remains that it is still a good example of WvWvW on one map, and this is not a good reason to penalise play there.

Let’s try to keep replies on topic, and address the (in my opinion) unjustified call for EBG to be worth less than the BL maps because of blobs map hopping.

One of the big things that already makes WvW great is the ability to use different builds and mix and match stuff in a way that the sPvP amulet system does not allow. The fact that many players choose to follow a metabuild should not be used to penalise those of us who don’t. I would really hate to lose the flexibility and think WvW would be worse for such a change.

Also “Guild Wars” in GW2 refers to the historical story element not intended wars between player guilds.

EBG is WvW – it has all three side present on a nearly equal map (looking at you, Red keep…). You can’t get more WvWvW than that!

It wouldn’t be right to reduce the points from EBG – for some players it’s the map they (very much) prefer – why should their effort suddenly be worth less?

In reality, your original post is actually a complaint about blobs porting in from another map and jumping back out afterwards. This happens and is a player thing not a feature of a particular map.

Being on a linked server I’ve seen all sorts of game play.

• One server we were linked to runs a large blob that map jumps everywhere, taking and defending as the scouts call in targets/support.
• Another server has a dedicated EBG group who won’t support a BL no matter who asks or how often, but they keep their colour solid in EBG and help that way.
• Yet another server spreads small groups across all the maps and they come together to defend or attack as requested in team chat.

These are all valid ways of playing WvW, and have been for years.

I’ve just posted this idea in the Game Discussion Ideas thread, but wanted to also mention it here because I think it would have the most impact in WvW. I’m also happy to take feedback (which is more practical here) and edit my suggestion as necessary.

The idea is that Anet should add a single line text box to the Create Squad function so that a brief description of the squad purpose can be entered. This text line would show when you mouse over the Commander tag on a map along with the Commanders name (which is already shown). This should help make it clearer what a squad is doing.

For example:

• “Guild Missions, closed”
• “pug, open”
• “Havoc group”
• “Guild Raid”

The text must be kept brief so it fits under the Commanders name. I think 32 characters would cover it?

The default would be an empty field which doesn’t show unless something is typed in, so squads can be easily and quickly made; but the few extra seconds to set up a description should help players see what’s going on when they join a map.

It would also make it easier to use more than one tag simultaneously. I suspect some maps do this but linking has made it harder to have an agreed convention for what the colours mean – a brief text description should resolve this.

Is there anything I’ve missed?

Addition to Commanders UI and display.

Please add a single line text box to the Create Squad function so that a brief description of the squad purpose can be entered. This text line would show when you mouse over the Commander tag on a map along with the Commanders name (which is already shown). This should help make it clearer what a squad is doing, and would benefit all game modes.

For example:

• “Guild Missions, closed”
• “pug havoc, open”
• “Guild Raid”
• “Hero points”
• “Meta events”

These are all self explanatory and would help players recognise the purpose of a tag and therefore whether they wish to (or are able to) join squad.

Given that your “No crits” is actually a 60% crit rate the posts above seem likely explanations.

Or perhaps it’s just RNGs and someone somewhere with only 05% crit chance has just had 47 consecutive critical hits…

Guild siege can already be taken directly from the Guild tab if you build it through the Guild Hall. Superior siege doesn’t show. So that’s a problem from the start.

When I run as a player or a commander I usually provide my own siege. I buy guild siege with Guild Commendations from missions and make superior siege from the mithril and elder wood I collect.

I could use the Guild Siege from the guild tab, but I usually play at off peak times and I do not want to leave the prime time commanders without sufficient siege for their campaigns – I just don’t think that would be right.

I’m lucky that the guild I’m in takes WvW seriously enough to carry a stock of siege. What about the players in smaller guilds, or who are guildless by choice? Even being in a decent sized guild doesn’t guarantee a good supply of siege – I was a bit shocked to discover that my main character carries more siege than the entire stock of the guild my alt account is with.

At least with an account wide Siege Wallet you would know it’s up to you to keep it stocked and that no-one else has taken out all the catas and forgotten to put them back.

Brilliant idea!

I’ve seen players solo keeps before but I need a friend to help. If I’m solo I can still take the walls down though and call the rest of the team in when the time is right. If it takes 5+ to contest the keep then one or two of us can take it without risking anyone coming to defend! This would make life sooo much easier.
Or perhaps I should respectfully go and take a camp somewhere and sit around looking at all the T3 stuff while waiting to win? No, somehow I don’t think I will.

Yes it’s a pain when a perma stealth thief (or equivalent) can contest the WP so easily. Sometimes it’s ambient creatures. But without those little white swords the game would be much harder to play – we know because ANET removed them a couple of years ago, and they were quickly reinstated.

Yes, but with 7 types of siege, each at basic, Superior and Guild, plus three tricks/traps that’s 17 slots if you rely on the Provisioner for basic siege… and 24 if you don’t.

This is long over due. Please make it happen.

Any commander, and many players, will know the frustration of having to carry siege in your inventory only to find that what you want is on another character. The portable provisioner works for basic siege but Superior and Guild siege is still an issue.

It’s definitely time for a siege wallet for everyone, or at the very least a dedicated set of WvW shared inventory slots that are enabled when you buy a Commanders tag.

I’m really sorry to hear that you get kicked for being dead or not using TS. Dying is part of everyday WvW play for most players. I also understand about TS too – I have a friend who can’t use TS for a similar reason and so when I command I use the in game chat too. It’s not as effective, but a good pug commander should work with all his/her team.

For professions- try Guardian as something that can be fairly tanky and helpful in a group. You should be able to get enough hits with Staff 1. I suspect you would prefer to not dodge too often or have to kite around enemies to get the best angle of attack, so any class that can have a high toughness and good sustain should be suitable.

Are you in a guild? Can they help? A small guild group can roam fairly well in most tiers and you can use the Guild Hall WvW reward track boost along with any other WvW boosters you have.

It may help if you can tell us which server you are on – someone may be able to assist you or recommend a good guild or commander.

Another alternative is to try Edge of the Mists – I think it’s the same reward tracks and may be less elitist.

I hope this helps in some part, and wish you good luck in your quest!

“Slightly more shady”? SLIGHTLY shady?!

Really?!!!

Where’s the fun in “slightly shady”?

We’ve had Golem week, and portable cannons. It’s time for a new experiment and I nominate….

Night capping week!

Seriously – why doesn’t WvW have night time? The rest of Tyria has it.
So I propose a week or two of beta test before making this a permanent WvW game feature. Let’s have a 2 hour day-night cycle.

Day is the same as we have now.

Night has visibility reduced to melee range (so you can follow someone if close enough), unless you are carrying a light source such as a torch, then visibility could be further. All NPC guards would carry a torch, and all structures would be torch lit (perhaps with Superior torches with a brighter light and longer reach). Torches etc already exist in game so it’s just a matter of turning down the brightness. I would maintain a low level of “star” lighting for the basic visibility so it’s not pitch black.

Imagine:

• Hills with torches all along the walls…
• Watching Sunset over Garrison…
• Greeting Sunrise from the top of Stonemist…

Before you QQ about it, yes I know a whole zerg could put away their torches and creep through the darkness to suddenly “appear” outside a keep. So what? Mass invisibility or a lack of scouts has the same effect. Look on the bright side – we could all really night cap once every two hours and things could be a lot more exciting!

In an ideal world there would be at least one WvW dev on each server so they can understand the way the game works at all levels. In real life I seriously doubt the WvW team has enough members.

I would be really interested in a list of which servers Anet people play on though. I wouldn’t ask for names or details, they should be able to play just as anonymously as the rest of us, but don’t you wonder sometimes just which servers they actually play on…?

The problem with “war chests” is it tends to be the biggest guilds that can afford to do this, and they are usually on the higher population servers, so you end up moving players up again and causing further imbalance between populations.
Apparently Anet will even allow this while the server is labelled as full if you ask nicely.

Rewarding players for transferring down as set out in the OP could be farmed by anyone over 800 rank, and would result in transient players gaining ascended gear while players loyal to the smaller servers get nothing (again).

It would be better to offer a decent reward simply for being on a smaller population server.

“Skip” would work for me.

Unfortunately I think this is highly unlikely. In the eyes of Anet “guest” servers (the ones that are linked) are nothing more than a way to vary the match ups for the “host” servers.

If you are a beginner the question you really need to ask is “Which server has the most welcoming community?”. You should look for a server with some experienced players who are happy to welcome you and will share their knowledge. You will also find some form of voice comms (teamspeak, mumble or discord) to be very helpful.

Vier – your post is exactly the reason why I think it’s worth being more positive. Thank you for the example.

I don’t know for sure but I suspect the devs are currently involved in something called Real Life and perhaps even Family Time. I’ve tried these two and sometimes, like this time of year, they can be pretty time consuming.

From what I remember there’s something of a roller coaster ride:

• Hoping the RNG gives better gear and getting more ugly socks instead
• Grinding out endless washing up
• Mapping strange new areas in search of distant relatives
• Celebrations that you don’t quite remember clearly, but are sure included an achievement, for something.

I don’t recall a desperate desire to respond to petulant demands at work though. At least not without involving lots of kittens, and that probably wouldn’t help much.

It’s time for some positive thoughts. A light in the wintersday darkness as it were.

Whilst we are right to suggest ideas and perhaps even to complain about the things we don’t like, it is also true that no one likes to work in a hostile and negative environment. I believe a little courtesy harms no one and can make, even a virtual world, a better place.

These past 12 months have seen more development in WvW than we’ve had for a while. Some of these changes I have liked.

Personally I feel the end of the year makes this a good time to say thank you to the GW2 team for the things I have enjoyed in game, and to look forward to more developments in WvW during 2017.

If you wish to post your own positive thoughts here please do so.
If you simply wish to complain then there are other threads that you may find more suitable.

Did you also spot the future role for these mobile anti-glider platforms?

And what if the final mastery skill on the track was a little gyro-uav (like an engineer has) that allows you to get line of sight for the AC golem over walls and round corners!

The problem IS population but not in the way most people think. Over the past 4 years I’ve seen players come and go (mostly go), but what stands out most for me at the moment is how few players are joining WvW – in this sense I definitely agree with the OP title..

It’s natural to have the populations change, and we could cope if new players come into WvW and stay to play.

Ins once said, and I agree with him, that “WvW should be easy to get into and hard to master”. Getting in and getting started gets you hooked on the game mode. Trying to master it should take many many WvW ranks and probably the help of Guild mates and advice.

Currently for a new player:

• You get to lvl 60 and get a message saying you can go to WvW. You try it and get ganked within seconds.
• You decide to gain some experience and go to EotM where you run with the train until you know what’s supposed to happen.
• You come back into WvW and get confused and steamrolled – it’s different! You pluck up the courage to ask for help and someone recommends Metabattle.
• You look on metabattle, see some highly rated builds and decide to try one.
• You go to PvE to farm the stuff you need for your meta build WvW character…. and forget to come back.
• You spend your time in fractals rapidly gaining ascended loot you wish you could sell to the poor souls in WvW (who can also use the infusion slots).

We need more new players who stay. We can welcome them, but they need a reason to come in (it used to be for map completion or because they saw a request for help on map chat in a server based town – both have gone). Make WvW fun for new players again.

Not a tonic – no.
More like an AC golem. Change the weapon skills to be similar to an AC and keep all the other restrictions.

The “super” banner already exists – it’s called a Heroes Banner.

Ok, but doesn’t the “solution” I propose meet both sets of ideals?

It allows players free choice of tier and map so they can casually take a break, and also allows Servers, and indeed Guilds, to compete against each other (via the leader boards) if they wish. So dedicated WvW play is still catered for. It even allows for players to transfer between servers without this screwing up matches.

I’m not saying that the Spirit or Grub should earn warscore – I merely linked to the Wiki page for the list of things that currently gain WXP.

One of the problems that I see with the current scoring system is that you can earn warscore by doing nothing because PPT ticks carry on until someone else takes your stuff.

I would like to see a more continuous scoring system so that player actions are valued at all times, not just in time for the tick. I think this happens with PPK, so why not other activities too?

Finally there are some actions that do not gain credit which should do. Destroying siege and repairing objectives are part of this.

The idea behind using WXP is more about bringing WvW scoring together under one simple system that rewards player actions and activity.

Hmm… in theory 80 players killing one sentry and one player killing 80 sentries… the math adds up ok but even I can see that the 80 players can go on and kill another sentry in less time.

Ok, so how do we make the system work? There are enough people who post good ideas here for us to come up with a workable solution.

How about awarding the Server a score of the average WXP per player involved?

I agree that scouting would be difficult to reward with WXP but, in my experience as a scout, the players who do it don’t scout for the rewards.

I understand that servers with more active population would gain more score. Why shouldn’t they?

As for WXP being gained by every player present at a capture – that’s a good point to raise. Is it really a problem however? Skirmishes last for 2 hours so it only affects a 2 hour slot. It’s also the same for every server so it’s fair enough from that point of view. The only time it’s a problem is if one side can queue the map and the other sides can’t. Even then it would be possible to gain WXP for other activities – so perhaps the only capture that really matters here would be if the whole team cap Stonemist. I can think of two different solutions for this, but feel free to suggest ideas.

Ktrain mode? Why? What about the WXP for kills, repairs, defence, mercenaries, siege destruction, dolyaks… At least WXP requires players to do something, whereas PPT can be gained from an empty map.

As for gaming the outnumbered buff – do you really think Guild X will be able to keep other players out of a map if they want to play there? I don’t know of a mechanic that would do that, unless you mean being abusive to the incoming players, in which case report the abuse. Is +25% for outnumbered really demeaning? I understand that skill should count but you don’t get WXP for doing nothing, so you have to use skill to earn score, and even more so if your team is outnumbered on a map.
I wouldn’t object if the WXP bonus was removed from outnumbered – it wouldn’t be any more useless than it is now. I also don’t mind if it stays as a reward for players who continue to play when facing overwhelming odds. My server has in the past faced several months of almost continuous outmanned, and being continuously stomped with no respite or hope of winning was very disheartening. Perhaps more players would stay in map and play if they thought it would get them more reward and their server more score.

I don’t know how much work the changes would take. It shouldn’t be too much as WXP is already calculated.

I agree boosters should be disabled.

I don’t think levelling would need any work though – just play as normal and level as normal.

Also – finally – outnumbered buff might have some real meaning (25% extra WXP would mean more score when outnumbered).