Guild Wars 2

This is something I’ve mentioned in another post. Given the recent discussions about scoring I think it’s worth asking for feedback on this alone. The idea is that the WXP gained by the players would be used for scoring. Using WXP gain means the score reflects player involvement in WvW now.

The wiki gives a table of current values for WXP: https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/World_Experience#WXP_Acquisition

I would change the WXP gained from killing players to add +10 WXP for each player rank (invader +0, bronze invader +10, silver invader +20 etc). Experienced players should be worth more WXP. Spawn camping would get you zero (players not alive long enough) plus the players rank (for basic invaders +0, for Platinum invader +50 because they should know there’s another exit!).

I would increase the WXP gained from defending an objective to be the same as that for capturing an objective so that defending is as worthwhile as capping stuff.

To get started:
1. Remove Glicko, and set all server scores to zero. It’s time for a fair and clean start anyway due to the changes in scoring and linking etc.

2. Server score = total WXP gained across all the players on that server. Show score for each server. This allows us and ANET to see the active contribution each server makes; helping players see more active servers and ANET to make better links.

3. For multi server links, the linking group score is the sum of all the servers in that group.

Using WXP would keep an element of PPK, and PPT would change to points per cap/defend (which is why it should be the same score for defending as capping). However, other useful activities such as destroying enemy siege would now help towards score too.

Feedback (with reasoning) is welcome!

How would you co-ordinate a double team attack without some form of cross server chat or voice comms? Not individual whispers surely?!

There is a commanders test already. It has two parts:
1. Find 300 gold… In WvW, that’s not going to happen too fast.
2. Tag up and lead people.
Either:

• You keep getting them wiped, leading to you having a tag and no zerg, and then you tag down and give up – test failed.

Or:

• You lead them to victory often enough that players stay with you. Test passed.

Beginners tip: Tell the group you are a new commander, listen to the advice of veteran players in your group and learn from it.

(Edit – formatting)

The big difference is that for any given skirmish the top placed server/link group gets twice the score now compared to the second placed instead of 1.5 times. This will make the top placed servers harder to catch as they win more skirmishes… or am I missing something here?

This was a patch, not a WvW patch or update so I didn’t expect much. It’s good to see WvW got something, and is not being ignored.

Not sure how I feel about the detail though. I read them this way:

• There’s now no point fighting for second place. Win or don’t bother seems to be the message.
• More visual clutter being spammed during fights. Wonder if it will increase lag?

Dying is part of WvW, well at least for me it is. I died a lot when I started, now I die less often but it happens.

I’d hate to see PPK reach such a value that new players, or less talented players such as myself, get grief because we got ganked. Again. We need every player to be able to contribute, and for new players to be able to learn without getting shouted at, even if they die a bit.

We need a good balanced scoring system, although I’m not sure how to achieve that with PPT and PPK to be honest.

Sarika – sorry I don’t understand.

The idea is that every player who gains WvW xp contributes to their own personal score, and the guild score (if they rep a guild) and the score for their server.

Having more players that are active in WvW will help a Server or Guild reach a higher position in the leader boards. Is this not supposed to happen?

I understand your concern, however it’s based on a misunderstanding – please let me explain.

I think you are still viewing the score as being per map like it is now, and have not fully understood that score would not be gained directly from tiers and maps.

Scoring would be based on WvW xp gained, not kills. It’s true that kills give xp, but so should capping objectives, and defending them. Anything that ANET decides to award xp for would therefore go towards scoring. So while there is no ppt as such, there is still a point to defending or taking objectives.

It really won’t matter if there are solo players on a map, or small guilds or low ranked players. Matches are not map dependant – a guild will get the same xp gain with all its players active even if they are all on different maps. I expect guilds will want to play together (that’s part of being a guild) but there is no advantage in trying to force players off a map to improve your score – because it just wouldn’t do that.

You need to realise that the idea I put forward means there are no fixed tiers for any server or guild. Players choose which tier they want to play in every time they enter WvW. Each server (and guild) could have members playing in any and all tiers.

It is possible that a guild might prefer to play in a specific tier – that’s fine. If all the members of this guild are on the same server (which they might not be) then you would in effect have a whole server playing that tier; but this would be by choice and is not fixed. You could equally have players from the same guild active in each tier, and all the xp they gain would still benefit the guild they rep.

Yes, you will get some large guilds with active populations that top the leader boards – why shouldn’t they?
Yes, servers will try to recruit the best players and guilds – again why shouldn’t they?
No, this doesn’t lead to the same situation we have at the moment because at the moment a stacked server affects a whole tier by default and the other teams must either quit or accept at least a week of pain.

The changes I suggest would allow a stacked server to spread across all tiers – and still be actively gaining score. Also while a server might try to monopolise a particular map/tier by filling it – they would have to do this 24/7 and I don’t think anyone has the player base to do that. The existing server population cap and guild membership cap would prevent servers and guilds becoming too large and too dominant.

Another big difference with the system I ’m suggesting is that any server or guild can recruit any player to help make a bid to the top. Active players will be more sought after, but all players would add to the score so an exclusive guild that only accepts players of WvW level 2000+ might find they are beaten by a bigger guild with less restrictive membership requirements.

It’s not the coffee.
You haven’t fully understood the consequences of disconnecting servers from tiers.

Under the current system servers are matched against each other in specific tiers. Stack Blackgate or Anvil Rock and you stack one side in a match. Under the system I suggest servers face off on the leader boards instead, so a stacked server affects the leader boards not the fights in game.

This is because the changes I’m suggesting would allow players to choose the tier they want to fight in, and they can make this choice every time they enter WvW . This means that the server you’re on does not force you into a specific tier or team.

Stacked servers can not affect the game play nearly so much because even if all the players for the highest ranked server decided to all play in the same tier on the same team, everyone else can either pick an opposing team and fight against them, or play in a different map. We’d have a choice.

The best bit is that any server would be able to mount a bid for the top of the leader boards if it can recruit active players, and those players would be able to continue to play in whatever tier they enjoy while contributing to the success of their new server. This might even lead to more transfers.

As I said, I think it would be good to keep a server population limit. If, for example, Blackgate was full, and a group of players wanted to be in the top ranked server there is nothing to stop them transferring to another server (ET for example) and pushing upwards on the leader board to topple Blackgate. It wouldn’t even matter (to a guild) if only half their members moved to the new server, because the Guild can still choose where to play together, and still gains credit from every active member .

Competition would occur on three levels – player leader board, guild leader board, server leader board. The actual map instances and tiers are separate from this.
We could even, easily, merge the leader boards for EU and NA…allowing competition between EU servers/guilds/players and NA servers/guilds/players, all with current technology, and no change in ping!

Thanks Crapgame. Your ideas are close to what I suggested except I see a Server as an alliance of guilds and players. It has to remain this way so players who are not in a guild can play too.

The biggest change I am suggesting is removing the tie between matches and servers. This change alone would mean server population changes don’t affect the play in any specific match or tier. Players would still transfer, and servers would still rise and fall on the leader boards, but no one would ever be trapped in an uneven match just because one server has a much more active population than the others.

I would keep server population limits. They are important to maintain some competition and to prevent everyone transferring to one server. In the same way I would keep the guild population cap, so there can be more than one large guild fighting for the top rank in the Guild Leader boards.

Beyond this, everything I suggest makes player choice greater and puts the focus firmly on player activity to:

• gain personal WvW xp for personal rank and reward,
• work together in a guild, to gain more xp and so this xp adds to the guild score and rank,
• work together as a greater alliance of guilds and players for a server community so this xp adds to the server score and rank.

It all comes down to the individual player, just as you request.

Toughness already reduces ranged damage – and any other form of direct damage – and there are plenty of reflect/absorb skills available.

Healing power can already offset condi damage via regeneration. What is needed is an equivalent version of Armor to reduce condi damage each tick, or an improvement in condi cleanse (or reduce the speed at which condi stacks can be spammed).

Crapgame – when you say this idea won’t solve the problem, which one are you thinking of?

The changes I propose should:

• reduce the impact of population imbalance,
• prevent players being trapped in an uneven match for weeks,
• open competition in WvW up to Guilds as well as Servers,
• allow for duelling and GvG play within the WvW framework, even between members of the same guild,
• allow players to freely select a map to suit the game play they desire,
• restore some form of server identity for linked servers,
• allows servers to compete against any other similar server, unlike the current system that limits you to the two in your current match,
• allow Guilds members on different servers to play together.
  I can go on with the list if you like…

Best of all it uses current technology and so is possible for ANET to produce without having to make massive changes – in other words it is possible to do this! and Soon™

Each thing listed is something that a number of players find frustrating about WvW in it’s current form. I know they may not all be the most pressing issue for every player but they add up to what I believe would be a big improvement.

I’m not entirely sure what your objection was as none of the things I listed seem to be the problem you refer to.

Thanks Eval – I missed that poll then.

I don’t mind the DBL so it’s not a big issue for me, but I’m aware others have different opinions. From your quote it looks like the vote was a fair chance to keep the map or not.

The dynamic map queue should help reduce population imbalance by queuing any map that becomes significantly more populated than the others in that match. This would prevent more players joining immediately until the other map populations rise enough to remove the queue.

It would be important to give an indication of the current map population. So for example when you press B to enter WvW you might see:

• Diamond: Red (high) / Blue (medium) / Green (high)
• Gold: Red (Q:10) / Blue (high) / Green (high)
• Silver: Red (low) / Blue (low) / Green (medium)

A large group wanting to join might join Diamond Blue team, or Silver Red or Blue because they know there should be space for all of them.
A single roamer could join any, although they would be 11th in the queue for Gold red team.
Two guilds looking to GvG against each other could join Silver Red and Blue, or if they were small guilds then any queue free pair of teams on the same tier.

Baldrick asked how you can stop players just k-training in a big circle. I’m not sure any system can prevent this to be honest, but the players can. I think there would be three things that work against such a situation:

• Guilds that like to zerg bust or fight may be happy to practice on large groups that they know will come round frequently.
• Players will get bored of circular back capping. If you did play like that to get a server to the top of the Leader Boards, you would have to continue to play like that to stay there. Most players have more exciting things to do.
• Defence rewards could be improved so players get as much XP from keeping an objective as they do from taking it.

Don’t forget there’s no PPT in this idea so dominating an empty map does not gain score. This reduces the impact of time based population imbalance too.

Finally, how does this system attract new players to smaller servers? Each server has a population limit – it keeps this. Some servers will hit their population cap – this is true, and they may well gain more XP overall and so be higher on the Leader boards. However the servers are no longer tied to a tier, so any player can play in any tier. There would be no need to bandwagon to a “top tier” server to play in T1 – you could just go and play Diamond tier if you feel like it.

I think it is important that players are still free to transfer to any server they want to join. I know that some players enjoy being on a lower ranked server and working to raise the status of that server. I think the new system would encourage this simply by making it possible for any server.

Have we ever been asked to vote on keeping Desert Borderlands?

If I recall correctly the poll asked whether DBL should be used in rotation with Alpine, or 2 DBL and 1 Alpine, or 2 Alpine and 1 DBL.
The 2 Alpine and 1 DBL option was the most voted for combination.

I do not remember an option to refuse Desert Borderlands, so it would be inaccurate to say that players voted to keep it. Or has there been a different poll that I missed?

I’m not sure that the best answer to power creep is health creep. It would however reduce 1 shot kills, and I’m sure lazy players would welcome not having to dodge.

Thanks Diku, I think you have the basic idea right.

The big change is disconnecting the tiers and the servers. I tried to find the best bits from the ideas others have posted and put it together in a way that I thought might work to help servers, guilds and players alike.

I wanted a solution that means server populations can change without affecting in-game play. I think the solution I came up with would do this, and allow for players to break free from being trapped in matches they have little control over.

The map system isn’t a megaserver because it would be one set of maps and not randomly assigned map shards. It would be closest to an alliance but one that is not fixed. It would allow players to play where and with whoever they want, with every players contribution being valued. It would even allow players to group and play on one tier only if there are few players on (for example off peak) or spread out if a map becomes too busy.

The idea restores a form of competition for all servers, and allows competition between guilds including GvG fights (up to the max map limit) if players want to do this. It even allows guilds on the same server to practice against each other if they wish.

Best of all it should require little work from ANET to implement. The big change would be to track player WvW xp, but that is done anyway. I don’t know how easy it would be to extract and total for Server score, Guild score and Player score but it should be possible since all the events are already tracked.

It would make it possible for the Leader Boards to include the EU and NA servers and guilds together since all they need to do is report on WvW xp gained. This would let EU and NA communities “compete” fairly without ever needing to actually face each other across a laggy Atlantic link.

I will be honest and say I expected more objections so the low number of posts is in many ways encouraging.

I’m sorry – I don’t understand.

Servers would still exist. They would still be a community of guilds and players that works to a common purpose (top of the division on the leader board).
The only change is that servers would not be assigned to a specific tier or map. How does this destroy or remove server identity?

The switch to a 3 colour team system would be necessary to allow players, guilds and servers to choose which maps they will play on. From the map point of view it would be like three factions, but those factions could be a server, a combination of servers or any guilds or any players. It is this change – breaking the link between map identity and servers – that is the biggest change. It does not however mean the end for servers.

Each server would still be an alliance of guilds (and players). You would be fighting for rank on the leader board rather than map domination. You would gain positions on the leader board rather than go up or down in Diamond, Gold, Silver or Bronze.

The changes would not push AR to the top of the leader boards (sadly perhaps? ) BUT it would give AR your server identity back and allow you to recruit players and guilds with the aim of getting to the top if you want to. Under the current system this is impossible.

It would be easier to have a WvW tournament too – based on the Server Leader board, with rewards across the three divisions. Why not add a reward for Guilds based on the Guild leader board too.

It is very important to me that no-one has to leave their current server (unless they want to) and that each server has a fair chance to gain score based on the activity of their players in WvW. This system would do that, and allow players to choose the WvW play they want to enjoy each time the enter WvW.

Actually perhaps one of the training missions should be learning to die and run back…!

One of the hardest things for new players to accept in WvW is that you will die because there is always someone better than you (or you can’t 1v20 and hope to win).

Ahh. I think I see the misunderstanding.

• Servers would not be tied to a specific tier (Diamond, Gold, Silver, Bronze). There would not be any fixed match ups.
• There would not be any server linkings; the score for each server would be separate. No links are required because it would no longer matter if servers had different population sizes.
• There would not be a fee to pay to play in any tier or on any map Players who wish to change server would be able to pay a transfer fee just like they do now, but this would not limit the tiers or maps they can select to play on.

Some examples (none of which cam be done using the current system):
1. A large Blackgate guild decide to play in Diamond tier because they enjoy the big fights there. You have a friend in that guild and want to join them. You select the map and colour team they are on and play with them (queue permitting).
You do not need to transfer to Blackgate to do this.

2. Two of the players in this large Blackgate guild decide they have had enough of big fights and want smaller fights for an hour. They both select a Bronze tier map and play there. All the WvW xp they gain still gives score for their guild, and their server as well as increasing their personal score.

3. It’s a quiet off peak time and a guild group of 12 players want to play WvW. They look at the WvW select screen (press “B”) and decide which tier and map to fight in.

4. A guild from AR arranges a scrim against a guild from YB. The two guilds pick a tier and map that currently has low population, and they pick opposite sides so they can fight. Later on they want to try a different party combination, or one player wants to demonstrate a different tactic, so some of the players swaps teams and they can carry on with each side now a mix of AR and YB players.

There are plenty more I can think of.
The key points are:

• Servers are no longer tied into links or two monthly matches. They are not even assigned to a specific tier. They exist as a community of guilds and players just like the current system, but with their own identity again and the freedom to compare scores with any other server on the Server leader boards.
• Guilds are not tied to a specific server unless they want to be. If you have members on different servers you can finally play together. If you want to be server specific that works too. The guild cap at 500 members will stop everyone joining one big guild. Guilds can compete for rank position on the Guild Leader boards.
• Players can play with any other player they want to without the need to transfer server or guild. They would be free to join any guild on the leader boards that has space and will accept them. They would be free to pay to transfer to any server on the Server boards that has space and will take them.

This last point means that, yes, anyone can bandwagon to BG (or any other server) up to the limit of the server population. BUT it won’t unbalance fights because BG are not tied into a match against anyone, and dynamic queuing would prevent individual maps getting too unbalanced.

One final thought: Outmanned would actually become useful because it gives an XP boost and personal score (and Guild score and Server score) would be based on XP gained.

Sorry for the wall of text. I hope the idea is explained more clearly now.

Joneirikb
The competitive goal is rank position on the leader boards. It might be a good idea to break each leader board into three divisions so that there are three sublevels of competition – top of division 1, top of division 2 and top of division 3. This would give intermediate targets.

At the moment the only competitive goal is position in the tiers, and that only works for host servers. The new system would provide competition at three different levels:

• at a server level ( server leader board),
• at a guild level (guild leader board)
• at a personal level (player leader board).
  This should give enough chances for everyone who wants to be competitive to find something to compete for.

Being able to select the tier and map you want to play in does not need to spread mates across all the maps – there is no forced option. If you want to play with mates (server, guild or otherwise) all you need to do is press Y, see which map they are in and join them. If you decide to make two teams and fight between you then that’s possible too. It’s your choice.

I agree about the maps. My original solution uses existing maps, although I would like to see new ones developed eventually if ANET have time. The combinations I suggested were supposed to offer a map area appropriate to the intended map population.

• Diamond tier needs one big map, or two big maps perhaps.
• Gold would have large borderlands and large central map
• Silver would have a smaller borderlands and a mid size central map
• Bronze would have smallest borderlands (and maybe a small central map?)

Norbe – good questions!

There’s not much difference in action compared to the existing tiers overall, but there is a big difference for players because you wouldn’t be tied into a fixed tier – you would be free to choose where to fight each time you enter WvW.

I wasn’t proposing multiple map instances, although I can see that Diamond tier (top) might benefit from EBG map and EotM to allow enough players. This would be the only tier that doesn’t have “home” borderlands maps. Think of EBG action on a larger scale.

How does a guild on AR compete toe to toe with a guild on Blackgate? The scoring system totals WvW xp gained by all guild members, so you could have direct competition on the leader boards if the two guilds have similar activity. If the two guilds had very different active populations then you would be looking to start competing against a guild of a similar activity, recruit and work your way up.

In terms of servers, Anvil Rock is a linked server at the moment. Everything players do on AR benefits YB. Under this new system your server would regain its own identity and a position on the leader boards. This gives you a chance to recruit more active players and work your way up the list. In time there’s no reason why you can’t eventually displace Blackgate if you can build the community to do it. In the mean time you would be able to compete against other servers with a similar WvW activity.

Time zones and population: At prime time I would expect players to be spread across all the tiers (or queued to get into a tier they decide to wait for). At off peak times when there are fewer players they have the freedom to select a tier and map that has other players on. The only time anyone should be on a map on their own is if they chose that situation (or there really is only one person in WvW across all the servers!).

So – a final post before this idea slips into the oblivion of the nether pages of the WvW forum…

…but seriously – were these two concerns the only ones? If so then it could actually work!

Since Siegerazer was removed, how do new players learn about WvW?

I think it’s time for a new single map that would teach players the basics of WvW. Make it available, like the dungeons, when player reaches a high enough level to join WvW.

I suggest several different Siegerazer events for teaching defence and offence.
This could be by having specific objectives that have an attack and a defend component.

I envisage something like this: Red Siegerazer starts out to take a tower and places a ram to be built. Only the gate can be damaged. Blue Siegerazer sets out at the same time with the objective of defending the same tower, perhaps using an AC or Disablers.

By setting up scenarios like this players can be introduced to what each piece of siege is, where it works, what the full set of skills do (helpful for knowing what to pick later) and how to counter each.

I know it’s going to involve some NPCs and so will be a bit PvE but remember this would be a transition map for new players to learn in. Make a common lobby for it and perhaps it will provide a new recruiting ground too.

So my question for you is:
What scenarios should the training map cover?

The “host” servers still get mentioned and discussed. In this way they retain some identity.

“Guest” servers have suffered more and are rarely discussed or acknowledged, other than as a way to fight alongside some well known host.

ANET are aware of the issue but have yet to come up with a solution that allows players in a matchup to know who is on their own server.

There have been a couple of posts like this one: “https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Identities-of-Linked-Worlds/first” but even in this ANET led post the options we have been offered don’t really do much to encourage server community or identity.

Three things:

• Dynamic queues on each map. The queue starts if one colour has too many players trying to join. The queue reduces as players join the other teams. This keeps all three teams to fairly similar numbers up to the maximum map cap for that tier.

• Boredom. It was exciting to have 695 tick once but then there is no one to fight and nothing to capture. At least with this system players can redistribute themselves when they want instead of having to wait a week for different opponents.

• Players themselves. There are players who enjoy k-training, and they will continue to do this, but PPT wouldn’t exist so it would be less important. If a k-train has players from every guild then every guild benefits in score.

Don’t forget the scoring comes from WvW experience gained, not objectives held. Taking objectives and defending them will add to scores but simply holding an objective doesn’t generate WvW xp so it doesn’t score, so a uni colour T3 map is not helping anyone.

It would be important however to ensure that defending gives sufficient WvW xp – the same amount as taking an objective. This could scale with the level of the objective so a T3 keep gives more XP than a T1 keep. That provides enough reason to defend (gaining score) or take (gaining score) objectives no matter how reinforced they are.

The dynamic map limit is not actually a map limit but a temporary queue to prevent 50 players logging into one side when there are only 3 on the other two teams. The idea is simply to ensure each team is never too different from the others in that tier.

Server identity would be better than it is now for all the existing linked servers and the same for guest servers. TBH other than your WvW tier now, what is the connection to your server at the moment? At least this solution would allow each server to compete against every other server (regardless of tier). Players with server pride can still watch their server position, players who prefer to track their guild can watch that instead.

About swapping sides – yes. It actually makes more sense than you might think. A group of players who find themselves on at a time when there are few other players can still have an enjoyable game by dividing between opposite sides to play. In fact some guilds might like to train and practice this way. There would be no permanent swap so they could play for as long or short as they want, and any XP they gain would benefit the guild, their server and their own rank. It’s a win-win scenario and should mean there’s never a time when a group can’t play somehow.

The idea behind showing the map status on the selection screen is to give players some idea where the action is. If as you suggest 90% of the players want to queue for Diamond tier then let them. I suspect quite a few would play in Gold (with more maps and only slightly smaller battles) while they wait for the queues to sort out. Any who did so would still be earning score for their guild, server and personal ranks.

Map suggestions were made with current maps in mind so ANET do not need to develop anything new in order to make this work. Ideally I would like to see a dedicated set of maps for each tier based around the squad sizes in each; using existing maps gives time for these to be thought through, developed and tested properly.

I suspect WvW xp boosters may need to be disabled though? Or do we allow score to be affected in this way?

Part 2:
New concepts:

• It would be possible for players on the same server to play on a variety of maps in a variety of tiers. It would become possible for members of the same guild to duel simply by selecting different colours in the same tier, and still contribute to the Guild score while doing so. Guilds within a server could arrange competitions against each other in the same way.

• The WvW opening screen should show all four tiers and each map with its population indicator. This will help players see where the action is when they log in and allow groups to select a lower population map that they can all get onto.
  This would also help reduce the chances of an unbalanced match since these will only occur when players decide to create them, and even then the match would not be too unbalanced due to dynamic queuing.

Weaknesses:

• Diamond tier will need some serious computing power to avoid excessive lag if group sizes are 50+.
• Players will take time to understand they are no longer forced into anything but can choose which maps and team to play.
• Defending an objective needs to award decent experience.

K-training should not be a problem however once players and guilds realise there is good experience to be gained train-wrecking.

Thanks for your patience reading all this.

This is a long post. Sorry. Please read it all before you comment.

This solution restructures WvW using existing technology to address some of the issues in WvW today, including:

• Server Identity – keeping existing servers
• Guild Identity and purpose -whether fights, ppt or casual
• Different play styles
• Different time zones

The basic idea is to split WvW into four different leagues with different map population caps. Servers and Guilds (and players) are free to play in any league at any time, and gain score for their server and guild when they do so. Servers, Guilds and Players play for rank on GW2 Leader boards which are updated weekly to track score for each.
This frees up servers (and guilds and players) from set matches, and allows considerable variation in play.

Scoring:
Remove glicko for Servers, it would not be needed. Track the WvW experience gained by players. For player ranking, use this gain directly. For Guilds use the total from representing Guild members, for Servers use total from players on that server.

Some servers will be bigger and will gain more total XP. This is also true for certain Guilds. However any player who is active in WvW will benefit their Server and Guild (if they have one) in addition to their own status.

Servers will be able to compete against any server for rank position, and although it would be hard for a current bottom tier server to out score a top tier server they will be able to compete against their nearest competitors and work their way up if they wish. The top server will have to remain active to maintain its position. In this way server pride and server identity can be reinstated for linked servers and kept for current hosts.

Guilds will be free to compare themselves to other guilds from any server. If a guild transfers server it does not change their guild rank, and need not affect their play, so it may be that we will see guilds transfer between servers more.
Players would now be able to play with friends and family and guild members regardless of the server they are registered on.

The League system:
Diamond League: the “Epic battle” zone

• Uses a large single map, EotM or EBG would do initially until something specific can be produced.
• The idea is to have a large map, large map cap and the usual three sides (Red, Green, Blue) competing. This tier is where you can expect large groups and large scale strategy.

Gold League: Big fights in the Border lands

• Use large Borderland maps, and a central map (EBG would do until a specific map is developed).
• The idea is a mix of large groups at peak times and smaller groups off peak.

Silver League: Borderlands with mid sized fights

• Use Alpine sized borderlands with a smaller than EBG middle map (perhaps Desert BL until something specific is developed).
• The idea is to have a moderate map cap so groups are small to mid with small scale strategies and active roamers.

Bronze league: Borderlands fights

• Use Alpine BL, possibly with no central map.
• The idea is to have a low map cap so groups are raid size or less. Roaming and individual skill will be key parts of success here.

Map total population limits should be set to allow the average number of peak players to all be on a map somewhere at the busiest time.

Picking your fights:

• With servers and guilds fighting for position on a leader board, and NOT for position in tiers, it becomes possible to allow players to pick any map to play on. Under this new structure a player could decide one day to play on Red in the Diamond tier because he/she would like an epic battle that day. The following day the same player might decide to play in Silver tier on Green for a change of pace, or to roam in Bronze or Silver.
• The maps would have a population cap so that battles could not become too unbalanced. It would be possible to use an algorithm like the one used for Server population to show Red, Green, Blue maps as Full, High, Med, Low with respect to their maximum population so that a Guild group can look for a map with enough room for them to all play. If one map colour becomes too populated compared to the other colours for that tier start a dynamic queue to keep the populations within a reasonable range up to the maximum.

The problem isn’t with Blackgate as a server – I don’t care about their reputation or whatever. The problem is with ANET when they post one thing and do another.

And to open one of the most competitive servers in NA because its population has slipped to the same level as the total three others – that’s crazy. It tells us a lot about how much ANET really want to balance active play between individual servers. Actions speak louder than words has rarely been more true.

So at the same time that ANET are running a post about how they are looking into server balancing, and they are suggesting ways to spread the player population out among smaller worlds to make balancing more effective in links…

…They opened BG because its population fell to about the same as the TOTAL of a THREE SERVER linking.

Wow. Just wow.

Server identity arises in part from a group of players working together to build something. Communities pull together in times of need – like Eredon Terrace who were starting the long climb out of NA T8 pre-linking.

At the moment, the host servers gain score and are ranked on the GW2 leader boards. Their position is discussed in the forums and they move up or down in the tiers.

The linked servers are involved but not acknowledged, in all of this. Although we play a role that can tip the balance at times, we gain nothing. If we fight well and the host moves up we are likely to be linked with a lower host as a reward.
Just what are we supposed to be fighting for again? Oh, I forgot, it’s that warm fuzzy feeling of having helped someone else. And the two blues and a green…

Your proposals are a start – and it’s good that you are looking into this however belatedly. It would be even better if your proposals also restored some purpose for the linked servers to build with.

I know that not everyone who posts here uses English as their main language so it’s understandable that some posts don’t understand the key points in the original idea. It may help to make a few things clear:

1. WvW population is based on player activity in WvW as measured by ANET. It is not the number of players who claim a server as their login home.

2. The original post clearly states that the idea offered is about making more servers of a smaller size because it’s easier to add lots of small groups of varying size to make a whole match up that is more equal overall. So filling the existing servers isn’t what is being offered, and it’s not important whether a host server is full or locked.

What this thread is essentially about is how to spread out the population from the stacked host servers (without demolishing them) and at the same time making smaller parts to allow more balanced groupings.

I have to say though McKenna I can’t imagine an incentive that will shift players off the big hosts into smaller groups. If they wanted to move they have had six months of linking to move to a guest server. I think the only way you can achieve your aim will be to reset everything and monitor it as it comes back together. You will inevitably upset a few players and the population will dip a bit, but if the result is a better balanced and more enjoyable WvW that encourages players to join in, you should see the population grow again.

Sometimes you have to prune a tree back to get new healthy growth.

If players were going to transfer to lower population servers they have done it by now.

We can’t keep the existing server names without keeping the existing perceptions about those servers. For example any server called Blackgate or Far Shiverpeaks will attract players who see these as “top” servers and these would become stacked.

This is why we need new serves with new names and no history. Population caps can be used to encourage players to spread out as the servers are created. WvW will be volatile for a couple of months as the new servers settle into their places. It won’t stop players transferring of course, but it will take time to recreate the imbalance we currently have, and this time ANET will be watching and working to reduce the effect of this.

Option 1 treats all players the same, which would be a nice change. I assume Alliance names will change every time the combination of servers does so this is what players on “guest” servers experience anyway.

Option 2 is impersonal and very EotM but would also work. The guild bit seems the same as claiming objectives.

Option 3 could provide more value to “guest” server contributions. Now give us points for our work and this could be a decent option. I assume you’ll use the majority server name for the broadcast, so this will still tend to favour the larger “host” server as they are likely to have more players at the capture.

My choice: 1 or 3.

New Worlds can only work if you treat all servers the same – which you are obviously not doing at the moment. There are 12 NA host servers still running on scores and reputation built before linking, and 12 “guests” that have no identity any more.
If you’re going to keep links then you need to allow every server to see their name and to gain score. Personally, I think links need to go – they’ve done more harm than good.

Look at your own data – do you see more players transferring from host servers into the linked guests than the other way round? I seriously doubt it!

The only way to get this to work is to start New Worlds for everyone. As many as you like, but no existing names and no historical scores that were gained before linking changed everything. You can keep the servers if you need them for accounts but don’t use them for WvW – we need New worlds with new names, for WvW only.

If the players on the current host servers complain simply make the current 12 guest servers into hosts for six months.

Pick a date.
Do something like this:
1. Tell players you’re starting new worlds in two weeks (or whatever).
2. When a player logs into WvW they are prompted to select a new world to join. Show them the list and check their guilds membership list – show them which world(s) their current guilds are planning to be on. You can use your megaserver algorithm to put these New Worlds at the top of the list to make it easier.
3. The player selects 2 or 3 servers in rank order (1st choice, 2nd choice, 3rd choice).
4. When a world population reaches 10% more than the lowest, temporarily lock it until the difference is 5% or less.
5. Check the world populations, adjust according to player choices (aiming to keep guild members together).
Press GO.

Oh, and definitely +1 for Gold/Silver/Bronze structure. You can indicate this on the new worlds when you make them.

I can see the idea that other players would be able to see that there’s a tag to follow, and I accept that this might bring more players into the map if there is. I just feel that with a Commander Counter showing whether there’s a tag up or not before you log in, players who are “followers” will not even bother logging into the map, and so not even read the map chat to see what’s going on. You could easily end up with less players because everyone is waiting for someone else to tag up!

I think you may have misunderstood why I mentioned “good commanders”. Many players are reluctant to tag up because they feel they won’t do a good job. My point was that good commanders will help with advice and possibly even training if you ask. In fact in my experience the better commanders are quite happy to share their ideas, tactics and work load. Same thing with veteran players.

We don’t need this.

If you don’t see a commander but want to play, tag up yourself. Tell people you are a new commander, listen to the advice from veteran players and learn from your mistakes (we all make them). You’ll be surprised how quickly players will flock to a tag.

Be aware that sometimes you’ll be more successful than others, and be prepared for players to interpret your directions in a range of ways… At least you can bask in the warm feeling that you are now helping other less brave players to enjoy the game too.

If you know a good commander watch what they do and why. Ask them for training or advice. At the very least you can ask yourself what they would do in your situation and then try it yourself.

TLDR: Tagging up is better than standing around in Citadel, or logging out, doing nothing to save your BL because you can’t see a Commander to follow. Be brave: all the good commanders started like this.

Please keep this on topic and useful.

I’ve made a summary of the issues raised so far, and in order they are:

• WvW specific balance (8)
• Population imbalance (8)
• Fix lag (6)
• Restore server identity (5)
• Reduce server stacking (3)
• Coverage imbalance (3)
• Fair weather players (3)
• Encourage players, new and old, to rejoin/join/play (2)
• Overhaul siege
• Allow off peak capping
• Either same maps for all or different maps for all
• Remove Glicko
• New game mode (redo from start)
• Make outmanned buff give a real buff that helps in fights
• Reduce map population limit
• Introduce a duelling option

Thanks to those who have contributed so far.

I should add – try to be specific if you can.
For me:

1. Server identity is an issue because I’m on a guest server so nothing I do helps my own server. I would like independent server scoring.

2. Meta builds and uneven power creep are an issue too. One of the things that I really like about WvW is the ability to try different custom builds. I know they won’t all work, but anything doing massive condi damage seems to have the upper hand at the moment.

3. One odd borderlands seems to be unfair and certainly has an impact on some players. I’d rather see three the same or all three different.

A long, long time ago ANET asked us what our priority issues were for WvW.

Since then we have seen a new Borderlands map, WvW reward tracks, server linking and a number of other, smaller updates. In other words – things have changed.

It’s time to ask again I think:
What are your top three things that you think need to be addressed in WvW today?

Please keep it short, on topic and easy to read so the thread is as clear as possible for the devs.

Yeah – Knights of the Rose (KoR) is still alive and kicking, and still (mainly) based on IoJ although since the megaserver we have more members from other servers (which makes it fun sometimes). I’ve not seen AUX for a while which is a shame – they were fun to run with.

There are some guilds I have run with but don’t know the history for. Not sure when LOST started but they’re still around. Think we lost WOLF at some point so don’t know about them now.

No, no, no! You have it all wrong…

I’ve figured it out. The tab-targeting algorithm is based on the permanence of objects. Think about it:

• Walls and doors are always there so these are targeted first
• Environmental creatures have a limited area to patrol and spawn frequently so you know they are very likely to be around therefore these make an excellent second priority target
• Players – well they are sometimes there, sometimes not. Surely you can’t want to target something that keeps disappearing and moving about?

See: it’s all simple logic.

I think the main problem (other than whether condition damage actually is OP or not) is that we have two different situations that we’ve been talking about.

For players in a large group there is much less threat from condition damage. I know some organised groups rely on players having builds (front row and back row) that synergise well to remove or reduce condition damage for the group.

For small scale combat (1 or 2 players) this isn’t really possible (or at least isn’t as effective). So conditions seem much more of a problem to these players.

You need to add in the fact that AoE conditions are a good way to cause damage against multiple opponents, especially if they stack. So condition damage becomes part of the zerg meta in a way that can be countered if you have a half decent group. This is how it should be.

But how do you balance conditions so they also work in the small scale fights? Because that’s the problem area at the moment. Solo or small group builds have to be more self sufficient. It’s far easier for me to build for condition damage AND survivability because I only need to max condition damage, leaving two sets of stats free, so I’ll take toughness and vitality thank you very much. If I want to maximise direct damage I need to run Zerker, which leaves me like a glass cannon. I can of course sacrifice some damage (about half) and go Soldiers but this doesn’t really do as much damage overall as full Dire will. Many players pick the easier option – it’s within the rules and they want to win fights.

The imbalance between conditions for large and small groups is why I have suggested the introduction “Constitution”, a new stat which would act as armor to reduce condition damage. It won’t make much difference to zerg play but it would allow small group players a way to offset condition damage that doesn’t use valuable utility slots. This helps the problem situation we have without nerfing any conditions – a win for everyone.

I know Constitution wouldn’t be introduced overnight – it would need to be part of a serious patch or expansion – but this has been done before and it could be done again. In my opinion, the sooner the better.

Xyppi – I disagree with your friends idea, and here’s why.

If you scale condition damage the same as power using the usual stats then you get builds that do both damage types well. It’s too easy.

Look at the effect of running a full stack of 25 might – that boosts both condi and direct damage stats by +750 at level 80. Now imagine the impact on the game if that effect was permanent and amplified to the sorts of power levels that power-builds can achieve. You still wouldn’t help balance condition damage this way because total condition damage would be even greater than it is now (still no armor equivalent).

Players should face choices between full damage, full bunker or a compromise in between. With condition damage we have a choice of how we deal that damage – do you want condi damage or direct damage? Currently both are good, although without an equivalent armor condi damage is easier to apply at the moment.

The case for Constitution is that it would counter the condition damage in the same way that armor does for physical damage. It would reduce, but not stop, condition damage. Just reducing condi damage per tick by 10% gives a player more time to disengage, or cleanse or just fight. It also wouldn’t require any real alteration to Conditions as they stand, while offering players a chance to last longer IF they sacrifice some of their current stats to build up their Constitution. And that’s the key point – it’s not something for nothing.

Constitution would also work regardless of who applied the conditions – it’s just a personal stat that scales down the damage each condition does. I’ve not done any calculations but would suggest that if 2000 Constitution (I reckon that would be about max for a stat that starts at zero?) reduces condition damage by 50% then that could be ok. You get twice as long to live before the conditions kill you…

I think a quick tweaks could then be applied to condi cleanses – every class should have some, but not to clear so many conditions as to make condi builds ineffective again. The one thing that I think would need a serious review is Resistance. I think it needs to become the condi equivalent of Aegis (a block) and not an invulnerability. Given the variety of conditions that exist, and how many attacks can stack more than one type of condition with a single hit, perhaps an Aegis-like Resistance should be stackable and short lived (like Stability).

Thanks McKenna for letting us know what is happening and for explaining things. While some people clearly don’t appreciate the fact that you took time to communicate with us on the forums, most of us would rather know what is going on and why, and we appreciate your post.

I do have an awkward question though. This post makes it clear that you/Anet know Glicko is not working properly as a score system for WvW. You have clearly not stopped using it as the basis for the matches (or we wouldn’t need manual adjustments today), so can you confirm when it will actually be removed/replaced with a system that does work?

The problem is not that conditions do too much damage but that there is no “armor” equivalence for the damage they do.

For direct damage we have toughness/armor that scales the damage down, and invulnerability or blocks that ignore all physical damage for a short time.

For condition damage we have resistance that ignores it for a short time. Condi cleanse can remove a stack of one or more conditions but they are not necessarily all cleared, and can be easily reapplied, in multiple forms.

So I would like to see a stat that scales condi damage down like armor does for direct damage. It could be either:

• a new stat, perhaps called Constitution, as a “toughness” style stat that reduces condi damage. Bring it in on armor, weapons and accessories like the others.
• or Anet could use Healing Power (your ability to heal the conditions you have on you) or vitality (your general constitution or health making the conditions less effective).

It should not be armor, because no stat should protect against both types of attack. Players should have to choose: do you want full protection against one or part protection against both, or max damage? This is no worse for builds than selecting Soldier against Zerker. The new bunker meta would become Toughness, Vitality, Constitution – all defence and no offence unlike Dire etc.

An effective “armor” that reduces condi damage would mean conditions can be left as they are while giving players a chance to build to reduce the effect of them.

Server pride or identity for the “guest” servers need not be an issue for linking. If Anet had allowed us to keep our server identity and our names were visible it is possible for server communities to survive or even grow.

I’m on Isle of Janthir and our first ever linking was with Jade Quarry. The players at JQ made us feel welcome and I believe we got on well with them. If IoJ had been able to retain our name and some form of score then we would be able to show how much we had contributed to the matches.

If the other servers can look at you as a “guest” and say – “yeah, this server is a good one to be linked with and will help us” then you have a chance to build a reputation and recruit. In other words you could have an identity even with linking. There should be threads with servers asking to be linked to the “guest” servers because of the reputation we’ve built for coverage, or support or tenacity or whatever.

I’m not even sure Anet can fix this now. I have a suspicion that linking works by simply “teleporting” the linked players into the host map and labelling them as being on the host server – literally this is guesting for WvW and may be why we were called “guest” servers in the first place.

What should have happened is that “guest” players should retain their server name and their server should gain score, with the total score for all the servers in the link used as the final figure. Making new links would be clearer and the “guest” servers retain their identity. It would also make it much clearer whether any server would be able to stand alone, or which servers need a link, and who to link with whom.

Thank you all for your comments.

I originally wrote a wall of text for this reply but I think Jayne’s reply about “threads screaming over artificial glicko boosts” says it all. It clearly reinforces the fact that the host servers still have a community to make complaints like the one linked. I see very few threads about “guest” servers themselves that are not about their loss of identity or community.

So I think your answer to my question is both yes and no.
For “host” servers – yes, their name means something and so does server pride.
For “guest” servers… well, we don’t even have a name anymore…

Keeping my home map the right color.

I’ll happily take the “winning against impossible odds” too, though for some reason I can’t get this to work too often. (I know, I know, you’re going to say L2P… )