Guild Wars 2

I see both sides of the server linking. At times I like the extra numbers and at times it’s a pain.

On the one hand I had a nasty experience in T8 where I opened a tower and couldn’t solo the necro Lord and there’s either no one else on the map or they were not able to come help. Just imagine standing in the hole running down your friends list trying to find one other player – just one. None of the opposing team turned up either so I could have been literally the one person on the map. This doesn’t occur these days, there’s always someone who will help, or an enemy who turns up to fight.

On the other hand I was scouting and reported a large group of players (about 7 or taking a keep and requested help. The response was “Oh they’re just roamers” – WHAT! I thought roamers were solo or perhaps pairs of players not a whole kitten zerg! (Sorry about the small server bias here – the increased numbers takes a bit of getting used to!).

On the whole I’ve made new friends and kept old ones. I’m having to learn a different way of doing things at times but there are still times when I can roam without being ganked, and I can still cap camps and towers if I get the chance. It’s still WvW it’s just different from before.

My main worry is that my server (IoJ) now has no identity. We gain no score, usually use the JQ TS (for better communications) and our server name doesn’t show anywhere. No one wants to be recruited to join us in case we get moved into a different pairing and JQ can’t recruit either because they’re a “host” server and so are “full” regardless of actual population. We’re both frustrated with this.

If Anet change the pairings then they will no longer be linking IoJ with a different “host” server, they will be removing the proportion of JQ currently known to Anet as JQ+ because that’s what Anet see us as. They’ve gone to great lengths to hide the letters IoJ from everyone – including those of us on the server itself. This is the bit that really annoys me about this “beta”.

I can see the value of carry/use more supply with a map-wide Outmanned buff. For the local version I’m suggesting I’m not sure this would be useful – if you’re outmanned there’s a sizeable group within combat range.

Increasing target limits is interesting. I’m not sure if this is a local or global variable however and so it maynot be easy to change for an individual. It would also favour condi players over direct damage and condi is already strong enough that I’m not so keen on this idea myself. The idea of Outmanned stacking might would cover both condi and physical daamge which is I feel fairer.

I agree that the tricky bit is maintaining a balance under all situations. If the minimum outmanned is 1 stack of might and 2% reduction in damage for free – that’s not much of a decider but it would help a bit. Since it would only kick in at over 2 to 1, I suspect it won’t unbalance fairly even fights. The real difference comes when you’re outmanned by 5 or 6 to 1. At this level if you gained 5 or 6 stacks of might and 10% or 12% damage reduction you have a reasonable boost.

Remember 5 or 6 stacks of might is not hard for a player to stack for themselves so this is just giving a quick boost to their combat. The reduced damage is a bit more controversial but I think you can get close to this with in game stuff anyway (an armor booster is 5% less damage for an hour and superior runes of the scrapper give 7% less damage at up to 600 range).

The time you’d see a serious boost is when a solo player meets a 25+ group and gains say 25 stacks of might (max cap anyway) and 50% damage reduction. That’s enough of a boost to make a nuisance of yourself and maybe kill a player or two (which reduces your buff because the enemy numbers go down) but not enough of a bonus to become invulnerable – I would expect a 25+ group can produce more than twice the damage needed to down a single player!

The overall effect should be that any player at any time who faces overwhelming odds has a better choice to flee or fight. At the moment, unless you can stealth or have immunity to cc your choice is pretty much limited to hoping the bigger group will ignore you.

HazyDaisy – I’m not sure what you mean – sorry. Are you thinking of a solo roamer who is buffed as “Outmanned” under my idea hunting down other single players to take advantage of the buff?
If so then the idea is that Outmanned would only be triggered locally and NOT map wide. So the only way a solo player could have outmanned is if there are more than twice as many opponents within combat range. Pursuing a single roamer is likely to take you away from the group that gave you outmanned and you’d lose the buff.

Also because the buff would scale the initial level of boost would be low (eg 1 stack of might and 1 stack of resistance). This maybe wouldn’t make much difference to the combat. You would only get a serious buff if you were serious outmanned within combat range. And that’s the beauty of the idea, it adjusts to local conditions not map wide population or times. You could even have three separate fights between the servers where each has a solo roamer outmanned by her/his opponents, all on the same map, but bring them all together and no-one gets the buff because it’s not needed.

Coming from a smaller server, and non prime time too, I hadn’t seen pug groups of over 20 let alone 50+. I’d suggest with a map limit of 80 players each side a group of 25 would never get more than 2 or 3 stacks of buff, and to do that they would have to be facing EVERYONE from the other server. Might reach 4 or 6 stacks if they faced the entire full map population of both opponents – so 6 stacks of might and 12% damage reduction, versus 160 players. Now that could be fun…

The guild group could perhaps split into two or three smaller groups to gain the buff, but would it be worth trading a couple of stacks of might and resistance for half your guild force? I would guess not but that’s just my guess.
The tricky bit would be deciding how to scale Outmanned so it isn’t the deciding factor in the combat.

Whether players stack or scatter would of course be player choice – it always should be. This version of outmanned would perhaps change the consequences of that choice a bit, but I think overall the advantages might outweigh the disadvantages.

Server load could be an issue, yet distance info is calculated already for fog-of-war and for the range bars under your weapon skills so perhaps it’s already available.

when you’ve answered the question “eyes Hills?” at the same time as it’s asked.

when your build is custom rather than meta-battle because none of those have quite the right balance of speed, DPS, sustain and stats.

Wanted to share this memory (because that’s what we older folk do).

Just after the server linking old friend and I were in Air Keep trying to defend against a sea of more red names than we’d ever seen before. The outer gates melted (6 rams) then inner (just as quickly) and we retreated to two ACs in the Lords room to do what we could.

And we waited. And waited. Max even went to look for them – they were all standing around outside.

One attacker dodged in, and dodged out. Several seconds later another did the same. then two players cautiously poked their heads in…
By this time we’re killing ourselves with laughter on TS. Having come from a small server where you need to flip stuff as fast as 2 people can (swords attract a player or two to defend) it was comical to see so many players seemingly so scared of us. It could have been because Max plays a kitten HUGE Charr (seriously!), or maybe our guild had a more fierce reputation than we thought…

Needless to say, when they were convinced it wasn’t a trap about 50 people filled the room and neither of us lasted very long.

As I was told by a veteran player – The only way to avoid dying in WvW is to not log in. Live with it.

when you’re headed for the gate to scout the next target as the claiming circle goes up.

I understand your concern but look at it again.
The skilled guild group of 25 will probably beat the pug blob anyway (as you point out). But think it through:

• The guild group won’t get Outmanned unless the pug blob is over 50 players, and that’s for the minimum scaling.
• If the pub blob scatters (the most likely scenario since they may lack the discipline to stack) then the chances of the guild group being outmanned by at least 2:1 (within 2500 range) drops quickly.
• Now consider if the pugs run, either individually or in small groups. If the guild group chases them down the pugs may become outmanned – possibly by 25:1 (serious buff time!) so although they may die eventually at least they can fight back and will give the guild group a better challenge than now. They may even escape to regroup.

All in all I’d say that was a good example of the suggested Outmanned working to spice up combat rather than giving an unfair boost to an already better skilled group.

You forgot to say when WvW should open again. If you shut it down at midnight PST and don’t open it we have problems. Beer can do this to you.

Ignoring all the “foreigners” like me, just for the sake of argument, how does your idea work for the NA players who do shift work? And which of the time zones between Oregon and Maine are you going to designate as being important enough to get the full play time, and which will you assign less hours to? Then add the rest of the world and the players out here who also paid good money to play this game.

I think we’re mostly agreed that there are players on at all times now -especially after the server linking started. It’s the number of players on that we need to sort out now, and in my opinion shutting the maps down probably wouldn’t fix that.

Chinchilla – I think you’ve misunderstood what I’m trying to achieve. The idea is to try to reduce the impact of local and global population differences when they reach a certain level of unbalance. This is not about artificially boosting the level of any server since the system would be available for all players on all servers at all times and would only cut in with local population variation.
I don’t believe it would artificially support servers in third place because all players would gain the same benefits when outmanned irrespective of their server ranking.

To be honest, given the choice between a universal system like this that is available to all players at any time, or the time scaled scoring being suggested here then I’d always go with the system that is available for and supports all the players.

From the limited feedback, and with a bit more thought I’m even more convinced this rework of the Outmanned buff could be achieved using a stack of might per step, combined with regeneration and a stack of reworked resistance (to reduce damage).

I would change resistance from ignoring condi damage to reducing condi damage by 2% per stack. You could also add in a 2% physical damage reduction (like the one hour Armor buff reduces damage by 5%, but for a much shorter time and make it stackable). This would allow resistance to be built up as a temporary defence boost like might boosts attacks for a short time.

So this would now make Outmanned a local (2500 range) buff that gives a rapidly ticking, short lived, stack of might and a stack of new-resistance (2% reduction in condi and physical damage) per step of scaling up to a maximum of 25 stacks when extremely outmanned.
Outmanned would only apply when you are in combat range of more than twice as many opponents (all from one server) and would scale up as the odds got worse (to a limit).

This has to be better than what we have, and could reduce both k-training and population imbalance problems.
Better – yes?!

Yeah – point taken.
But the difference is that I’m suggesting Outmanned is a local buff not map wide. So Server 3 can only turn the buff on and off if they’re within combat range. Would they really just jump in and out of range to toggle the buff or would they go in for the bags?

Although the players stats would not be permanently changed I think you’re referring to during the buff and will treat the comment as such. I think a damage in/out change would do – it would be like having fury. In fact the Outmanned buff could be applied via might stacks and health regen. The mechanics for this already exist and are used.

Outmanned is a map wide buff that adds so little to the affected player it’s only real use nowadays is to warn you that a shed load of enemies (lots) have just arrived on map (or all your friends left…)
It’s next to useless to be honest.

So how about changing Outmanned, and in the process providing a system that would reduce the impact of population imbalance at any time of day or night.

Here’s what I would do:
1. Make “Outmanned” a local buff. Give it a range of say 2500 which is about the max range of player held weapons. So Outmanned would now apply according to the number of players who could actually do you harm. If you become “Outmanned” not only would you know there’s a lot of enemy on the map, you’d know they’re next to you…

2. Change what “Outmanned” does. Make it scale the player in a similar way to the Lords scale in a structure. Exactly what scales and how much needs deciding as I can’t find the details for Lords, but I’m using this as an example because I’ve only ever seen the Lords win against single or double characters, and at this level you wouldn’t be outmanned anyway.

Edit: over the course of this thread this idea has evolved to use stacks of might to boost the outmanned players damage (up to the usual 25 stack limit) and stacks of “new-resistance” (a 2% damage reduction boon effective against both condi and direct damage – and again up to a limit of 25 stacks). These buffs are already available in game and changing the number in the stack provides the scaling I hoped to achieve.

Why this is a good idea:
The new scoring system is going to favour big blobs (again) and the bigger the zerg is the less time defenders have to rally a defence. I’ve read countless posts claiming that the best fights are ones where both sides have some degree of parity. I have seen very few (serious) posts promoting steamrollering as the most satisfying combat mechanic we have. The idea behind changing Outmanned is about buying extra time rather than blocking progress.
The new Outmanned buff would provide a better balance to times of unequal population: not just for different times of day but in all encounters. Thus the only time a server should end up facing a seriously skewed score “overnight” would be if they had NO-ONE on at all (and I do not believe this happens under the current linking).

Details:
Outmanned needs to kick in at a suitable threshold. I don’t know what the current level is so I’ll suggest it kicks in when the player faces odds of over 2.0 to 1 (so 3 on 1 and 21 on 10 would both trigger outmanned but 4 on 2 won’t). I suggest 2:1 because I think a player has a chance to escape or win at these odds.

Scaling should be dynamic so that the Outmanned player receives a bit of boost at low levels and more when seriously outmanned. I’d expect to have an upper cap to prevent solo players being unkillable for a zerg.
I’m not exactly sure what scales on a Lord so for the sake of discussion I’ll suggest a 1% increase in damage by the player and 2% decrease in damage to the player (both direct and condi) for each step up to a 25% cap. Anet would need to look at what actually would scale and by how much, but you get the idea – the buffed player would do more damage and have more survivability without becoming invulnerable. I would expect to see a fine range of outmanned buffing – proper scaling is required not just Off or InstaGib mode.

Four attempts to game the idea and how to beat them:
1. You face a large incoming zerg so you decide to pull all but 2 defenders out to allow them to scale up fully. Either the attackers all pile in and defeat the defenders anyway or some of them stay outside combat range and reduce the scaling. If you’re stood just out of Outmanned range expect these players to come looking for you…
2. One player zerg busting. The zerg only needs to scatter to strip the Outmanned buff or reduce the scaling. Alternatively focus the player and it’s no worse than fighting a Keep Lord with that number of people.
3. Solo roamer/scout trolling a large group. Simply despatch a couple of players to deal with them, or treat as above example.
4. Single player defending on an arrow cart. OK so they scaled up a lot. Withdraw for a moment and either build a ballista or other longer ranged device to take them down from beyond the buff trigger range, or withdraw and send in a couple of players who can use AoE, or a siege disabler. If you need to, keep doing this until they are dead (or the defenders turn up and you get a decent fight).

The added bonus of this new Outmanned is that it would discourage large mindless blobs. Larger well-led groups will adapt their play (spread instead of stack) and smaller groups will be able to make a stand against a bigger force without melting immediately.

So what attributes should the buff scale up and by how much?

This post is about “guest” server identity. If you’re on a “host” server you may think this doesn’t affect you but you’re wrong. Through no choice or fault of ours we’re the reason your server population is locked. Even though I don’t like the implications, I’ll use the terms “host” and “guest” servers because these are the terms Anet uses for us. I’m basing this post on my experiences on IoJ, but I think they apply to all the “guest” servers.

I don’t see my server name anywhere:

• Friends list – they’re on “host” borderlands
• Guild roster – “host” borderlands
• Map chat uses the “host” server names for maps…
• So does the WvW entrance lobby (although I can click the plus sign by JQ)
• Team Speak – we use the “host” server system (less people to move)
• We don’t even gain any WvW score from the linked matches
  So are we IoJ or are we JQ+ ?

This matters. It really does. Here’s why.
This is a Beta – a trial of the many changes – and that raises some questions.

• If we lose our server identity how can Anet undo or change this linking?
• How are we expected to recruit for our server or our WvW guilds? Anyone want to join “JQ+”? There are already a few posts complaining that players can’t join the “host” server they want to (and won’t join the relevant “guest” server in case it’s moved again) so we have problems recruiting and so do the “host” servers.
• What future does Anet see for our voice comms servers – we pay for these, and our server websites.

When linking was introduced Anet took the decision not to label “guest” players to “let guests blend in and only stand out if they felt like calling themselves out” . Nice sentiment BUT we all had to ask for voice comms authentication, and we’re the new people running around with the guild tags that “host” players don’t recognise. Some “standing out” is inevitable: is it really worth our identity to protect us like this?

So Anet – at what point does it become too late to save the “guest” servers identity?
If you label this as low priority then when you get round to it you will find you’re too late.

Epilogue:
Let me take you back to Living Story Season One. The first mission was to erect signposts for the incoming refugees. Then we learned they had been dispossessed by the minions of an Evil Boss. So we made them welcome and set off to defeat the boss and help the refugees get their homes back.
So what role will you take Anet? Champions of Tyria? Or will you play Scarlett?
I’m worried; the Anet logo is bright red…

WvW as guilds only? There are a lot of PvE guilds out there. So it would be ok for these guild members (who may not be interested in WvW) to play but not someone who wants to be involved but hasn’t decided which guild suits them best…

Sorry but, like many others here, I don’t see how the idea would actually help.

I think the guild alliances arise from the dedication and cooperation of players who trust each other rather than the other way round. Locking players out, whoever they are, doesn’t promote this.

I like the idea of something that reduces incoming condition damage rather than temporarily negates it which is what resistance does. This way the condi still ticks but becomes more survivable.

I also like the idea of the healing stat being more useful. I have looked at healing stat armour before for a couple of different classes. Healing makes much less difference to the amount of healing I get than something like power or vitality affects damage or health. From this point of view it is not worth using the slot that a more effective stat can use.

I don’t think toughness should be used to reduce condi damage because then one stat would cover both direct and indirect damage – it would be too easy. Having healing reduce condi damage should encourage more strategic diversity.

LordCody – not sure what you meant. Wouldn’t the queues for a T4/8 combo be less than a T4/5 or T1/8 combination? I’m also not sure how matching T1 and T8 servers together counts as keeping the matching as equal as possible… I don’t think you get a more extreme combination in WvW.

FogLeg – while I’m thinking of matching play styles rather than balancing matchups I do take your point. Perhaps the route Anet chose, although it will tend to force a common play style, will lead to more varied match ups in the future. Or perhaps players will “server” stack again and we will end up back where we were a few weeks ago but with less players due to the loss of some long standing communities. I don’t know.

I just wondered which factor people thought was more important – overall population parity between servers or play style (large groups or small / solo).

No complaints just a question really.

Linking T1 and T8 puts the two extremes of the game together. I would imagine this causes the greatest culture shock, and that things are a little less polarised in T4/T5 links. Just as an observation, as a T8 player our solo and small group play has been rather swallowed in T1 where what was an unstoppable zerg last week is now about right for a havoc group this week. This change takes a little time to absorb.

These BETA links have been made to even out population and from this point of view they make the most sense. Bear in mind, one of the main complaints on these forums was about WvW population and the need to balance it so I understand Anet trying to do what we (overall) asked them to do.

In a previous post I suggested linking T1/T5, T2/T6, T3/T7 and T4/T8.
This does not even out population nearly as well. It was suggested in order to match play styles better.

Q: Would the T1/T5 type of link have been better overall?

If you have 3 different home maps then you’ll get QQ over one map being easier to defend or attack, so the only way to ensure the map you get doesn’t affect the scoring is to run the matches over 3 weeks so everyone gets each map, and no one has an advantage overall.

In the interest of fairness I’d rather stick with one week matches and the same map – even though I like the idea that different themed home maps could give each team a unique feel.

Yeah. The good thing about this would be that it’s a lot easier to drop the map cap down than it is to increase it on a single set of borderlands, and it would have the advantage of reducing lag.

It may also be possible to have one map with a lower cap than the other to allow large / small play styles.

Crazy, but it may work…

TY Dank
I hoped I’d covered this in point 5 of my post – when population reduces Anet either reduce map caps or go back to 4 maps. If this doesn’t cover your concern please give me more details and I’ll think them over.

In short – put up the Alpine maps alongside the Desert Borderlands, and keep EB central.

• Seven maps – spreads the currently larger population around a bit and reduces queues.
• Name one BL for the “host” server and one for the “guest” server – retains server identity.
• Both maps running together – no need for fancy map swapping tech which has been a bit of an issue.
• Both maps active means players who prefer one can choose.
• This is a Beta so as time progresses, if population shrinks Anet can either adjust the map caps (reducing lag) or bring in the map rotation and go back to 4 maps.

What’s not to like?!

I’ll see if I can anticipate the negative thoughts –
Big blobs will roll any map anyway but they’ll have more ground to cover so their overall impact on the game will be less while still allowing them to clash in epic style.
Smaller groups will get more done simultaneously so strategy and havoc become more important
Off-peak capping will still happen and still have an impact on score but taking a whole BL map will have less effect overall.

Thanks – I had read that one but it seemed to be talking mostly about displayed player names in game. I understand the simplicity of me having to be seen by opponents as “Jade Quarry Invader” and I’m not bothered by that (I don’t see it myself so I don’t mind). I also get the idea of not wanting to highlight players for griefing from the inevitable few who see us as to blame for some problem or other.

What I do want to see is my server name on a Borderlands selection button. I want a borderlands I can call my own and therefore feel motivated to defend.

Without this, just where exactly IS IoJ then?!

It is the same on all links, thank you.

What I would like to see though is my server name on the WvW join screen where I select the borderlands, so it says “Jade Quarry & Isle of Janthir” or even “JQ / IoJ”.

What I get now is “Jade Quarry” and on some screens “Jade Quarry+”. I don’t mind this mostly but if we can’t see the uplinked server names then it’s not going to help us retain our server identity.

I don’t think that the server-links will change too often, but if there is any intention to change them at any point in the future then there should be some help to keep identities. Whether this works out will then depend on players not on Anet.

I would like to say that JQ have been very welcoming for us (thanks!) and they’ve been good to work with. However, home is home you know? and for me that means IoJ. So it would be good to see the name openly rather than only as a hidden item.

I guess the problem comes if the selection button displays a world server name only, and I’d rather not rename servers yet. But if it can be done on mouse over then it should be possible to overlay a different layer even if it’s as tacky as clicking this new overlay button triggers a click-activation on the button underneath (poor structure I know but a quick fix perhaps).

Please can we see both server names in the Borderlands selection – I keep looking for mine and having to remember who I’m linked with… I know I’d get used to it but seeing my server name on a BL join button is part of maintaining some form of Server Identity.

Any official feedback on whether this would be possible and when would be good. Hopefully it can be done and put in place within a week or two?

Nope.

Even though I have HoT and have a Druid I prefer to play my pre-HoT Ranger build. Yes I die sometimes but I don’t die any faster or any more often. I’ve fought and beaten Dragon Hunters, Revenants and Reapers. To be fair I’ve also been killed by them too, but it’s about even so far.

Things I’ve learned:

• I can’t win every fight.
• When arrows start raining down, dodge away. It’s either an Arrow Cart, Ranger Barrage or DH longbow 5. Doesn’t matter which, I’m not about to stand around and wait to find out.
• Most Reapers love the cool Reaper Shroud. I like it on mine too, but it’s mostly melee range, so don’t melee them.
• Revenants have nasty condi damage (Mallix) and crazy long range hammer stuff too (I like my Herald) but they struggle to condi clear so use that knowledge. Either spike them or condi and kite.

I too could go on with my list…

Old System vs New System?
You’ll see some really good players who have bought HoT and made the new classes and are playing them because it’s new and fun – these players can be naturally good, and many are way better than I am. That does not mean their classes need nerfing, it means I need to get smarter and faster, or pick my fights more carefully and lead them into an area that hinders their play.

I’ll take a well played pre-HoT build over a poorly played Elite spec any day.

Any action that attempts to create 4 servers fighting for a place in a three place tier causes massive problems for the servers caught up in the tier below. I’ve been on the receiving end of this sort of thing and after six months of being stomped (facing a 600+ tick was common) a lot of players and guilds “took a break” or transferred out due to frustration.

This loss of players widens the gap between these servers and the tier above, which increases the problem of stale match ups (or lack of competition when facing lower servers) so the problem becomes self sustaining.

Even the introduction of the Desert Borderlands caused less damage.

If people want a real change from the same T1 matches they could transfer down into different servers in the Bronze tiers. Not one server, several different ones… This would help balance out the populations and if they go to a variety of servers they will have more chance of getting variety in their match ups.
Of course, things are a little different down here where every individual player counts and a group of 5 players is a force to be reckoned with… It’s not for the faint hearted: you need to be a sort of self sufficient roaming tanky zerker who can support whoever else is on.

Sorry but this doesn’t work for me.

1. Enough gimmicks introduced with HoT already.
2. This is a time gated event – I dislike those. Especially when I have to stop playing just before the event finishes and I miss the loot.
3. I’d rather be rewarded for playing WvW not some meta event on the map (too close to Oasis in this respect).

I do like the idea of getting Gold, Items (hopefully better than 2 blues and a green…) Unique skins etc. I think this is one point you’ve got spot on. I’m finding that WvW actually drops plenty of loot at the moment, but it’s all pretty much worthless even when salvaged.

I’m not sure we actually need a new loot system just better drop rates for more valuable stuff in the existing one.

You missed this one (it’s way back in the pages so I understand why ).
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Suggestion-Paired-tiers/first#post6030243

Pros:

• Flexibility in matches
• Retains server identity

Cons:

• Would need some work by Anet to allow us to choose map instances
• Comms between servers – would need a WvW color chat channel adding at least (allied voice comms preferred).

Feel free to add pros and cons I haven’t thought of.

I’m sure any server would be happy to have an experienced commander join them, and I wish you luck where ever you go.

I also want to commend you for showing us that players don’t always transfer upwards to the top servers (although from T8 I guess technically you will be ). It’s good to know that you are offering your experience to smaller servers – there are plenty of us down here who enjoy WvW albeit at a smaller scale and personally I feel that small lower tier fights can be more personally challenging than zerg clashes.

I suspect IoJ would welcome you as much as any other server. Despite the recent post about the “Entire Server” transfer we still have a number of WvW players and guilds left and we’re working to build this up. We have a great communtiy and undoubtedly we will take a little time to settle and then we’ll come back fighting after all, we’ve been in worse places before and survived. We have a reasonable NA prime presence and an international population so although we don’t have large numbers we do have people in game all the time. We meet your criteria for TS but we’re on the verge of dropping to T8 so you may be looking a little higher.

I’d also like to thank you for your stated objective: “I am getting an alt into a different server mainly to help the server.” It’s good to see someone posting who understands that server pride is not dead despite the gloomy comments made when people discuss megaserver!

GL and HF

1. Increase the population of WvW players. There are plenty of suggestions on how to do this. Reward tracks, custom skins and tournaments all have their merit. The key thing is to make WvW easy to get into and hard to master. The easy entry brings in new players, and some will stay to master the challenge.

2. Give us something to fight for. The HoT changes took away the concept of a “home” borderlands and split the defenders across three maps instead of one. This needs to be changed back. Look again at the sticky thread and read what players used to do in the old Alpine borderlands. This is what we need back. Look at the posts that say “we used to have big fights outside Bay” and other examples. We need strategic objectives to capture so we have objectives that need defending – it is this clash of interests that leads to these fights.

3. Easy navigation. There needs to be a clear and easy route between objectives within WvW. That’s not to say that this should be the only route, nor indeed the safest, but it should be easy to see and quick to travel without undue environmental risk. Less obvious routes that have associated benefits (and risks) would add to the fun. WvW needs to be accessible to new players and to players new to the map.

4. It’s not all about the zergs. Small guilds, roamers and casual players are just as valuable and should be considered in any development work. Again, look through the sticky thread and see how many posts are from players who lost both purpose and fun, and work to restore this. An example would be requiring human interaction to progress an upgrade at objectives. A new idea would be to allow scouting players to manually “tag” an enemy in the same way that Sentries do (so the dot shows on the map for a time).

5. Communication. Moving forwards, regular communication would help players understand what is happening to their game mode and why. Is it not better to explain that actually you can’t easily swap maps because (reasons) than to remain silent and appear to be ignoring the idea? It’s the lack of communication that feeds speculation and fear leading to increased toxicity.

Good luck, and remember that even though we often have disparate ideas there are many of us here who actively want to help make WvW the great game mode it can be.

Jana – don’t worry, as long as there is an IoJ I will do what I can to keep a candle in the window so lost souls can find their way home.

I understand about the population problems but I’m also aware that they have been caused by transfers in the first place. What we need is more players not compaction of those left.
I started from the original beta of GW2 on IoJ and I’m still here. I’ve seen friends transfer to other servers and many return. A few have stayed on their new servers but still speak fondly of their time here. In the mean time I’m happy to welcome anyone who transfers down to join or rejoin us

For some of us left in Bronze tier the idea of massive zergs clashing is just not what we want. I do worry that just as small guilds suffered at the hands of HoT, the solutions to population imbalance will herald an end for players who enjoy small group action. I sincerely hope I’m wrong!

Knob while I appreciate your efforts for IoJ – and you really have put a lot of work into our WvW – I’m a little surprised to see us listed here as wanting to transfer the “whole server” to somewhere else: I didn’t know. This may be because I would have to be classed as a casual WvW player because I can’t commit time as often as I want to. However, I respond to call outs when I’m on and I support and follow tags when there is one. I command at times. I’m one of those players who you see around who joins in rather than running past, and scouts, and defends, and starts the siege to take stuff before calling the breach to the players I know are on so they can pass round word…

So does your “whole server” include me then?

There is an alternative while we wait to see what the development team decide to do about population imbalance, and this wouldn’t mean giving up our server, and it would increase the population we played with. Have a look.

At the moment, given the choice, I’ll stay with IoJ because we’ve faced worse and I don’t want to give up.

Whatever happens, many thanks for your efforts and good luck wherever you end up.

So let me try to summarise this.

For WvW you’re suggesting a 3 way mega-server match on old style maps over an EotM time scale?

For GvG you’re suggesting that PvP is extended to cater for larger guild groups to play a larger version of Legacy of Foefire?

Thanks for the comments.

This idea is definitely not about merging servers. Think of it as more like twinning towns.
Pairing the tiers does not join any servers together but it would make them temporary team allies and give players the choice to play on either tiers maps. The servers stay the same, with the same population and guilds, and no one is forced to go anywhere and definitely no one is forced to join another server.
This is fundamentally different to removing half the servers and merging the populations, and I don’t think it’s been suggested before.

The idea is simple enough. Pairing tiers together allows players from the same colour to play as that colour on any of the maps for either tier. Note that if, for example, T3 and T7 are paired as suggested and the players on both tiers decide to stay in their home tier maps for the whole match then you’d see no difference to what we have now. On the other hand, if players from one tier decide to assist their twinned team mates then they would be able to do so. The idea is to offer more player choice not restrict it.

Since top-half server A could be twinned with lower-half server D or E or F in any given week there would be more possible combinations available and hence more variety in matches.

Comms between servers could be an area of difficulty I agree. However there would be no comms impact within either server for their own guilds and play. It would be possible to use existing map chat or Team chat (or squad chat) for typed comms. While this is not ideal in a fast moving situation it is the reality faced by many pugmanders and I suspect that pugmanders may be the most likely players to try working with groups from a different tier anyway.

For WvW guilds there is no more “carrying a server” than they already experience. There would be no requirement for any guild to play to support their allied server, and if they didn’t they would still gain the same score from their efforts in their home map that they would have achieved without this idea.
Of course, if they did lend a bit of support to their colour ally then the overall score for their colour may well be higher, to the benefit of both servers.

Finally this idea is no more about random matches than the existing system is. If players were really concerned about knowing what matches they are going to face in advance then it would be possible for Anet to decide to run the sequence of permutations (ie all 6 combinations) within the tier pairing before checking glicko to see if any servers need to be allocated to different tiers. Personally I’d rather stick with a weekly or two weekly glicko check but I’d be just as happy to go with what the community wants.

I’m not sure what the effect would be on the glicko scores of the servers in each pairing. Glicko would increase faster since it comes from the total of two maps for each server. I haven’t tried to predict what is likely to happen but I’m sure it could be done from the historical server scores. And if there’s a chance that this idea could lead to breaking up some of the stale situations several players have been complaining about, all the better.

Thanks Dayra – I agree that players would need some form of choice, and I think you’ve analysed it well. The question would be whether players would create and honour conventions for different map instances. This may be doubtful since we could, if we agreed, solve all the population issues that we as players have created. However if it works it would be fine.

I’m still uncomfortable with megaserver as a concept for WvW because it would need to be very different to what we see used at the moment. I also quite like the week long match ups because everyone has a chance to contribute whenever they play during the week, but a four hour cycle wouldn’t make me quit

I know we’ve seen plenty of ideas already but I wanted to offer another. It’s not without its faults but it could be fairly easy to implement and might solve a few problems. Sorry this is such a long post but I’ve tried to address all the problems I could think of as well as the benefits, so hopefully it’s comprehensive. I’m sure people will tell me if I’ve missed something

The idea is to pair tiers to give the opportunity for populations to mix and to bring a little more variety into match ups.
I’ve based this idea on NA because it has 8 tiers. I’m sure there’s a way to make it work for EU too but haven’t finished thinking that through yet.

I suggest pairing T1 with T5, T2 with T6, T3 with T7 and T4 with T8.
Each match up still has 3 teams (red blue green) just as it is but, crucially, players from the same colour can play on either tiers BL maps.
I chose these pairings because it seemed fairer than putting T1 with T8 etc. While this would possibly give more even total population numbers the difference between servers might be too much to make this enjoyable. Pairing the servers the way I have puts the lower top tiers with the lower bottom tiers, with hopefully less disparity in game play.
Pairing tiers and not servers like this allows for some variation even if the servers in the two tiers remain the same each week.

Potential problems:

• Big server A (say T2 green) will stomp all over little server E (say T6 red) in their home map.
  Possibly. But server A is still facing servers B and C from T2 and if they are off stomping a little server map who is in their T2 BL? And who is holding EB for them? Either you keep as one big force and leave one map open and undefended, or you split your force across more than one map. Have your opponents done the same? One big zerg would be hard to beat but several smaller groups can cap more stuff in a given time and all the while the players from the lower tier server are scouting and roaming and capping stuff too… One big zerg may be unbeatable in a fight but may not be the highest scoring solution.

• The idea is too complex for players to grasp – too many maps to choose from.
  It would take time to get used to but it’s not more complex than picking which map to go to now really. It would be helpful if you could see the approximate population of your team on each map though so you can choose whether to go to the map with most players on or whether to roam quietly on your own.

• There aren’t enough players to fill the current maps so it’s plain stupid to allow them access to more!
  Actually what this idea should do is give a bit more variety and choice. At peak times like reset high tier players don’t need to queue for a BL map. At these times low tier players can in effect join a higher tier game if they want without the need to transfer. At low population times the low number of players from both paired servers can access and play on the same map so you could get twice the current population if people want to do this. There should be more total players on for a given colour and so more support should be available at any given time, simply because two server populations are available. I’m not trying to say that each map will have a higher population – I doubt this would happen but there would be more players available to attack or defend any single map.

• It will make night capping worse.
  Leaving aside that “night capping” is the wrong term for population time imbalance, there will be more available players for any given colour at any given game time simply because the available population is the sum of two servers. Often the reason that scores become widely imbalanced is because there is supposedly no one on to cap stuff back. The chances of no one being on at all for a given colour would be less, although what these players choose to do in their game time is up to them of course.

• Scoring would be a problem.
  This is the area I’ve had least success at resolving. One possibility is to simply add the two green instance scores together and use that as the score for each green server (same with the other colours). Taking an average score could result in the higher tier server feeling it is carrying the lower tier one too much. I’ wonder if some form of player participation scoring that would scale scores for each server might be better (sort of percentage participation per active WvW population member but this could get complex quite quickly). The scoring is an area that needs work, but I’ll go with total score across both maps just to get the idea and discussion going. I know it would affect glicko scores a lot more for the lower tier servers but glicko needs a shake up anyway IMHO.

Good things about paired tier matches:

• There would be more possible match combinations within a tier pair so even if you stayed in the same tier you could face 6 different matches from the same pool of players.

• Higher tier players can enjoy the chance to play in smaller group situations and lower tier players can experience playing with and against higher tier guilds without having to transfer servers.

• Server identity is retained, guilds are unaffected, and there is a bigger pool of players available so populations can choose to be more focused or more spread depending on what players want.

Overall the idea would bring what I believe should be a positive opportunity for more variety in matches and play with minimal change to the basics of WvW. The biggest question may be whether the Devs could code the map choices.

There’s been a lot of talk about megaservers in WvW. I’ll make no secret of the fact that I’m very much against the idea, but it would probably help increase the number of players per map.

However before megaserver is implemented in WvW there are a number of issues that would need to be addressed. Here are a few that spring to mind:

1 A guild group decide to play WvW. The first 4 get into instance A and the others into instance B.
The current megaserver system in PvE tries (sometimes successfully) to put guildies together, but the odds are higher than it may put your whole group into a new instance in order to do so. Whether that instance then fills up depends on other players joining. In PvE this doesn’t matter because you have events to do and stuff to kill, in WvW it would matter – a lot.

2. You’re enjoying a good game in WvW and some of the opponents leave. The map is now below the population threshold so you get a “map closing” message and the chance to move to a more populated map.
You either stay and do what all the “night capping” complaints are about or you take a chance on the megaserver putting you into a map that has other players that will stay too (look at all the threads about lost progress in HoT maps). If you move all your gains in the current map instance become void as the map closes. Any megaserver system for WvW would have much more trouble balancing the player population across three teams, and map closures would have much more impact on players than it already does in PvE.

3. You join a WvW map to cap stuff, for example for a daily achievement and find the commanders on the map are leading groups in PPK. Or conversely you join for the fights and find that map is PPT based and the commanders are more interested in capping stuff. Both sorts of play styles are valid and are currently catered for, albeit badly at times.
WvW megaserver would need at least a specific LFG system to try to put like minded players together, or perhaps a dedicated PPK map and a PPT map – but this would be moving away from the way megaserver works. As a minimum players should have some sort of choice as to the instance they join.

In short, as things stand at the moment all a megaserver system is likely to do is turn WvW into EotM 2 (across 4 maps instead of one).

We want something better than this that caters for fights and capping, with small parties and larger groups. I’m not at all convinced that megaservers can do this.

Turning WvW into EotM 2 is an awful idea.

Yes it would mean there were more people on the maps but the idea that WvW is only any good when all the maps are queued is just wrong. I know of many players, myself included, who have had a lot of fun in smaller groups on a map that isn’t queued.

If you want to play EotM then why not go and do so. Campaign for the WvW maps to be added to EotM if you want that style of play and leave the server based system for those of us who don’t believe everything is about big blobs.

There are many players still in the lower tiers who could have transferred and chose not to. For many this is because they prefer smaller group game play. We don’t try to force the zerg fans to play WvW the way we like it so please show us the same respect.

• Do you feel like your WvW career is stagnating?
• Are you fed up with Pirate Ship blobbing?
• Are you bored of spamming 111111 like everyone around you?
• Does it feel like you don’t make a difference any more?

then why not Transfer to Bronze!

Bronze – where your contribution can make a big difference in a zerg of 10 !
Bronze – where we have real fights including skill 2 and 3 (and sometimes even 4) !
Bronze – where you can dodge the red AoE circle !

Yes – in Bronze tier we have opportunities for every hero: from roamers to team players, and even siege humpers – we have Arrow carts! (sometimes, on a Tuesday).

Special offer – bring a friend and watch your new server rise rapidly through the rankings!
Be a Hero and Transfer to Bronze today!

Ok so as an advert it needs a little polish… but it would help balance population and you might even enjoy your stay!

If you can do a better advert, or have a better slogan please feel free to upstage this post

Crimson – I agree. We have less player on NA these days, or if the metrics prove this wrong the map is so darn convoluted I can’t find them which amounts to the same thing. There are a lot of players waiting to see if things get better, and a lot who already quit. However there should be some new players and some of these play outside the prime play times so it is still worth keeping an eye out for new recruits. In all honesty however I would feel bad trying to recruit a lot of players into WvW with things as they are at the moment – it’s still fun at times but nothing like the experience it used to be.

Zengara -whoa! What is with the attitude? No – don’t bother answering that. I’m aware that you and I see things differently. I have accepted this even if you haven’t.
As a final thought though – here’s a quick summary:

• Your original post is a complaint about people doing things you don’t want them to do.
• You rant at people who post making comparisons because you don’t like them.
• You consider that only one of the 44 posts made in response to your OP doesn’t have a “hidden agenda”
• I have twice posted replies quoting what you posted yourself. On both occasions you declare my posts to be BS (think about that for a bit).

The good news is that you now understand that “having server population available round the clock makes sense” (this is what the other server you were complaining about already has by the way).

I’ll leave you with one final quote of yours: It’s(ed) “Not you, it’s me.” This one I agree with.
Good luck in WvW.

I did read your post.
You said WvW isn’t PvP then you said it is (“Well, the “idea” is ok,” is what you wrote) and then you said the two game mode can’t be compared.
It’s at this point that you and I will have to agree to disagree because as far as I know sPvP is also Player vs Player (although Anet snuck some PvE mobs into Stronghold just like they put PvE stuff in WvW). There are differences in scale and a few minor rules but essentially WvW is a long time scale higher population PvP match.

All this is really an aside to the fact that your original post complained about it being unfair that other players should actually be doing something constructive for their server while you are not playing. As a concept this idea is wrong – as wrong as it would be if they complained about you capping stuff while they sleep. WvW has always had this population-time imbalance and it’s something we live and play with. As players we get used to it, like we get used to the fact that sometimes we get beaten in fights. You don’t have to like it, but it is part of the game as things are and our choice is simple – play or don’t play. I suspect this is another area where you and I will have to agree to disagree.

Yeah – I had a lot of lols over the day capping post.

Zengara – GW2 wiki entry for WvW – sorry but Anet disagree with you, and it’s their game. I looked it up – so by your definition of a definition(?!) we should agree?

The two game modes involve players fighting each other, with the fights focused by the idea of controlling nominated structures. Same basis, same mode.

Zinkz – I agree that the idea doesn’t translate into practice as well as it should. I suspect that Anet devs don’t play on a wide enough range of servers and time zones to understand what WvW is about to all players. This in turn leads to ideas and concepts that don’t work out as intended because the devs don’t understand the impact this new idea will have – plenty of threads on things like the new Deserted BL to illustrate this.

Shilajit – err… actually there is a thread (one single thread) that is about Nerf day capping but I think this was posted in response to the many threads about “it’s not fair that you’re playing while I’m asleep”. Certainly “day capping” doesn’t seem to be nearly as much of an issue as “night capping” in the forums even though it often decides matches.

Is the problem the AoE radius or the choke points? I can usually stay out of red circles if I have somewhere else to move to.

You can get a Legendary back piece through sPvP rewards. Remember that sPvP is the one area of GW2 where the armour stats don’t actually affect your build; so it’s as useful as a chocolate teapot to the people who earned it.

I hope we’ll get something in WvW we can actually use!

Zengara – WvW is a PVP game mode by definition. The difference is scale.
Minor differences are that there are 3 teams in WvW and only 2 in sPvP, and sPvP has a score limit as well as a time limit. WvW only has a time limit.
If you missed the link between player participation over the course of a match and the final score then I can see how you might not understand the comparison.

As for the rest of my post, if I’ve upset you then I apologise.
I took your advice and re-read it, the whole post, and to be honest the only thing I wrote that I’m not certain is factual is my assumption that you joined a guild to play with other people. I still think this is likely to be true. If I have got any facts wrong then I’m happy to be corrected and we can follow this with an adult and enlightened discussion.

As previous threads have pointed out, the problem with WvW population is a result of player choices. It really is up to us as players to to fix this ourselves but sadly I think there is more chance of Anet announcing the content of the WvW overhaul next week than all the WvW players dividing themselves evenly between all the servers to even out population differences across all time zones.

Babytater – I’ve always found ET to be tenacious. I’m on IoJ and we’ve faced you a couple of times at the bottom of the tiers. I have a lot of respect for the ET WvW players who have continued to face their opponents whatever the odds. I’ll link a previous post of mine that mentions ET here. (TLDR – players who will fight against the odds).

Also, take heart in the link Gennyt posted. IoJ is not even mentioned there. Not even a blank page! Lost and forgotten in the history of WvW

Good luck and enjoy!

So, for uncommon WvW builds we should just go with:

Warrior

Easy.

Someone must have thought we wanted to know which guild had claimed the location and this was a good way to show this (in case we miss the big guild flags).