Guild Wars 2

PopeUrban.2578:

Plenty of board games (most of which are, like WvW, all about territory control and PPT) don’t tally the score until the end.

Even in traditional sports, people have a tendancy to tune out if the game is already decided before the halfway mark if its obvious there’s no opening for a turnaround.

WvW is not a sport. It never will be. The number of players on the field varies by the minute, you have no control over the composition of the teams, and the participants can choose to leave the field at any time with no repurcussions.

Making sports analogies in relation to WvW is like comparing apples and oranges. It isn’t a sport, and it isn’t a competitive mode, and it never will be. It’s a casual, instant gratification interpretetion of open world siege pvp that only holds player interest as long as the moment to moment play remains interesting.

There are no instrinsic concept or benefits of ownership, no stakes, and literally nothing that makes “real” competition in a siege metagame work. It’s just a large population pvp map with objectives designed to shuffle players in to large group engagements. That’s all it will ever be. It is a meaningless war for no stakes that never ends, never benefits the victor, and never punishes the loser.

And that’s fine. That’s why the rewards revamp focused on personal reward rather than objective based reward. It’s the only logical reward structure for a system that has only ever been about personal gratification and playing war games in stead of attempting to simulate the decision making and tactical processes that go in to a more detailed and impactful actual war game.

If anything, the entire concept of matches and score could be removed from WvW and it would change nothing. The score doesn’t matter, winning or losing doesn’t matter, and there are so many variables inherant in its systems that ensuring “fair” or “competitive” match ups is an impossibility.

Completely agree.

Too many random variables to ever become a serious competitive play style.

It is a "Live Beta". IT is meant to test and try on the live servers, so players can comment and discuss things, come with feedback (and hate). Then the Dev’s can either scrap it, or more likely tweak, change, and adjust it until they have something they are happy with (or think the majority of us are happy with).

As such it isn’t permanent, it’s basically a "testing stage".

For example they have stated that they intend to change the pairings somewhere down the road, just as with the cycling of borderland maps. The time frame they mentioned as an *example* was 3 months.

This could quickly turn into a problem as well, and probably a few that is going to scream that it is infringing on human interaction and stuff. Anyways, I’m basically for this in principle, but it would have to be scaled very low.

Basically, return the workers that we used to have, and make them walk around and *slowly* repair things (using existing supply). Mainly just to avoid going to have to go click on every wall to see if there is 1 supply missing somewhere.

This would also give opponents an option to stop it, by killing the workers. Say shoot them down when on top of a wall trying to repair a damaged cannon. And something for defenders/scouts to babysit the poor dead workers.

msalakka.4653:

joneirikb.7506:

The main problem is using the WvW window (B) and click leave the mist

That was disabled.

I blame the alcohol… But seriously thanks, I couldn’t remember if they actually fixed that, glad to hear it!

Just noting that ALT+F4 is penalized in that you still drop loot if you ALT+F4 (and probably count for kill, don’t know). So the game might already being doing something like this, and seems to have a way to identify it.

The main problem is using the WvW window (B) and click leave the mist, or if you’re lucky and got a queue change and click yes (iirc). Iirc those lets you disappear without counting as a kill.

STIHL.2489:

joneirikb.7506:

Personally I’d like to see a similar build system to PVP, but with a 2 or 3 split on the amulets, so we could get some different stat combos. But I’ve read enough threads about this to know that a lot of players hate the PVP builds very much, and love being able to tweak every last minor stat, and food etc.

I think another interesting idea is to actually change how builds work in the entire game (technically not in PVP), linking all the stats up to the trinkets only. Let weapon only give damage and sigil, and armor only give armor + runes. So you could change the stats entirely by just changing trinkets. (And preferably also have a selectable option for sigils and runes on weapons/armors as well, somehow).

It would give us a similar function without invalidating most gear, and not having to mess with skins/runes/sigils so much when changing builds around.

Sits down with popcorn and swat-riot-armor

Great idea.. for GW3

Hmm, this is actually a smaller change than the june2015 trait change, so seems a bit far fetched for a 3rd game installment :p

Personally I’d like to see a similar build system to PVP, but with a 2 or 3 split on the amulets, so we could get some different stat combos. But I’ve read enough threads about this to know that a lot of players hate the PVP builds very much, and love being able to tweak every last minor stat, and food etc.

I think another interesting idea is to actually change how builds work in the entire game (technically not in PVP), linking all the stats up to the trinkets only. Let weapon only give damage and sigil, and armor only give armor + runes. So you could change the stats entirely by just changing trinkets. (And preferably also have a selectable option for sigils and runes on weapons/armors as well, somehow).

It would give us a similar function without invalidating most gear, and not having to mess with skins/runes/sigils so much when changing builds around.

*Sits down with popcorn and swat-riot-armor*

Oldnick.8072:

Greetings!

My thoughts on WvW linking 12 days in.

First a bit about my situation. Server-Kaineng, Guild-Owl Legion [Owls] founded 2012, we are a small to medium guild with a core focus in WvW, guild size 144, concurrent online players around 15-30 depending on day and time. We mostly play NA 6PM-Midnight Eastern time as a group. We are currently linked with Tarnished Coast.

Cons of current server linking

Server identity: For the bottom 12 servers this has eroded to being almost nonexistent. This is unacceptable in my opinion and feels more like a forced transfer rather than a “link”. Things that need to be addressed, Borderland name, WvW panel name, player name to denote what server they are on for both enemies and friendlies of the linked server, capture point needs to broadcast what server captured it and could be done by majority of players in the capture ring. Give us our identity back, please!

Playstyle: The current linking for us (T2 with TC) makes it more difficult for smaller groups/guilds to stick together and be meaningful. During NA primetime the Zergs and Blobs rule the land. Small groups are still effective to drive points and cause havoc but it’s hard to find other small groups to fight, smaller groups usually get run over by the blob. While on the lower tier matches we often would fight the same size groups and I for one miss this terribly.

Guild recruiting: I’m not sure how a guild should go about recruiting, seems like it may be problematic. If a guild recruits a player from a linked server and gets linked with another server down the road that player would either have to transfer or be stuck without the guild they joined. Not really sure what can be done to solve this issue.

Communication: Too many tags, during NA primetime I have seen upwards of 4-6 tags on some maps. I would like to see some more improvements to the commander tag system. The addition of multiple colors, larger squads, symbols and so on was a step in the right direction and I thank you but there is room for improvement. I would love to see guild and squad only tags (maybe even a server only tag if linking is going to be permanent), a way to have the benefits of the tag but without drawing attention to your group and cluttering the map with pins. We have been experimenting with running tag-less squads and it’s gotten us by but is a bit cumbersome to use. Communication can become difficult as map and team chat are often chucked full of useless blather, maybe a new server only channel could help with this. Voice coms and websites, most servers and many guilds already maintain a voice server and website, in our case we maintain 2, one for the server and one for the guild, I don’t really want to make that 3 and probably won’t. The voice/site issue is more a personal gripe and not a direct problem with the game but we put time, money, and effort into these things and linking has put stress on this a bit.

Queues: While queues are not my biggest issue they are still an issue. I know many say that queues are good and mean a healthy game mode and I do agree with this to some degree. The issues for me are it becomes difficult to maintain a group not to mention forget about swapping maps or characters, players DC or take a food break to never return. It also makes it much more difficult for the more casual player, I don’t get to play much on the weekdays but did log in 3 days last week and 3 of the 4 maps had queues each day. My guild mates happened to be in a server that was queued so I didn’t bother as I didn’t know how long I was going to be able to run and didn’t want to chew up space in the queue. This game mode may not be meant for the more casual player but after 3+ years of being able to run with my friends wherever I want whenever I want is a hard adjustment.

Pros of current server linking

• Meet new players
• Always action to be had, I have yet to load in and not see a tag or a queue on at least one map.
• Learn new tactics, tricks, and playstyles.
• Much larger battles (at least in T2) if you’re into that kind of thing

Final thoughts

While I agree that population balance does need to be worked on I don’t feel this is the way or at least not the current linking of Kaineng with TC. The beta has so far been a good thing in my opinion, wvw needed a shake up and we’ve gotten one! I agree with what a few others have been saying about the current linking, T1/T2 servers don’t seem to need the players. Maybe linking the lower tier servers together for a lower population but still increased population would be a better way to go. I can’t speak for everyone on Kaineng or my guild but I do know there is a vast majority that want out of T1/T2 and off TC (no offence to TC, you all have been great). The current setup is having a big impact on low pop servers, as a guild leader and WvW driver I’m not seeing it as an overall positive impact for our community. I for one don’t care for the blob v blob, if I wanted that I would go to EoTM and EoTM is what WvW is starting to feel like to me in its current state. Anet, I’m sure you have a few ideas up your sleeve to work on this and I for one don’t envy you, pop balance is a tough nut to crack.

Thanks for reading and the attention you’ve been giving WvW as of late, keep at it and best of luck to all of us!

-Krim

P.S. Would love to hear some details from Anet on how long the current beta linking is going to last?

The more I think about this the more I agree with Krim’s post on this. Spot on, full support.

The core problem is that we would still have *1* EBG, and now twice as many BL (which rarely are queued in the first place).

If anything, it would make more sense to add more EBG (or EBG like maps), to lessen the stress on EBG. So in that regard, reworking DBL into a DBG and adding as an extra BG map would make more sense.

Thus: EBG+DBG+3ABL

(Personally I’d prefer the same treatment to ABL -> ABG, but I’ve had enough of running from the pitchforks of the alpine fans for a while. See TheGrimm’s latest thread on what I consider a better idea.)

TheGrimm.5624:

If we are rotating then yes, weekly or every other week. +1.

What the guy with the same name as my coworkers dog said.

"Teon"

I now love being on Kaineng and having some real battles, fights, and an actual war to participate in as a player.

I for one don’t. While I think a lot of the changes they have done are good for the majority, I personally have finally been bored out of WvW. I haven’t even bothered to log in to check the return of Alpine (My favourite map in the entire game, all modes), just because logging into the Zerg doesn’t tempt me one bit.

I’m probably the minority, but my preferred play-style is gone. I’ll just go do something else for a while (BDO is pretty fun though).

This could be solved in a few different ways, I’ve voiced some ideas before, like either making a single "low pop tier" with 3 dedicated servers for this kind of playstyle. Or adding a single new map made for roaming/havoc/small groups, that punish zerging, with a much lower population limit, to add to each match.

Also yes, I do realize this is a Beta, and they are testing it to get feedback on what people like/dislike, and they might change or end this at any time and add something new. I’ll be waiting and watching.

+1 to OP.

Couple of notes to this thread:

We really need an official definition of what is to be considered "PvE" and not in this game, it seems every other post disagrees about it. Example in this thread: NPC Guards ? PvE or WvW requirement ?

@ ArchonWing.9480: To be fair, he did say "Keep shall not treb tower (but tower treb keep is ok)"

Regarding the map design of Alpine, the one thing that always annoyed me was the north. Just disliked how citadel splited the north camp so far away from the rest of the map. Would have loved to see a change there, to move Citadel up north, move the camp to between it and Garri, and made the Citadel WP right at the south edg with a walk path directly down to the camp/garri. Would also move it away from the stupid ***** trebbing the north towers from the citadel safe zone.

Just make entire spawn area + a area around it of 1200 range instantly disable siege or destroy any and all siege missiles etc.

+1 to OP, love it.

A more localized variant of Outnumbered could indeed be interesting, and would have a lot more ways it could be played/setup.

http://www.harpethmarketing.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/sandbox.jpg

/thread

Outnumbered buff(?) been talked about plenty of times, the main purpose isn’t to be a buff, but a warning.

Any bonuses you get from Outnumbered would affect an otherwise totally fair 1vs1 or 5vs5 fight around a camp, just because a huge zerg is on the other side of the map.

They will never add anything to the Outnumbered that will give you an advantage in an actual fight.

If you want changes to it, make it things outside of actual fight bonuses, especially things that would actually give you an edge in defending against huge zergs. Stuff like:

* Extra supply
* Faster build/repair
* +200% wxp (and magic find, we wouldn’t notice it anyways)

I would personally love to see something as complex as a change to the number of targets of skills as well, to let outnumbered fight back more by increasing the max number of targets on skill from 5 to 7-8-10 range. But probably wouldn’t work because of engine limitations and what not.

But in short, anything that would give one team an advantage in a 5vs5 is strictly nono!

Dev said they where adjusting the population numbers on all worlds that was linked together. The actual increase in activity should take a bit longer to register on the server status due to the new system (We don’t know exactly how fast/slow it is reacting, but I think about 3 weeks, judging from early HOT time).

Chaba.5410:

joneirikb.7506:

Going to miss Chaba’s reference to FA as Fort Alamo though.

That wasn’t my reference. :O

Sorry, then I’m remembering it wrong. >_< Still loved the name!

Random: Would kind of like to see what happened if airstrike got friendly fire enabled... and hit *everywhere* in entire smc (including lord). Would have been a hilarious 1st april joke.

on topic: glad to see changes.

It would also be a nice thing for old server rivalry, so if two groups from each their T8 servers find each others in WvW they will know (without having to know all the guild tags etc).

Can’t you just imagine a group from ET and IoJ for example go for each others throat and telling their T1 allies to let them finish their own fight

Going to miss Chaba’s reference to FA as Fort Alamo though.

Regarding the "lower tier play-style" there are a few ways it could be retained without creating any/much problems to the rest of the game mode.

* One option would be to pick *3* servers and designate as "Bronze servers", aka low pop. Set them in a fixed match-up, and let people spread out on those if they want the play style. If you want a balancing tool on them, set whichever one is the highest populated as auto full to avoid worst stacking. This isn’t optimal, but neither would it cause much problem to make/adjust from the current system.

* Make a own "Small Scale Map", have it set with a lower total map population, and focus on small scale play. Add it to every match-up, so those that want can go there. Making a map is a lot of resources, but I think a temp place holder could be Alpine with a few changes, mainly just keep all outer keep walls/gates in permanent wrecked state that can’t be repaired. And reduce the keeps points a bit so they’re +15, just above a tower. (to prevent the worst karma train stuff).

Edit: Going to make a call on the "Bronze League", Kaineng, ET, AR.

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.

Just sitting imaging the queue’s of T1+T5 servers, that would be a legitimate problem. And the size difference between those combinations would be severe. And would make it near impossible for different tiers to fight one another, thus no match-up variation.

Something I’ve suggested before in regards to "Server".

To have a "/server" channel in the chat, this would be great for recruitment in WvW, to help people find players from the same server to join guilds etc, and not end up joining a new guild every time a Link is changed. Also good for calling for help in LA, or recruiting in PvE maps etc. It is still fully possible to disable it in chat options as normal.

A WvW home non combat map, similar to HotM map. Example pull out Citadel from Alpine and just make it into a small own stand alone map with all the features and functionality you would expect. Encourage people to use this as your "on call/demand city convenience" and encourage pve players to use it for TP, bank, crafting etc since it doesn’t affect queue’s on the actual WvW maps. This will give people a "home" place, a server specific place to recruit and look for people/guilds. And a place to Idle in WvW even during reset. Also good way for people to organize to run through portals at reset etc.

I would definitively want to keep name tags as our own server, and even see that "Kaineng captures camp!" instead of our host server, it would also give us a chance ot show them that we’re here and can do something (But yes I can see some of the issues there).

Just pointing out the elephant in the room, but wouldn’t it be easier to link an extra copy of EBG for the "Allies" than another borderland map (with their slightly loop sided design) ? I’m not entirely sold on the idea, can see some issues with it either becoming just another map for the big server, or ANet having to code in specific stuff to make it only ally servers allowed to join, which is another problem with the general "everyone happy together" mantra GW2 follows.

Aurora Glade + Blacktide: Black Glade, but it would sound too much like Black Gate, and I think I’d like to see the word Aurora saved somehow.

@ sephiroth.4217

Agreed (no big surprise, I know).

@ Dawdler.8521

Agreed (Again, no bit surprise).

This might sound silly, but one of the primary reasons I’d love to see a Dynamic Map system, is to let it create copies of whatever map is Queue’d. Finally we could actually see what maps really is the most popular.

4 copies of EBG and 1 ABG with 1 DBG ? Ok, then we certainly would know.

Instead of being stuck with 3 identical maps, we saw what happened with this when so many put Desert BL for hate right away. A system like this would let us play the map we wanted.

Liked this one I saw someone else mention somewhere but forgot who or where: SBI + CD = Desert Storm

The other variation of GoM+SoS is also kinda amusing: Gates of Sorrow

Still trying to come up with something about TC+Kain, but I haven’t found any nice one yet.

These are my current observations:

Caveat:
* Reset 22-04-2016 was a Statistic Anomaly, not viable as Metric.
* Anet/players need more time to observe and experience changes.

Pro:
* People to play with
* Meeting new communities/opponents
* Larger match-up variation
* Semi-Dynamic (not static Link)

Con:
* Removes low/medium population playstyle
* Removes smaller servers community/identity
* Potentially larger queue’s
* Problems for users with weak hardware or poor ISP
* Server-Link communication/coordination (TS/Forum etc)

Things I’m thinking about but can’t decide on yet:

Once we see how the population of the current links works over 2 or more weeks, there could be a discussion about linking other worlds. For example NA not linking the top 6 server for example, and how the remaining servers should be linked. But it is way too early to consider this yet.

The bottleneck to population of *4* static maps, and what implications it would have to population if it was removed. This could potentially allow for servers to stack much larger than is currently possible, and the server "full" is game-able. Have some ideas for this, but doesn’t belong here.

I see the erasure of server/community identity as the most severe of these, but don’t have any good ideas.

Will likely come with more ideas, or change existing thoughts as we see more of the beta.

Keviin Snow.5760:

can anyone answer me if from now on , we have to wait 1 or 2 hours just to get in wvw
will Anyone be a happy camper ?
I really wanna see how many ppl said yes to this question

First. Reset night was the single craziest reset in at least 2 years. Even without the server link, the majority of servers would likely have queue’d anyways. So using this one day as your measurement is beyond absurd.

Just about everyone sat hours in queue’s, not just you, on all servers. So please just stop making it sound like you’re martyred for it. No one likes sitting in queue’s.

And regarding if you have to sit in queue every day forward ? We will just have to see, there is no other answer to it. Because no one can know how many people will try to log in at any single day. How quickly people get tired, how many won’t have time to play during week-days etc. And no one knows how many will log back in again at next reset.

We can Guess, Estimate, or Predict. But not answer.

And I do think every single person on this forum realize you hate this, you’ve been very verbal about it, multiple times.

You will just have to log in every day and check the Queue’s, and see if they are too much or acceptable for you on a day by day basis. If it isn’t acceptable, I’d recommend not playing for a few weeks, and wait the Beta out. Beta’s are supposed to be run over a certain time to gather information on how it works, removing it before it’s time would waste that entirely.

Queue’s are a double edged sword. They need to be "just enough". And preferably over as much of the different hours as possible. That is pretty hard to accomplish.

The sweet spot would be between 200-300 people total over 4 maps. That would likely create a small queue on EBG, and have a good spread of population over the 3 BL’s.

I made this comparison earlier to guild mates:

Kaineng could at its highest this year put (ca) 60-70 people in a single map, out of 4.

This reset we sat with 351 people in queue over all 4 maps, with more people in OS. Estimating at about 800 people at the same time playing or trying to get in to play. On 4 maps.

So, Queue’s are good if they’re at the right *spot*, and horrible when outside of that. And the main limitation that creates this is the *Static* number of maps. No matter what size your server is, you got approx 400 slots over 4 maps to fill.

Yet the static 4 maps are there for a reason to, they’re supposed to work as a system to limit number of players, to force people to spread out to other servers and balance things out (Obviously, I don’t think it does a good job off that, but...). So the most obvious answer for me is to remove the static map limit, to allow for old Kaineng to have *1* map, and this TC/Kain Alliance on reset to have *8* maps.

The disadvantage of this again, is that there would be absolutely nothing stopping the stacking of one server until they could fill 10 maps alone. Well, there is still the Server Full ratings, but we’ve seen before that they can be gamed.

---

On another note, I agree with you both (XTD and lil devil) that saying purely "Wait until the queues’s go away." is dumb. But I think most that comment are thinking more along the lines of "Okie the queue’s are nuts today, let’s wait until tomorrow or the day after instead." Not 2-3 weeks down the line.

Yesterday was crazy. Even if everything was perfect and a dance on roses etc, those numbers wouldn’t keep up for days. I for one only got into OS at reset, but ’m going to keep looking over the next days to see if I can’t sneak in and see how things works. (Looking forward to get to try my shout guard again, with all the shout CD’s).

Looks like it is time for a revision of WvW naming. Might as well take this chance to ask for a reduction in WvW names anyways. Getting sick of watching the huge roadsigns over every person.

Liked the base idea of Azerys, how about something like this: "Blue Knight BP [Guil]" or "Red Raider SoR [Guil]" or "Green Legend ET [Guil]" etc ?

(This would require a slight change to the WXP naming system, removing the bronze, silver, gold, mithril etc, and stretching the other titles out to cover the same bases).

And using color to signify the alliance, so all read enemies start with "red" which is the most important info, to identify which opponent/alliance you’re fighting against.

Open for ideas, just looked like the cleanest idea from top of my head. Clear and concise into, without more clutter than it needs.

(1) Just to be clear, this RESET is pretty special. Everyone is coming out of the woodwork, flooding all the servers. New wvw updates, new rewards, new beta server mergings etc. Obviously there is a *lot* more people than usual.

As such I do recommend everyone to be patient, and test this out over a couple of weeks, and see how the numbers goes.

(2) The low population play style *is* destroyed with this merger. And many of us will miss it. (My note of partial possibility to restore with Dynamic Map Adjustment)

(3) I agree with the idea that the top servers probably doesn’t need an "Ally" server, and perhaps make the lower tier servers Ally with each others instead. But we should still let this Beta run for a while to see how it turns out. (Todays metrics are way off)

@ lil devils x.6071

Again we come to similar conclusion through different directions :p

@ robotempire.2451

XTD is one of the few people on this forum that discusses things from a mostly un-biased perspective.

* Queues: Because everyone is rushing in to try shiny new
* Prime-time: Over stacked, hard to play with guild/friends
* Play-style: low-pop-play removed effectively, etc

There are a lot of different points flying around here.

Some of these will improve somewhat with time, in that the "new shiny!" wears off and people goes a bit more passive again, The weekdays etc.

But I absolutely understand XTD’s main point that those that went to lower tiers because they WANTED that play style, just lost it. Myself being one such, that already miss a place to go away from the zergs, heck even OS had something resembling zerg on zerg combat (it was the only map without queue so I had to check).

---

I think that this would actually be partially solved by adding Dynamic Map Adjustment. Remove the queue’s by opening more maps, shut them down as play number dwindle. This would also let people looking for lesser populated maps be on the look out for newly created maps, and preferably let guilds try to stack for the same instance of a map. I really think this idea should be a corner stone for other fixes and changes to work with.

Logged in and saw 351 users in queue total between our 4 maps, and realized that wouldn’t be playing tonight :p Makes sense, it is reset, and with all the resent changes a lot of people are back in the game testing things, and seeing how the "Server-Dates" will work out.

I am curious to see how this turns out over a bit longer time, judging things from 1-2 hours of play (or queue’s) is a disservice and a knee-jerk reaction. Coming from a server where I’ve seen a Queue exactly *once* in my years there, this was certainly a new experience. But for all practical effects, my first impression was "Okie, that was one way to disable WvW for my server..."

* Sets up a stand, and sells "[Potion of Patience]", only 100 gold for 10x ! *

Green and Orange to satisfy my OCD :p (Base colors red, yellow, blue, mixing 2 of those gives Orange, Green and Purple).

I already have trouble spotting the Yellow tag as is, and I think some tinkering with the color of it would be nice to make it stand out more. Red could also be stronger/brighter to be more visible, sometime miss that one.

Blue and Purple seems to work best (for me).

Orange shouldn’t prove much of a problem it’s a pretty visible color. Green could be harder, but make it a strong/bright green so it doesn’t blend into the background and it could work.

Going to guess a lot of people are going to vote for Pink, think it will only cause trouble with red/purple. White/black is completely out.

Interesting idea, will read more on it when I got more time. But I liked a good bit of what I saw so far.

Agree on most of your idea, except that I’d want to make Alpine + Desert into BattleGround maps instead of BorderLand Maps. So we can have all 4 maps as stand alone.

The borderland system is outdated anyways, and as long as it exists, everyone is going to scream that one side got a better map than them etc. I see no point in it any longer.

Would prefer all the maps follow EBG style with one corner for each, and have the advantage in that corner.

This also leads nicely into giving them the option of enbaling/disabling maps depending on the population later on.

Dev said that not all servers would be partnered, so TC might end up alone. Some seems to think this was only about EU servers, but I can’t read it that way.

Ok with the food bing level 70, makes sense, makes it a point to buy food on the TP etc.

I would however love to see 1 hour duration.

Tyler Batman said in one of the reddit things linked, that they will post this "detailed explanation" right before EU reset on friday. And then the EU pairings as EU reset, and the NA pairings as NA reset. To avoid gaming the system.

Guardians/DH, time for a bat to the knee

Nooo! We’re already so slow without Travelers ! >_<

Agreed with the rest, hunters ward must die etc.

There is nothing wrong with the new System itself.

The problem is more in the balance between specific traits and trait-lines.

That and Specialization Power Creep.

Good read.

Generally liked the ideas, especially trying to make the towers come with own upgrades/abilities, without interfering with actual fights.

Some of the tower benefits would likely need to change, and I don’t know the numbers for yaks etc, but I think it would be very interesting to try.

Looked at some stats one of my guildies had put together from mos millenium, and sorted it, Kaineng took the 4th lowest score in the history of wvw last week (iirc). The only ones that had been under was HoD and 2x ET.

*shakes fist*

"Next time ET, next time!" (Uhr wait...)

Thinking more and more in the direction of having WvW split up into different modes. That the "Real WvW" as we have now would be the EBG map, and EotM is a own map etc. Who knows what other "modes/maps" they would have.

Accept that one system/style doesn’t suit everyone, and make different things, and different ways to enjoy it.

Chaba.5410:

MaximillianVonSchatten.6278:

Chaba.5410:

I hope not. That doesn’t address stacking at all.

A server alliance mode would address stacking somewhat since a mid tier + a high tier could be paired to take on a stacked server + empty server

And then people commence stacking specific favorable high and mid tier servers.

Exactly this. It would just encourage “Stack harder!”. The system needs to be more dynamic, to adjust itself somehow.

For example to make a “group” of servers to match a certain amount of manpower (based on metrics). So that even a T1 server can’t stand alone, and most groups will consist of 3+ servers.

This gives the minimum amount of flexibility needed that if 1 server is stacked crazy high, it hits the server cap, and can still be outnumbered by 3+ other servers.

The disadvantage is obvious, your server would be matched up with random 3-4 other servers, and that makes communication pretty hard, and would likely end up with each server doing “their own thing”.

On thought I had regarding trebbing from towers. If you remember the old Alpine SET had this strange off-shot towards hills, a pillar with a destroyable bridge. I never saw it used for anything important at all.

But I always imagined having something similar on all towers towards keeps, with slight range adjustments, so that was the treb spot against keeps etc. That could make people go out and destroy the bridge over to it, and possibly take it down again with siege or meteor storm. Then let the guys in the tower have to repair the bridge again etc.

Don’t know how it would turn out, but just something I’ve always been curious about how would play out.

Batman.. I mean the Dev, said that they would not introduce Shrines on Alpine. I for one hope that Bloodlust comes back, I really loved that area of the map.

Agree on moving wildlife and other random creatures away from the "busy spots" around objectives and the main roads between them. Fully ok with leaving them in the corners and nooks around the map where they don’t interfere with the fights for objectives. The idea if keeping them near spawn is great

Arguably, make more creatures into the "white" ones that die to single hit and stuff, don’t think they would significantly mess up *too* much. -_-’

No SMC on Alpine, so we don’t have to worry about the airship thing, and other SMC only nerfgrades. So lets just see what happens with the extra timer on all of the ones that does work on keeps. More curious about any plans to counter proxy cata and double cata spots ? Or are we forever going to defend Hills and Bay at the same 2 spots ? :p

Kind of like the "middle ground" idea on WP’s, enable WP for any server once it reaches the first upgrade. So people have a chance to siege it to take it down before it reaches the last upgrade. Would give people something to fight for and defend, and something to rush to take down before it gets too hard ?

X T D.6458:

Jana.6831:

X T D.6458:

-Please remove all wildlife like the wolves and moas by garrison and north towers, griffons by bay, bears by hills, etc. Luckily they no longer rally people, but can still screw up targeting, eat up aoes, and put you in combat. It is just unnecessary in my opinion.

As a D/D thief I’m always fond of wildlife.

C&D is so much more satisfying to use on players isnt it? Seriously though they add nothing to the gamemode but rather can have more of a negative impact.

This is why ANet invented ranger-pet’s, bring your own PVE, so the Thief can trash you

FogLeg.9354:

My advice is to find nice and friendly WvW Guild and run around with them, even if its only small guild like 10 people. So many things are better with nice group of friends, but specially WvW.

The truth.