Guild Wars 2

Tyler Bearce.3427:

It would be easy enough to move all the camp guards closer to the center, so you’d always have to fight all of them to flip a camp. But to be clear, you guys are arguing that you want to do ‘more PvE’, which seems to go against the forum’s current agenda of ‘less PvE.’

laughs

Was so tempted to report this post for “trolling the community, in style!” just for the heck of it

“Mommy, can we keep this one? It is funny!”

Kylden Ar.3724:

joneirikb.7506:

SoR been pretty dead for a while now.

Kaineng just had a minor internal conflict, which made some people go elsewhere, some play other things etc. I doubt we will recover entirely, but should at least give some resistance again later on. Sorry for being so boring these days :p

If by ’minor internal conflict’ you mean [KS] and looks like [HERO] both jumping for other servers, then yes.

We’re down to basically [SIN], [Owls], and [DS] as WvW guilds with any singificant numbers, and maybe [HELL] helping out if they haven’t left.

And I think my sad little [TACO] guild and [RaW] are the only regular roamers.

It’s not quite that bad, but it will take a while to get back up again. As with all guild/server drama, it puts a lot of people off for a while, and people go do different things for some time etc. Some transfers off, some goes to play other games, or hide in PvE (or heavens forbid go outside and gets a life!). Some will come back again, others won’t. So we’re in that slump now, after a while we will slowly get back to it, but with a bit less players than before.

(I’ve been really lazy myself, busy with work lately, and spending my free week now to test out a trial of BDO to see how it is.)

Glad to see some new small guilds on the server though!

DeceiverX.8361:

Yikes. Feel bad for T7 folks.

Is it sad to admit that “We’re used to it” ? It happens easily down here, because 10 people moving to a server can make that much difference. This case DR got some more (think someone mentioned 10-20) And Kaineng is on hiatus right now due to various reasons. So from leading Bronze at #16, we’re down to T7 punching bag for a while. Lost count how many times it happened to us by now :p

Will see what happens when DR get bounced up, and who gets bounced back down.

Jayne.9251:

If the score in WvW affected the loot drops in pve, you’d see a surge.

snickers

“It is the year 2016, and the evil WVW’ers have taken over the PVE’ers homeland of Lootatron!”

SoR been pretty dead for a while now.

Kaineng just had a minor internal conflict, which made some people go elsewhere, some play other things etc. I doubt we will recover entirely, but should at least give some resistance again later on. Sorry for being so boring these days :p

PariahX.6970:

TheGrimm.5624:

Frenk.5917:

I have a dream: a reworked eotm (less edges and pve) which would function as “borderland”, with DBL as 2nd BL and Alpine BL as third BL and, of course, EBG.

Concur, said it before, saying it again.

WvW: 1 EB, 1 EoTM, 1 ABL (three-sided design), 1 DBL (three-sided design).

What does this do:

• Gives people that like flat maps, 2 maps
• Gives people that like chokes and edges, 2 maps
• Rolls EoTM into WvW for scoring and population
• Doesn’t please any one side completely, meaning a little for all but not all for 1
• Adds variety for people to choose from as far as maps

Now how they handle EoTM as far as just your server versus all, that requires further discussion and if they end up rolling the servers up in some new system we hear about in a few weeks or if they consolidate servers.

Tis my dream as well. More choice is always the right answer.

As for what the “majority” of WvW players think they “voted” for on the type of map they rather fight on . . . well excuse me if I don’t buy that steaming pile. When given only an either or option what would you expect after the DBL fail and really what % of the population were even in on that conversation?

No, it makes absolutely no sense to limit the flavors of maps. There’s plenty about the EotM game type is make a lot people happy. All different playstyles should be considered equally valid and then everyone slowly comes to realize we need each other, people with like and opposite view points to make this ship sail. I feel like I’ve been stuck in a time loop since 2003 constantly reliving the hardcore 8v8 vs casual zerg debate from DAoC days. Guys . . . guys it can really all be rainbows and unicorns chasing butterflies if we just get along and share the dream.

+1 both of you.

More maps = More options. Let people play on the maps they want to play on. If you hate DBL, then just go play on ABL. Instead of just shutting everyone off from all other maps.

On my guardian my Aegis often says 1M + duration. Thing is that Aegis doesn’t stack, so one hit removes the Aegis. I could have Aegis for 10+ years, and one hit from an AC, or a random wolf etc removes it. It’s just guardians virtue that gives a very long duration Aegis for some reason, no idea why it is that long duration.

dubstax.9102:

joneirikb.7506:

Depends on what you want the AC to do. In its current design I’d vote to get rid of it entirely.

But what if the AC didn’t do actual damage but added various impeding conditions like cripple, poison etc. And specifically didn’t give actually tag for lootbags. Perhaps have one attack with a something that messes with people on siege (Don’t know, slow on siege engines, or daze on anyone using siege or something). Make it a pure support device.

No. As somebody who plays condition builds in World vs. World I don’t want a piece of siege making me irrelevant. It’s bad enough there are plenty of power builders who want to wipe away condition builds completely and hate the thought of us being around.

The example suggestion (from top of my head) there was more about making the AC deal no actual damage, not tag loot bags, but be a support piece to give specific negative effects on a large amount of players at the same time. The poison for example (with low damage) was mostly to hot downed, and reduce healing effects. Cripple mostly just to slow down the entire group perhaps while your own groups makes an attack etc. Not to actually deal condition damage, nor to be a main source of condition effects.

Some of the existing AC skills already work like this, just tacked onto some damage as well. Especially fan of the reveal shot.

But hey, it was just a “off the top of my head” idea, probably a bunch of things wrong with it. Was just trying to say that it depends on what they design it to do, it could actually do a lot of things depending upon what ANet decides.

I’m with FogLeg on this, they have pointed out several times that they want beta testing where people can try things on live, AND that they can adjust or shut-down things at need (very quickly). So pretty certain they have a backup solution to roll-back if it doesn’t work or prove unpopular enough (So tempted to replace with "when" instead of "if".)

Remake both into Battle Ground maps, and add both. Just remove the Border Lands system, 3 copies of same map is just boring as heck. Then people could go play on whatever map they wanted to.

@ ArchonWing.9480

I would like to pre-order one of your books of flowery WvW poetry.

Ansau.7326:

First of all, server status also counts EoTM, so the result is a bit skewed.
* Baruch is mostly a pve server, the "very high" status is not the best representation of the actual wvw population we have,

Liked and agreed to a lot of what you wrote (and some I don’t agree with), but quoting this small bit just to point out that the population calculation changed (was it last year? time flies).

So the server status now only count WvW, not pve or pvp or anything else.

While I can’t say it for a fact, I’m fairly certain that it doesn’t include EotM either, believe a Dev answered that one specifically.

STIHL.2489:

To the people that say we could close all the other forms of WvW and just do EotM.

You know, we could. And it would be the Stuff of Legend.

Every WvW Fight Guild, and anyone and everyone who is just looking to kill, will suddenly arrive in EotM, ready to slaughter indiscriminately anyone not of their team, taking I would imagine heightened levels of glee to crush under their boot any Quasi-PvE player, Up-tick, or Anyone Looking to K-Train. The bodies would litter the fields like rivers across the map.

All the Bunker and Turtle players would Siege up the Fortifications to insane levels, the likes that people that only played EotM have never seen, nor could even fathom could exist.

8 Tiers of some some of the hardest hardcore core WvW players will suddenly move to EotM, filled with vitriol and embitterment, looking to make sure that every up-level, or quasi-pve player pays a dear price for their lost beloved ‘real’ WvW experience.

The hate and salt would be so thick we would be able to repair walls with it.

Oh I would vote for that change, just to see pure pandemonium that would cause.

+1 I love your sense of humor! Don’t think I could quite force myself to vote for that just to watch it, but it is tempting…

Azukas.1426:

Close it and make those players play WvW

Simple,as that

Close it, and you make 99% of the players go play something else than WvW. You solve nothing, except increasing hatred about WvW among the non WvW-ers. Or just quit.

Dayra.7405:

Azukas.1426:

Close it and make those players play WvW

Simple,as that

Even simpler: Close WvW,
* there are much fewer that will miss it
* Much less complains on the forum
* much less things to fix to mke it playable

Unfortunately, very much true...

If you look at this from a pure numbers perspective this option is very likely. I’m glad ANet doesn’t follow numbers only. Thankfully, for us, it seems they want to keep the existing WvW, at least in some form and shape.

Was actually thinking more in terms of attacking-roamers, you where talking about running zig zag earlier to tag and capture different objectives. This was very easy to do on Alpine with small groups or even solo sometimes.

Desert map seems to lock you more into the area you’re on, save a few spots where you can run over Oasis to get to another place somewhat quickly.

So, what is the reason we have EotM?

When they released it, it was WvW Queue system help.

Now it is another game mode that a lot of people enjoy.

ANet would have to be complete idiots to remove a mode of the game that is that popular. So they are not going to. But I absolutely agree that some tweaks to rewards (especially badges and WXP) are needed. Problem there, is that most likely, they will just give EotM a new currency system, that is much better than Badges anyways :p

Removing EotM now would be similar to asking "Please remove Orr, so the other Tyria maps get populated!" or "Please remove the most popular PvP map, so the other maps gets played more!", "please remove Raids and Fractals so Dungeons get played.".

"Real WvW" is the minority. If we had a voting system for servers vs megaserver system with everyone that plays the game, I would be very surprised if the player base selected servers.

Regarding Puck/Ansau discussion: I have to agree with Puck when it comes to lower tiers (that we’ve both been used to). We don’t have the people to spread out for those maps. A few roamers could easier control larger areas in Alpine.

I can see Ansau’s arguments better in a tier with more people. I haven’t been in a high enough tier for that since way before HoT, so can’t really comment.

+1 to thread. Liking the discussion in here.

Shadelang + lilx, please keep posting, liking what you’re arguing about.

Regarding Zergs and being able to use anything than a single player can, that is one of the core problems of numbers in the game. So in order to create tools to use against a larger group/zerg, without them using it back against you in larger numbers, how ? Guess an obvious answer is scaling to numbers (things not working or working very weak if you outnumber them, works better if severely outnumbered etc). Or just triggering on the outnumbered buff (Chill tactivator for ex, normal = normal, if you’re outnumbered the enemy affected doubly, if you outnumber enemy it doesn’t do anything).

i liked ab plenty but the map was waaay smaller so there was action around every corner.

This is something I’ve been thinking about for a good while now (year + actually, so before desert for those that wondered). Actually having smaller maps, to funnel the action more. Lots of interesting ways smaller maps could turn into, like a cityscape with multiple siege going on at all times, where people breach and defend on multiple fronts, but will channel the players into 2-3 spots, and running support with supply etc. Because that is where the fighting will be. (ex)

Even Alpine could be reduced a bit in size, just to get rid of the fairly useless north. Heck you could remove large part of north in Desert, and move the citadel/spawn points into the middle of the map (old oasis) to save space, stuff an OS arena in the middle that both can run straight into from spawn. (with some points stuff for controlling it)

Depends on what you want the AC to do. In its current design I’d vote to get rid of it entirely.

But what if the AC didn’t do actual damage but added various impeding conditions like cripple, poison etc. And specifically didn’t give actually tag for lootbags. Perhaps have one attack with a something that messes with people on siege (Don’t know, slow on siege engines, or daze on anyone using siege or something). Make it a pure support device.

1+2+3+4: Remove them all. Rethink the entire upgrades and replace them with something else that will actually be fun to play against.

5: Just make all the WvW upgrades/war room require only wvw stuff (badges, Spikes, loot bags etc), and put hte +5 supply at least early enough that even small guilds can get hold of it. They’re the ones that need it the most. And yes make them cheaper.

6: Like the current version of auto-upgrade, wouldn’t want to see the old return. Nor am I a fan of the "click this button to upgrade objective". A more interesting option would probably to have the Yak protection bubble also give swift, so scouts can help dolyaks go faster, to upgrade things.

And another option, remove the "reinforced" at tier 3, and make those into tactivators instead. So you have to use up tactivator slots for that, one for each door/walls.

Regarding the "defenders pride", I think they planned to solve that with walking dolyaks and tactivators + guild claims. Can’t say they did a too good job off that. Honestly don’t know what would encourage "Defenders Pride" again, but seriously doubt adding the "Mash this button to upgrade" would do it.

7: Hmm, kinda like them as they are. Got bored with how easy they where before.

Going to be good seeing Alpine again, been missing the bloodlust area something fierce. Going to be sad to see Desert disappear entirely though (hoping for both maps as BG maps instead of BL maps!).

Anyways, gotta be the sour one here and point out:

It actually takes quite a bit of time to dust off old content and bring it up to the current game state,

While understandable, I know a lot of people are going to be un-happy about this.

Aeolus.3615:

the issue is each servers not holding more than 80 players on each BL, if they resolve this, we could have much less servers that would bahave liek factions and something like a continent each server their spawn.

I think this is the real issue, that does not allow WvW to get improved, do they cover that with gimmicks after gimmicks.

If you want larger numbers of players than 80+80+80 on a borderland map, then the lag becomes unbearable.

Personally would prefer a lower limit (60 perhaps), and rather open more copies of maps. And deal with over-population in that way. (Con: stacking would mess this up bad).

Dynamic Maps would solve this.

@Chaba: This is how I read the topic

Basically, that every problem have 2-3 different solutions, and that at least 1 of them is not "bring more people". Giving more options (as in tactics and strategies, ways to accomplish something) in WvW.

As opposed to right now where the meta is exactly as Chaba says: Numbers + Coverage - Boredom = Win

Example:

So right now the best way to take a Tower that is defended by a small number, is proxy cata with larger numbers. Wipe the walls with aoe’s, crack down the wall and run in and kill any players you find (that hasn’t run of yet) and zerg the lord.

If you got similar numbers, you can treb from far off, with lots of patience, which most people doesn’t have. And try to force the defenders to come outside to kill your treb (rarely happens). If not you spend a long time taking down the wall, and go in to either find the tower abandoned (run away) or making valiant last stand with lord. But most find this boring and tedious, and it is much more efficient for both attackers and defenders to just back-cap things instead.

I don’t see people use rams much any longer, the reinforced doors are as hard to crack as the walls with catas, and that tactivator door upgrade is frequent, and the guards spawn much faster (annoying), and it is just as easy to slap down a bunch of catas anyways.

It is about making certain that there isn’t *1* best way to do things, and that each thing has a counter (that is easily enough available), and making different ways of accomplishing things rewarding enough.

(Best I can explain it right now, need sleep)

Tongku.5326:

1. Server merges, maybe have only 2-3 tiers total.
2. Make PPK have equal value to today’s PPT for total scoring.
3. Impliment PPC (and PPD points per defense) and replace the otehr half of PPT with it.
4. Tie best/maximum personal rewards to killing players or capturing objectives while in a group of 25 or less. The bigger the blob, the less bonus it gets.
5. Watch and profit.

Communities preserved with extra people joining in, no ETOM style crap, and people will overstack / blob less to actually get stuff that is worth getting. Win win win on all counts.

Some Cons:

1: This will remove any low pop play style, and arguably most existing communities.

2: Like PPK in principle but from the stats I’ve seen on it it tends to even out a lot. Might end up making every match "close" to the end, to the stage where people might no longer care about close scores.

3: Depending on the implementation of PPC/PPD, worst case could end up as above that you never get away from each others in points. With a good implementation would be more interesting.

4: Do like.

Think it has some interesting parts, though I personally am very much against getting stuck on a high pop server. 2+3 sounds interesting, but I wonder if it might completely negate winning/losing by more than say 10%, and that would be hell with the current Glicko system.

Dusty Moon.4382:

First, let us deal with the mechanics that really have chased players away.
1. Broken and OP arrow carts - REMOVE
2. Shield Gens - REMOVE
3. Tactivators - REMOVE
4. Automatic updating of keeps and too high HP walls and doors resulting - lower to amount before HoT came out
5. Too much PvE in the DBL’s - REMOVE
6. Scoring - redo or remove GLICKO
7. Rotating maps

The above points will help to bring back players then we can deal with what to do with the population after it comes back up a little.

Agree on some (1,2,3)

Mostly wanted to comment on #4:

Just an idea, if the auto upgrade only went to the first level. And the 3rd level could be activated by the tactivators. NB: requires fortified walls and gate as 2 separate upgrades. That should be fairly cheap and easy to get (while in WVW!!! not pve). And takes tactivator spots, so less other silly stuff.

Still would like to see workers (very) slowly repair damaged walls and gates as long as they gain supply and are alive. So boring looking for 1% damage to walls to top them off.

(Not going to keep beating the dead horse about rotating maps, think everyone knows my stand on that by now)

Stand The Wall.6987:

joneirikb.7506:

The alliance system is already mentioned here and the time slice system creates more problems then it solves.

Since the Alliance system you listed above was about 3 guilds, I listed another one using X servers, with variation. Do as you please, just listing options.

Svarty.8019:

More Cons

• Too complicated
• Faction pride evaporates overnight
• Gameplay seems vapid and unsubstantial
• People will quit
• Gametype will die

Doesn’t seem such a hot idea. UNLESS, the alliances are somehow permanent.

• Not really complicated at all, since all will be run by a machine in the background. Really not much harder than the current match-up/glicko checks each week.

• Could be, don’t know. To fickle a thing to predict.

• It will be more EotM’ish, but I’m almost certain whatever we do get will be more EotM’ish anyway. So at this point it’s mostly about getting the lesser evil. And as I’ve said before about this specific idea, it is “a little bit of everything, and a little bit of nothing. The ultimate compromise.” Quite aware it isn’t perfect.

• Sad fact here is that they will do no matter what gets done (or not). So it isn’t really a good point.

• Sad fact here is that people will say this no matter what gets done (or not). So it isn’t really a good point.

• If you make the alliances static, you retain most of the existing problems we have, and lose most of the advantages with moving over to such a system as this. AKA you hate it, I get that. I wouldn’t be to overly fond of it myself either to be honest. Just posting ideas to spark discussion.

The ANet AMA thing, don’t have the link available right now, but a summary was on Dulfy iirc. They stated that they gave up on "the big overhaul" idea, because it became too big for them. And moving over to rather implement changes in small bits when they where ready. That is the short of it.

Sich.7103:

Guild Upgrade are related to all the HoT crap…..
Including more class balance issue, pve grind guild upgrade, auto upgrade, new map….

It is related to HOT, but not to the DESERT map. Meaning that even if they bring back Alpine, they will add all of that stuff to Alpine as well.

Those that are asking for “revert everything!” isn’t really asking to revert Desert map, you’re asking them to roll back to pre-stability-nerf-patch. Be that as it may be, that is not asking to remove the Desert BL as this thread is about.

I don’t really say either is right or wrong. Just specifying that they are two different topics. (the entire guild hall upgrade system can take a hike down the Mississippi and never return for what I care! But that is a different thread)

THEORETICALLY they could end up shocking everyone, and keep the Desert map, and rolling everything else back to pre-stability-nerf-patch, honestly I kinda hope they do that for 1st April, just so I can look at all the flabbergasted faces on the forum!

\m/ ^_^ \m/

Good read, thanks.

Like most of your points. But I’m a bit iffy that a siege disabler (not a class skill) has to be the solution to one style. Would prefer to look at ways to make player skills and class skills the ways to fight.

DeceiverX.8361:

Scale damage based on charging time. Point-blank might be safer with fewer counters, but it’ll take way longer and likely the siege will get destroyed or reinforcements can be called in for the fight outside.

Imho, cannon and AC fire radius need nerfing to make ballistae more viable as anti-siege solutions rather than just humping tons of AC’s.

Like this one, or a variant and make the catapult scale damage based on distance traveled.

But I agree that I’d like to know if ANet considers Proxy Cata to be a valid tactic or not.

Mentioned some variations in a few other threads, if you’re interested I’ll sum them up here:

-Alliance-

Servers -> Factions
X servers -> Alliance
3 Alliances = Match-up

By combining multiple "Factions" into one alliance, this can shift every week, so population has dynamic adjustment each week, prevents band-wagon.

Pro

* Negates band-wagon and server stacking
* Keeps some server identity
* Dynamically adjust number of tiers to population

Con

* Removes low pop play style
* Reduces server identity
* Cross faction communication and cooperation might be problem

-Time Slice Server-

Each server is assigned a 6 hour slot out of 4 possible. That server is only active during that time period. Ex: NA, EU, Sea, Ocx (?).

Each user can join up to 4 different servers, from different time slices.

That way you can have match-ups with dedicated servers for each time-slice.

Pro

* Concentrates players more in time zones with less players
* Still retain a large amount of servers for the populated times
* Retains some server identity
* Allows people to explore different servers and cultures in other times

Con

* Close off while servers change from one to another server for a few minutes
* Lack of server identity for those playing in other hours for servers (*)
* Probably a whole slew of other things I just can’t think of right now.

* (example Kaineng would be considered a night server, so one guild I’m a member off that only plays early na prime would lose their server pride)

@ FogLeg.9354

Lower tiers have a strong roaming culture, so rotating between EBG or Alpine would probably annoy either the pug’s or the roamers. Though the acceptance for Desert is increasing (from what I’ve seen) I still fear what would happen if we got stuck on that for a week.

Other than that, I agree. And that is something that would have to be fixed with the population fixes (separate).

---

@ About T7-8-9 and it’s need to exist. As it stand right now, probably not. But as other mentioned, all you really do is reduce the problem "for now". In half a year, more servers might have to go etc.

And depending on *how* ANet decides to handle the population problem, they might not need to remove servers/tiers at all. Some solutions could actively encourage making more.

One example is the basic "Battle Group Alliance" they have talked about, where they group togethere multiple "factions" (servers) into one Alliance for a match-up. With such a system, the more servers we got the better. As they’re mashed together into one Alliance, so the bigger number of servers with varied numbers we got, the easier to make aprox same size Alliances.

Another example would be to time slice each server, so each server gets active in a specific time slices of say 6 hours. And each person is a member of up to 4 servers (1 for each time slice). With such a system, we might need more servers than we currently got to make it work properly.

So I can understand why they’re holding off about server merges. Doesn’t make it any more fun for the ones in T7-8-9 though. (I’m soon back in T7!)

@ FogLeg.9354

I’m an advocate for the Dynamic Map Adjustment myself, but it will not solve everything relating to Population, it is a temp stop-gap measure while they fix other things in the background (that likely will work well with most anything they do decide to do).

One problem is that most lower tier servers are never going to see more than 1 map, ever. My own server can’t queue a single map even on reset, so unless we’re severely outnumbered by an opponent, we would never see another map than EBG for example.

It does have the advantage of also scaling things like PPT to the number of people by adjusting the number of maps. And the biggest advantage is to focus what player remain into a single map, so there is a chance to meet enemies and fight (hopefully).

@ Dusty Moon.4382

Indeed the DMA (Dynamic Map Adjustment) doesn’t fix coverage or population discrepancies between servers. But it can lessen the impact, by closing down maps when there isn’t enough players to fill one map, those maps can be made to not give points. So if 3 maps are active in "prime time" if there aren’t enough people then only a single map will be active at "off-time".

This obviously depends on how they design it. You could also adjust this easily to give the same amount of PPT with a single map as 4 by scaling it. But I don’t see much point to it.

In regards to Server Merges I agree with you that merging will generally increase the existing problems of coverage vs prime-time.

Another way to use the MegaServer tech, is to "temp merge" or "temp ally" servers when the numbers is low. So if Server A has 10 people online at X time, the system might lump it together with Server D and G that each has 15 people online.

And when servers start getting more people online again, it could then break up the "temp team" and let each play alone again.

That would be a solution to get people to fight against during most hours of the day. But it would require quite a bit of work on how PPT works with this.

Wait what ?! FC back in T6 ?! >_< >_< >_<

*won’t bother to log into wvw for another week*

What do I got to do to get rid of you guys ? Make an alt account on your server and karma train my own server so you gain glicko faster? :p

(Seriously though, you guys deserved to get T5, excellent work shattering our morale last week, you even focused us so hard SoR beat us on points !)

So what happened, they set a new match-up, and then reset it and rolled a new one? Man!

"kitten ed if you do, kitten ed if you don’t."

The static server structure and numbers are a large part of this problem. If they believed for a second they would get away with it, I bet they’d implement EotM style color teams, but they’ve probably seen the negative feedback to that.

There was another thread about this where a lot of options was posted (Forgot what thread, but X T D posted a bunch). But the one I think will be the "most likely" is a modified Alliance system.

Each server is converted into "Faction".
They setup X number of tiers (3,6,9,12,15,18 etc depending on metrics).
decide on a certain "mass" required, and make a program that randomly rolls together various amounts of "Factions" until they match the number criteria
This becomes an "Alliance" for the week/Match-up

"It is a little bit of everything, and a little bit of nothing."

It’s a compromise of a lot of things, but it would allow people to (somewhat) keep the "server pride", just converted to factions instead. It would fill up maps, with less match-up’d. And the alliances would be somewhat randomized each Match-up, so not a single one that would dominate as much in the same way etc.

It is filled with cons/pros, most of them are both, just to different people.

"It isn’t the greatest solution, it’s just less bad than the alternatives."

gog.com is dangerous, I’ve wasted way too many paychecks there -_-’ have a backlog the size of every change log in gw2 since release... (slightly exaggerated)

But I definitively agree that Desert BL should be a Desert BG (Battle Ground) map instead. So the size would make more sense, and there isn’t 3 copies of the same map. The WP system seems to encourage that same idea. Don’t hate the map, think it is a nice change of pace, but I also want Alpine back so I can play on whichever map I want.

The borderland’s system must die.

Whatever system they create will have to be Dynamic, and not Static like the server structure. EotM actually does this pretty well, by allowing any number of people and adjust the number of maps etc. Unfortunately it doesn’t dynamically adjust the sides etc.

So whatever solution they pick, will have to handle that as well. the complications complicate themselves further.

This is also why things like Server Merges won’t work, They would need to set up something like a every half year pruning of servers, and then remove 3 servers every time, and forcibly move everyone over to a new server. Lots of people and communities would be kittened at that.

The "dynamic maps" that I’ve suggested a bunch of times wouldn’t fix this, but would sort of be a temp stop-gap fix until something more permanent would be put into place (and would most likely be useful for whatever they fixed).

I really miss those spoon drops, they where the most consistent money drop in WvW.

X T D summed up a bunch, one they asked about a bit in the CDI threads was a "battle group" system. Think something like the servers being changed into "factions", and then each week different factions got meshed together into a "battle group" for the week.

So 1 large server could fight against 2 medium as a single team, and the last team might be 5 small servers. etc. It retains a little bit of everything, and gives away a little bit of everything at the same time. Sounds like the ultimate compromise.

No idea how I’d like it or not, not the worst of the solutions, but hopefully not the best.

Personally I like the new WP system, I think the problem is the Borderland system (as I’ve detailed other places, so won’t repeat).

If the populations was higher, and enough people wanted to play on the Desert BL maps, I think it could be really nice to see everyone trying to hold their keep in each of the 3 maps. Instead of sitting bunkering one entire map just waiting for enemies to come in.

I obviously realize others completely disagree with me on this.

Say what you want about the rest, but this:

Exotic WvW equipment can now be salvaged. Badge gear yields badges. Tournament ticket gear yields standard exotic salvage materials.

is still one of my favorite changes done to the game *^_^*

Definitively see the problem from both sides, the map was revealed to late to make sweeping changes, ANet can’t just ditch a years worth of work on it, and a lot of players doesn’t like it.

Thank you for communicating, appreciated!

I do miss Alpine, my favorite map. But I do not want to see Desert disappear either. Would really love to see both maps return as BattleGround maps instead of Borderland maps. So people can go do what they want where they want.

Good luck (Please be kind to us!)

Well, one problem with Bronze is that most of them/us aren’t really organized, so tings like this can take some time while people try to figure out who should try to decide on something like this. I know my own server is a big mess in this regard, and it would probably be easier to ask one of the guilds directly.

I’ve linked this thread a couple of places I hope other people/guilds from my server will see it. I’ll try to contact some guild leaders directly once I get time.

Kaineng Info:

But yeah Kaineng has a server TS, we’re not always good enough at using it.

We’re T6 for now (Also CD will be T6 very soon, which will bump either Kaineng or FC to T5, probably on rotation)

If I where to say a Server goal, it would be to actually have a NA prime presence. We have very little presence NA prime, and large(r) presence in late NA/early night. So we easily have the mindset of "why bother play in NA prime, its 20vs2 anyways", if we had someone that could rally people during that time, to fight and give some resistance for enemy servers (I’m sure they would appreciate that as well), we don’t really need the PPT. We’re not trying to reach T5 :p We would appreciate some "For the fighters!"

Regarding possibility of helping with transfer cost, I couldn’t answer anything without consulting with a dozen people first >_< We don’t have anything like a warchest or such. Due to old server history we’re slightly wary about bandwagons and guilds transferring to server (bad habit), you might have heard about the old Warmachine stuff in Season 1 (iirc). So we’ve never really had something like a warchest, or much structured server organization (that went out with Warmachine after Season 1 ended).

About the player-base: I really can’t promise we have 10 players playing in NA prime every day >_< We have a strong roamer culture, so don’t be surprised if a bunch of people prefer to play solo or small groups instead of following commander. (This is why I’m trying to get someone else to do this, I’m the *worst* sales person ever)

Anyways, just some info and how you can expect most bronze to work. Ok I got to stop typing now.

Any details or specific things you’re interested in ?

I bet all servers (bronze) would appreciate another commander, we’re fairly scraped for them :p

I sure know that Kaineng would love another commander, but as you might know, we got a very weak NA prime presence, so if that is your time, you might get bored trying to drag the sleeping bears out of their caves.

(Also with CD crashing down the ranks, one of the T6 servers are going to cycle up through T5, most likely either Kain or FC by current ratings).

If you want a good NA prime presence look at FC, they completely wiped us at Reset today -_-’

Watching the two of you trying to talk to each others reminds me of back when I was a kid, and talked with a friend of mine for 30 minutes, before we realized we where talking about two completely different things.

I should find an image of a dog chasing its own tail and link

Problem with that line of thought:

If they delete EotM, 99% of the players (guesstimate) are going back to PvE.

If you delete WvW, 50% goes to EotM (for lack of better options) and the other half quits. (again guesstimate)

What are either of those going to solve ?

If you just want to get rid of zerging in general, here are a couple of my old (joke) suggestions:

Revert the 5 target limit, so you can only be hit by max 5 enemies. (Watch a good havoc team of 5 rampage through the entire zerg alive)

Add a rumbling sound and shaking screen to players if more than 5 is gathered close together, that way everyone can hear/see the stampede coming from far away and move away from them. Bigger numbers = higher rumbling sounds and stronger screen shake. (they’re never going to find enemies to fight again)

Reduce AC damage by 50%, but add +5% damage per player within a 500 unit of the target hit. (watch zergs evaporate)

And finally, enable Friendly fire. Sit back in your tower, and just watch as all them guardians enable their #1 Lootstick, and the entire zerg evaporates. Much Salt, Very Wow.

Bonus: Scale walls and gates to number of players above 5. Watch them cry.

* Changes to NPCs (lords and champs)
* Guild upgrades

Just pointing out that some of these changes will also be in Alpine if it comes back. Probably even more, Id expect shrines for example.

Hi, you missed a few points

Serious.6940:

5 points per kill, no thanks. This would just encourage more people to go to the top worlds and huge zergs.

Points Per STOMP. Finisher. How often do you see those done in zergs ?

Serious.6940:

The whole point of having 3 borderlands is that they balance, each side having 1 home borderland. You would be better off reducing the number of servers, at least until they manage to fix things a bit.

This idea is about REMOVING the BORDERLAND system, and making Alpine and Desert into BATTLEGROUND type maps. No more “home map” (the whole borderland system needs to die, I’m sick to my stomach of 3 identical maps)

Serious.6940:

In the end changing PPT so that it is proportional to the numbers of people on the borderlands/EB may be a better option. That would make holding a location during peak time better than at night.

This could also be accomplished by dynamically adjusting the number of maps to the current active playerbase, so there is only a single map at night with few players, and 2-3 maps at prime time.

And you know how much a lot of people hate on the changing the points per time of day. Heck depending on how they solve that system, a server could just log out during an entire day when they’re getting karma trained, to reduce the enemies PPT if they’re going to get everything anyway. Is that really a mentality we should encourage ?

*BOTH*

I want:

1 Eternal BG
1 Alpine BG
1 Desert BG

kitten the borderland system.

(wow, my shortest post yet)