Guild Wars 2

Oh boy, my guild would salivate over 5 points per stomp!

I keep trying to +1 this thread, but for some reason it refuses to "stick", and whenever I refresh or come back to this thread the +1 is gone sad panda!

People are different, and have different opinions and tastes.

This is why the aim should be to diversify WvW so everyone can find something they like, not restrict it further.

*BOTH* maps!

(Missed this thread earlier)

Like this idea, will probably come back with more thoughts later.

Don’t know how the Points Per Stomp would work out or not, giving lots of points per stomps (as opposed to per kill) would certainly encourage small group play rather than zerging over the enemies with guardian loot stick #1.

Also the BL maps have different PPT total than EBG, so it’s a bit less than 25%

Are the Desert + Alpine bloodlust cumulative ? So holding both would give 3 points per stomp ? Or would it be pointless to grab the other if you already have one ?

(Man I miss the Ruins of Alpine, my favorite part of any map in the game.)

The only thing we really need, is to build up the spirit of fighting against the "top-dog" in any match-up, instead of going for sucking points form the "under-dog".

Then this would happen naturally.

Many guilds and people get this, you gain points from beating the "green" (typically) server since it is strongest. You don’t gain much points from beating up on the red one. Many goes after "green" for the challenge etc. If more people thought like this, things would solve itself.

Unfortunately, a lot of people doesn’t think like this. Thus we’re stuck with green + blue karma training red, and other such "solutions".

FogLeg.9354:

psizone.8437:

joneirikb.7506:

Partial.

I would love to see Desert BL made into Desert BG. But I don’t want to get even more maps active than we already got. Who are going to fill them ?

Remove EoTM. Seriously, there are more people that play on that map than there are active on some servers.

One of the reasons for EoTM was to give people a place to play when waiting for queues to pop, now it’s a huge karmatrain for anyone that rolls green that week.

People that want to continue to play WvW will slide back into the normal maps, populations will grow a bit, added onto whatever Anet is planning for their population balance fix (my money is on merging some servers) and we might have a chance of getting enough players per server to play on all 5 maps.

I agree. EotM is now part of the problem we losing real WvW players. Because it rewards people for being lazy and stupid. It would be best to remove it completely.

Food for thought: If EotM gather people that are “stupid and lazy”, do you really want to delete it, and force those people into WvW ?

(I don’t agree with that statement myself, I know a lot of Bronze goes there to get their “zerg kicks” for one)

Peterson.8345:

if we are looking for a compromise, a mixture of old and new, I would definitely go for biweekly rotation:
week 1: EBG and 3x Desert BL
week 2: EotM and 3x Alpine BL

The problem with the every other week BL system, is with how kitten-hurt a lot of people have become over this entire borderland thing. I wouldn’t be surprised at all if in 1 week huge parts of the population would just boycott the DBL and camp/queue ebg, or just take a break that week. And the next week someone would just boycott Alpine because they prefer Desert etc. At this stage, you’re actually getting players that can be on same server but hardly if ever play together.

I would like to see the walls fixed up, but I’d also like to see AC’s removed entirely.

To the topic: I want them both! (as "battleground" maps, and not "borderland" maps, that stuff has to die already.)

---

Regarding the "strategic value" of towers in the different BL maps, I kinda like both in that regard. I’d like to have one of each, so I could play either "strategic option" if/when I wanted to. I think both have some good points worth saving.

---

I always wondered what was the point with that weird bridge to the open platform on Alpine SET, it could have been a nice platform to treb something, that could be semi destroyed by enemies. But iirc it didn’t reach Hills.

Just one of those things that I wish they could have added to towers etc, that could make for a middle ground between the two BL maps in regarding to sieging other structures.

---

* DeWolfe

They probably have to do some updating on the Alpine map as well, and I honestly doubt it is as easy as "copy paste some code over from EBG to Alpine". But yes, it probably would be easier than fixing DBL right now.

But I still don’t want 3x copies of Alpine OR any other map for that matter. The Borderland system must die.

Edit: SET, not SWT, sorry I was tired.

TheGrimm.5624:

I am wondering if there is a middle ground around the various maps. I don’t think you can make everyone happy, nor do I think you can bring back everyone or keep everyone depending on the changes. That said is there a middle ground?

What if the 4 maps for WvW were:

1 EB – Each side has their starting third
1 EoTM – Each side again has its third, maybe flip 1st and 3rd servers starting locations
1 ABL – 3rd Place team hold Citadel and Home, 2nd place starts with Hills, 1st place- Bay
1 DBL – 2nd Place holds Earth, 3rd place Fire, 1st place Air

With this we have EB and ABL for the traditionalists, DBL and EoTM for people that prefer alternate terrain to fight on.

Or are people to opposed to one side or the other?

I would love that, 1 of EACH maps every week.

Let people play on the maps they like, and avoid the others.

Desert and Alpine both would need some minor adjustments for that to work (minor stuff like either removing the citadel services from all of them, or give it to all sides on those maps).

* PariahX.6970:

Interesting ideas. I really don’t think the first map should be randomized, EBG is too central in the image of WvW, removing EBG from a match up for even a week could really freak some people out (Also it currently got different scoring numbers than the other maps). Second map definitive randomized.

Honestly don’t think they will ever remove EotM, it is just too popular, especially with people that doesn’t want to actually WvW. Would be interesting to not allow level 80’s, but it would never fly because of the whole "play as you want" thing.

* psizone.8437:

There are more people playing in EotM than WvW entirely I’d guess. Problem is that if you delete EotM 99% of them are going back to PvE (guesstimate). Most of those people are there just to karma train, level up fast, and avoids any sort of PvP or *heavens forbid* defending like the plague.

They’re not the WvW target audience. And all you’re going to accomplish by demanding that EotM gets deleted (and if it was) is that a whole pile of PvE people will now hate WvW even more.

At this stage, EotM is its own game mode, sub mode of WvW. A bit like Stronghold for PvP I guess...

Also, with my suggestion above, you wouldn’t need to fill 5 maps. The server would dynamically add or remove maps to the current population. So it could range from anywhere from 1 to 5+ maps as needed.

* Skynet.7201:

Because I want Alpine to be reworked into a BG instead of a BL map as well. I don’t see the point of the "borderland" system at all any-longer. I want ALL the maps, at the same time! *greed*

Just wanted to add an idea: The way you’re worth more WXP if you’ve been alive for a long time and killed enemies flipped camps etc. Use that to give progressively higher tier mats when you kill them. That could be fun.

"That guy has killed 5 of our defenders, flipped half the map, by this rate we’re probably going to get a bag full of t6 mats if we kill him!"

Sort of unofficial bounty system.

Enable EB, 3xDBL and 3xABL at the same time.

Yikes, I have no idea what kind of fairy tail server you’re on, but I want a piece!

I understand that you’re taking this in perspective with a EotM/MegaServer style of play. But even within that I think this would be a bad idea. You have 1 EBG and 6 borderlands, and if looking back these past 3+ years, EBG has been the definitive most popular map. So you should have more copies of EBG than of the borderlands combined.

To exaggerate slightly: I’d doubt there is enough players through all tiers in NA that be willing to fill out 6 borderland maps at the same time. Instead of sitting in Queue for EBG.

Then there is the whole thing about me not wanting to be on a higher tier level populated server/alliance whatever. Sorry, I just don’t find zerging engaging or fun. And with every server lumped together into a "alliance" system like that, I don’t see how I’m going to be able to play how I like.

PS: Well technically, with 3 DBL I could probably get plenty of low-pop roaming done there... but that isn’t the point :p

The idea of separating PVE from WvW tags is interesting.

And a simple way of adding some requirement of experience would be to link it to a WXP line. I don’t think it is perfect, but it is a food for thought. (Now just imaging a WXP line unlocking different colored tags...)

Serious.7083:

Each group has issues with the other’s mode of play, you will not find a simple option that allows both groups to always play harmoniously together.

One way to solve this could be to give different maps different scoring systems. And have on map that encourages fighting and gaining points through fighting.

Combined with the existing EBG for PPT etc.

Instead of trying to make one system to fit everyone, give everyone a “play ground” they like to play in. The total points can be given for different things, and added together to see how the server does as a total.

A few things people keep forgetting, if they return Alpine it will be updated with the new mechanics like:

* Auto uppgrades
* New Scouts
* New lords and guards
* Tactivators
* Fortified doors

Heck, they’ll probably even include Shrines for the old keeps.

So saying "give us back Alpine" doesn’t mean getting rid of all the new features that a lot of people seem to dislike.

(Personally not against any of those, except Tactivators can go die in the desert!)

---

One note regarding Gliding, it’s main purpose in maps like these are "not dying" from falling down. For that you might as well have a Parachute, not a Glider. Always thought it could be an interesting idea to let non HOT people get a Parachute, that was upgraded to a glider once they got HoT, and the same could be applied to WvW.

Everyone start with a Parachute (perhaps for a first point investment in a WXP line), and if they add Gliding later on, make that a further reward in that line. Alternatively just stick with the Parachute as a way to avoid all the deaths from falling in general. Add on Parachute collapse on hit by ranged attack as well for fun games.

---

Strangely enough, when they described the Desert map first time, I had the image that they where using towers as "gates" to keeps. Like a Keep had 2 entries/doors, and each was defended by a tower, so you had to take that tower first, so you could enter by a pathway to start sieging the keep.

I realized what they where talking about was the blockades, but I kinda liked that idea, that towers served as the entry points to keeps, that you had to tear them down to access the keep, and that you could have tower vs keep sieges, with trying to shut of the other tower entry to restrict supply etc. A proper funneling system for fights, make people gather into specific spots for fighting.

Partial.

I would love to see Desert BL made into Desert BG. But I don’t want to get even more maps active than we already got. Who are going to fill them ?

Desert as a BG would be great, as it would be a single map, channeling and focusing the amount of players into 1 map instead of 3. And played as a BG with 3 sides, instead of this notion that people has to defend the entire map.

Now that in addition to 3 alpine BL’s ? that is just spreading out what little is left, even further. I don’t for a second believe that returning Alpine is going to make a magical influx of 100-200 players to each server to fill those maps out.

The net effect would be to stretch whatever people you currently got on EBG over EBG + 3 BL, and a few people playing on DBG.

The way to make this work, is remove the Borderlands system, remove the "home" map system. And replace it with just BG maps.

* EBG (Eternal)
* ABG (Alpine)
* DBG (Desert)

Then start working on a way to dynamically adjust the number of maps depending on the population. So if you have 500 people online at reset, you can have 4 or 5 maps so everyone fits. If everyone gone to bed on a Tuesday at 0400 in the morning, just keep up a single copy of EBG (minimum).

The main downside of this is actually that us servers in Bronze are never going to see any other maps than EBG. But what few are left of us will at least be channeled into the one map where there are people left.

Other bonuses of this, it means you can have more maps for scoring when there are lots of people online, and if there aren’t enough people it will shut down maps and thus reduce scoring. Or if they insist on keeping the same PPT model they currently got, they could just average it out to be equivalent of how it is now.

Keviin Snow.5760:

It will end, when CD fallen far enough down in the ranks to find equal opposition.

There has been a *lot* of server exoduses through the years. My own server Kaineng had one of the earliest ones, where we fell from Rank 4 (after Season 1) to the bottom of Tier 8. It took a long long time, with being beaten over and over until we hit the bottom again (took almost a full year).

It isn’t fun, there isn’t much you can do about it. The best thing to do is just take a break and let the server lose faster, so it gets to somewhere it can fight back faster.

---

But this is a game mode that depends on Players, you can’t force players to play when "they’re needed", neither can ANet. So if you say, we put a limit that:

Server A: 10 players
Server B: 20 players (10 in Queue)
Server C: 40 players (30 in Queue)

That has a few problems.
* More people are in Queue, and thus not playing, than there are people playing.
* One server decides that since they’re leading this week, stop playing entirely 0 players means enemy can’t play either.
* Completely removes the option for most players to play when they want and how they want.

---

Some players also like that there are different amount of people at different time, and compare it to a War etc. If you want a "fair" fight, many would point at PvP which is made for that. And If you want lots of other players EotM can often give that. So you’re not without options.

Try again when you hit Tier 6, and see how you match up there, if not go for Tier 7. I haven’t seen a map Queue on my server since summer 2014, we had a 3-4 man Queue for several minutes on reset night!

Just for the record, I certainly agree that Population is a *big* problem, and needs to be addressed. But it isn’t an issue that can be solved with "knee-jerk" solutions.

100 gold + a gazillion badges.

And everyone has to learn somewhere. And it makes them badges worth something, well a little at least.

Silverstone.4539:

Well, for one thing, you’re going to find out real soon, welcome to Bronze CD! (On the other hand, please please don’t push us up to Silver! We don’t want to!)

Regarding lower tiers, T6 is still pretty healthy at least. We definitively have lower levels of activity than you guys are used to from entire Silver, and if you get zerged by 20 your first thought is "Wow, they have 20 players!". Bronze is less organized and more casual in many ways, we don’t really bother much with dedicated guilds running this and that etc. Most servers have a guild or two that PPT’s a bit when they can, some that likes to fight, lots of roamers. It’s just everything on a slightly lesser scale.

Hopefully you’re not pushing us up to Silver, so we can welcome you Old Kaineng saying: "In gold a zerg is 60+, in silver zerg is 30+, in bronze zerg is 10+, in Kaineng a zerg is a full party of 5!"

Keviin Snow.5760:

Wow, you really seem to hate WvW. Anyway the best advice I can give you is to take a break 2-4 weeks, until CD is done falling down the ranks, and find the spot where they now belong.

I don’t know how far down the rabbit hole CD is going to tumble, but you’re going to find a spot where your servers level of activity is about equal to the others (or as close as it gets at least). That is what the Glicko rating is for, unfortunately it is very slow in adjusting for things like server exodus.

Look on the bright side, as of this week CD has finally lost enough Glicko points to fall under Kaineng in rating, which officially makes you a Bronze server now. So unless the Random is evil for you next week, you’ll have good chances to get a Tier 6 match one of the next two weeks. There is a HUGE difference between Tier 5 and Tier 6 in population.

But if huge zergs, commanders, and loot-bags are what you’re after, by all means stay with EotM.

Sin.4130:

Chiccotot.7296:

just be thankful you didnt suffer 2 months of crap match ups like what happened to Isle of Janthir when it was t3 last august/september.

Basically then, there were 4 servers with tier2 population/points and each week, one of these four will drop down to tier3 messing everyone else.

it was the beginning of IoJ Exodus 2, and we havent gotten back up again, ever since.

I feel sorry for Isle of Janthir community, another example how bad this system is. It should protect “unlucky” server from this kind of situation. Why it constantly keeps matching vs overstacked servers some unlucky ones is beyond my mind

The only way to do this would be that ANet manually adjusted or changed the match-ups. And that opens another can of worms, just imagine how many are going to rage every time they get a match-up they don’t like.

RNG is the lesser evil.

Different situations. In the Tier3 case in NA, it was because of 4 servers with similar high glicko (population, whatever, in effect glicko), competing over the 3 spots in Tier2. The leftover got tossed down to Tier 3, with the 2 servers stuck there. Until they tanked enough to get away.

EU has 12 servers or so that keep jumping around all over tier 1-4, it isn’t unlikely for rank 8-10 etc to be matched up against rank 1 or 2. He is somewhat accusing another server of Stalking them through the match-up’s

Edit: The Tier3 problem showcases the biggest problem with 3 server matches. Unless you have 3 servers that match each others in the same tier, it can quickly becomes a very negative experience. Example right now CD is dropping tiers, and is likely dumping down to T6 in next week or two. This will create an open slot in T5, where one of the T6 servers will be bumped up, not because we got enough glicko to match the other T5 servers, but because we have to be shoe horned in somewhere to fill out T5.

Yes.

Random means random. Not Average or Likely etc. on a 1-10 there is as much a chance to roll 1-1-1-1-1 as there is to roll 4-4-4-4-4 or 1-2-3-4-5 etc. It happens. Just because you have a higher % chance to roll someone else doesn’t mean you’ll roll it.

Seen several servers keep getting stuck with other servers when NA actually had flow between some tiers as well. DH and NSP had a love/hate relationship for quite a while.

Nope there isn’t. It is entirely random, based on the Glicko limits.

It is the very same system NA Tier1 servers used to manipulate in order to lock them selves out of facing tier 2 servers.

If you really don’t want to meet SFR, you have to create a distance in Glicko, if you want to remove any possibility of meeting them at all, you probably have to create about 150 difference in glicko.

The EU top 12 or so servers are just amazingly close in Glicko, and will match up with each others back and forth, sometimes that means meeting the same server a few times in a row, that is just how Random works (as opposed to Average).

My own server have a pretty crazy relation ship with the RNGlicko, and we keep getting dumped up and down in "unlikely" matches. That is just how it is, they have a computer just adding RNG numbers and just auto bunching up servers that way. There really isn’t anything more to it.

It is Glicko Randomizer. You’re within the Glicko range for randomization, that is all there is to it. Besides you’re actually leading over SFR right now. And I’ve seen even wackier match-up’s on the EU side than that.

Servers 2-9 are within 100 glicko points of each others. and 2-14 is within 140 glicko points (which I believe is still within extreme glicko rng range for match-up’s).

Just be glad you’re not in NA, where you’re almost tier locked. Some servers fought against the same servers for months, and in some extreme cases for years.

With the free accounts, if they’re serious about spying, they will level to 60 and spy that way anyways.

I can see the problem of: "Free Transfer destroyed WvW in the first place." and also the "Free Transfer every 2-3 months to let us try to even it out." part. Caught in the middle.

ANet does have a policy of not getting caught up in anything resembling stuff like racism. They specifically wanted the races to work together and all that, not against each others so it won’t happen. For good or bad.

There is also the problem that there is 5 races, in match-up’s of 3.

Also dislike how it means that you can change your toon to another race and play on the winning team.

Though I would like to see an army of actual Norns for once, so seldom I see more than 1 other Norn at the same time.

Personally don’t really care. But since everyone else seems to like it on Fridays, by all means change it back and make them happy. Everyone I’ve talked to either wants friday or doesn’t care which day. No particular wishes on time.

Used to run around as the only Norn in a PvE guild with 90% Asura’s, still have a few printscreens of "old Kindergarden Teacher Elrik out with his little midget wards in Divinity Reach".

lil devils x.6071:

They really could help resolve the peek hours Queues and non peak hours map coverage issues by changing how the maps work. Let’s say WvW only starts out with EBG. If players on all 3 servers in the match get 15 players in queue it triggers another EBG map. When both those maps get 15 players in queue from all 3 servers in the match, it triggers another map to go into game play. All maps being part of the score but only exist for a set amount of time. If the population dwindles they don’t get additional maps to play on, and it keeps cutting back maps until down to one if necessary. If the population stays the same or increases, the current maps stay in play or more or added to handle the population.

This would make it so less players are in queue during peak hours, less map to cover during non peak hours, AND you are not punishing players who all paid for the game just the same simply they work/ play different hours than most. This would ALSO discourage server stacking as well since ALL 3 servers in the match have to reach queue to be able to get new maps to play on. The stacked server would be the only one with players not being able to play in queue every time they come on and would encourage players to shift to servers where they would be able to do so. This way if only one server has off hours support in the match, they would only be able to ktrain one map worth of points during that time rather than run up the score by rolling all maps since they are undefended. If that one server is the only one with a queue, they would have to start shifting players to the other servers to be able to play during that time zone. Though I ALSO think players should be able to get free transfers once every so often like say you get one free wvw server transfer every 3 months or so just to ensure servers can stay balanced, encourage healthy competition since players come and go all the time throwing formerly balanced servers into imbalance.

In addition, they should completely disconnect PVE servers from WvW servers. Say everyone gets to keep their current server, but that is now considered their " PVE server" and they create a few new servers and to play WvW players would have to choose a new WvW server to play WvW.

So combined with the changes I would like to see to PPK it would be like this:
* Disconnect WvW and PvE servers. Create fewer WvW only servers(some voice com only and some non voice com only to improve player communication and game play for both styles of play since they are so drastically different).
* ALL players that wish to play WvW have to choose a new WvW server in addition to their current PvE server.
* Start out with 1 map in play and add maps in play as population increases, remove maps in play as population decreases. ( every time all 3 servers in match hit 15 in queue or so new map goes into play when timer is up if not enough population to support map is on it will expire. All maps count towards score.
* Players get Free WvW server transfer every 3 months to help keep balanced and non stale matchups.
* PPK are increased and then doubled for defending objectives. ( Places value on player contribution to defending)
* Rare loot drops increased for defending players for killing players in an objective. (gives higher chance for ascended items, precursors, legendary crafting materials Encourages players defending objectives OVER open field without siege.) Moves the fight to the objectives.
* Loot and PPK ALSO increases for attacking team encouraging both attacking and defending, though I think defending should be slightly higher.
* No PPK or loot for siege damage on players. ( encourages fighting players without siege / discourages siege humping encouraging more fair fights)
* Changes will solve population issues/ Ktrain issues/ Zerg siege humping/ stale matchups/ non defending objectives/ Loot/ Which servers win every week and how they are matched up all at once without removing players choice of where they play, who they play and without rewarding AFKers and ALSO discouraging keep tapping since that would give the enemy team Loot and PPK advantages close to keep as well.

Like most of this, generally a fan of the dynamically adjusted maps. I know we’ve argued this idea before, but I really like this version.

Edit: Un-kitten ed the quote function, I messed it up.

Ah, my own little flag-ship wish

Regarding managing overflows and multiple copies of a single map (both for a potential WvW usage, for EotM, and pve etc), I really wish they just went the way they did in GW1, where you had a menu bar that let you select which instance you wanted to go to. Instead of having people relying on "taxi people inn" as they do now in Pve, and probably would do in WvW as well if it was needed.

Also, in order to make this work properly with shutting down borderland maps, you need to move away from the "home map" system, and make some tweaks for teh BL maps to work like EBG or EotM, where it is a 3 way free for all, with home corners of hte map. Then you could close and open BL maps left and right without any problems.

+1 for Dynamic Map Capacity!

Kinda liked the daily Vet slayer because it makes you go out to places you usually don’t go to look for them. The normal ones like Daily Sentry/camp/tower/keep, are all in the same places you always go. On the same roads. Unless you’re boring and go for the Varg every time, you at least have to look a bit for the others, ended up in some interesting fights on the sand dunes near the Wurm.

It ain’t perfect, but it is ok enough, and one of the few daily’s we can reliably do in lower tiers. Defense events are almost impossible to get at times.

Think it could have been a fun idea, would love to see it. But I have to agree with others that other things probably deserve the attention first.

I like most of this, the most boring part about NPC’s is hitpoint sponges, really miss that NPC’s can be killed fast, and can kill you fast back.

Oh boy, so much conflicting like/dislike on this.

I think the idea itself is a good one, that NPC’s can make up for some of the lack of enemy players. Unfortunately most NPC’s are so boring to play against, and just really not what a lot of players WANTS to fight against.

---

We’ve joked a few times about making Siegerazer into a roamer, having him walk around the map, build his own ram and start jamming those gates. He is quite competent in killing a camp or tower+lord himself. Not entirely certain about the new Keep lords...

Another idea I’ve seen mentioned a few times, that I Think could be fun, is to have a set limit of number of NPC’s per team. The more structures you got the more the NPC’s are spread thinner to protect them. The less objects you control, your NPC’s are focused around those. (Just imagine losing everything except for North Camp on your home BL. Enemy comes to flip it and finds 4-5 keep lords, 8 tower lords, 8 camp lords, and a horde of guards.)

Personally just really want to see the AI’s used for the practise NPC’s in PvP lobby used for NPC’s, they’re at least somewhat more interesting to fight against. And some roaming groups of those could be fun to fight against while waiting for something else.

---

The main problem though is that "they’re not players". Most people that want to play in a PvP mode like WvW does so to fight against human players, not NPC’s. And while something like this would fill out a dead time zone for some, they could just as well defend a tower in Silver Wastes.

I honestly don’t see how "Off-Peak" is going to be solved in any other way than some variation of MegaServer. Even if they just mega-server the off-peak time and left the peak times as is.

Leaa.2943:

With that said this was then, as in the past, as in not now, not today, not this minute, but passed time. Passed time you can not do a single kitten about. It is impossible since we do not have time travel. What we have now, is today. And today new attempt been done with a new (or rather “for now”) Game Director.

Couldn’t resist…

Actually they specified that they had trouble getting the map switching to work on the world-map (wvw world map) on the live version.

One idea that I saw mentioned in the old CDI thread about it, was to have scoring based on Point Per Capture (PPC) and Point Per Defense (PPD), and remove the Tick (PPT). And a bunch of variants of such (more points for upgrading it, more for capturing upgraded, add PPK/PPS, decay timers etc).

It wouldn’t necessarily fix the points for fighting etc, but depending on the variants, it would remove most of the population advantage for points. Once everything is taken, you can’t really runaway with the score.

One of the most important things, is that we need to get points for engaging enemies, for example if we didn’t get any points for a capture/defense unless we’re actually fighting enemy players. So PvDing empty maps doesn’t actually give anything, you want to FIND those enemy players and KILL them.

No more Evade Wars 2 :p

First thought was: "What, is ANet employees actually sitting night capping ?".

But sure they made a pretty bad PPT system in the first place, but it isn’t really them doing the Off-Peak-Capping. So it feels a bit weird calling them out on it...

LetoII.3782:

Why don’t you and the other 6 people left in bronze just transfer up?
Lots of empty space in every tier now

Gasp what blatant lies good sir! We are entire 9 people in Bronze, there has to be at least one for each server, or no one would complain! Actually GoM outnumber us so they must be at least 2, and ET might or might not have an actual player any-longer…

Bronze – where you can dodge the red AoE circle !

You totally lost me here, as I fell of the chair laughing!

Bronze is wonderful, Bronze is love, Bronze is life! And it taste funny if you lick it on a very cold day.

There are some cultural differences between each server, but most of us are pretty similar in most manners that matter nowadays. In Bronze you typically have to do a little bit of everything: Roaming, Zerging (5-10!), defending, scouting, rave-golem-partying in SMC, etc. Often several at the same time

Most of us got small but tight knit communities, and like to see new faces. And everyone got a rotten apple or two, comes with the whole human aspect of the game. If you look at it statistically we have a much smaller amount of rotten apples than any silver or gold servers!

PS if you want to zerg, Bronze is not for you. If you can’t do anything without a commander, it’s also going to be hard here "down under". We still got EotM though, if the need is great.

Like both suggestions by Chinchilla.1785 and Xenesis.6389

1. I like it.

Especially now with the changes to rally. It allows you to affect a battle somewhat, even when you’re supposed to be out of combat. It is especially fun in small scale combats say 5vs5 etc, when a well timed skill can often interrupt the enemy team enough, that your team can get in a stomp and Rally you.

Quaygal.5327 : I like your thoughts about this, and agree. The biggest turn off for most, is to not have something "to do" that feels worthwhile.

Do want.

This was requested at launch, and probably in betas before that as well. And Devs have commented upon it in the far past that it is something they see the use off. But alas nothing happened, so guessing it creates too much complications for them or something. (Can imagine the items actually causing problems for them, as in solving where to dump items etc).

1) a smaller map or faster movement around the map

This is the one I liked. I’m more iffy about some of the other things you suggested (though I think some of them could work if executed perfectly).

On the whole, I just wish they made more *different* *types* of maps, instead of repeatedly make maps that works the same way. Like you say, A Small or Fast Map. A map where you can go in and run around and look for action when you’re sick of sitting guarding a tower, or falling asleep in the zerg etc.

Many different ways they could make such a map, and different styles to play on them etc. I just want something different from the same *4* now large maps with 3 way siege battles and tower zerging.

Sorry for getting caught in Kaineng’s nasty relation with the Glicko RNG, it keeps throwing us around in weird match-up’s.

Like Week 02: Maguuma (11), Ehmry Bay (13), Kaineng (17).

Or the wonderfull Week 03: Henge of Denravi (10), Northern Shiverpeaks (12), Kaineng (17)

So yeah, just *5* ranks difference feels almost .... normal?

But seriously. I know it sucks, I hate it when it happens (to anyone). Just dedicate this week to PvP or practice group tactics in EotM or something and try to forget this week. Hopefully Kaineng goes back to T6 again, if RNGlicko doesn’t throw another kitten at us.

*goes to sacrifice a kitten*

Dayra.7405:

• less automatism e.g no automatic dollies, dollies must be hired (cost supplies, more with escorts) and asigned to a route by a player, which they repeat till killed or stopped, no automatic repair on capture doors and walls broken during the attack remain broken, walls and doors must be repaired to 50% till they block again, no automatic uprades, they must be started by player, the WP of a tower or keep is a damageable object that can be build/repaired by people with resources they carry
• no NPCs (or only when explicitly hired)

http://www.oocities.org/ultimatewarcraft2/peonvict.gif

Peon Wars 2 !

He will be missed!

Think it could be a fun idea.

Would probably want to see the npc builders also slowly repair things as long as there was supply available or something, this helps with small damage to multiple walls etc, players tend to patch up the big breach, and forget or ignore the smaller ones, and expecting an upgrade to fix it.

This would also give people a good reason to snipe out the workers.