Guild Wars 2

@MithranArkanere.8957

Basically an WvWvWvE variant. I see advantages to it, and if done right could actually decrease the "PvE presence" outside of the actual events. Personally always wanted to see things like Centaur raids on structures when the maps are quiet. And if no one defends, let them slowly capture and neutralize objectives.

A simple system like:
* Map been quiet for X time
* Create an event at random camp
* Have centaurs attack the camp to neutralize it
* If players defend, go back and wait for new event
* If players fail, centaurs neutralize the camp
* If two adjacent camps are neutralized, event can spawn nearby tower

Not certain about keeps. Yes, No, or arguably let them take non upgraded keeps, but T3 keeps be to tough.

Benefits:
* Something to do on a dominated map
* Reason to defend/scout
* Make Off-hour dominance work to keep it
* More players about the map for this...
* Which makes more people to fight...
* That isn’t sitting behind walls with an AC

And when there starts becoming some activity on the map, say 2 different servers starts flipping each others objectives, the entire events can shut down until it’s been quiet again for X time. Example 15 minutes.

Waiting doing nothing is boring.

Agreed, this is a very important point. One of the reasons why defenders are so loved, is because most people just don’t want to, because they consider it boring.

Some repeated events, that would make defenders move a bit about on the map. And give them some rewards while defending or scouting, probably our two least rewarding play styles. And something decent for people wanting to play with up-levels to do and gain some XP.

And this could also be done while reducing the amount of pve mobs on the rest of the map in general, since it would replace most of the purpose of those.

https://youtu.be/SWCTlxEp6Ds?t=106

It only work on Asuras!

Fellfoot.8156:

TL,DR — EotM should NOT count towards a server’s WvW population!

It isn’t. The Dev that posted about the change to the population calculation answered this, multiple times iirc.

If you want a good laugh, look at the kill/death ratio on this match-up in http://wvwintel.com/#1022

Got no idea what is going on there, but it can’t be right.

I was about to say "Three times the charm." in the other thread, but this is the fourth time you posted this ? :p Anyways, here are some of my thoughts (and personal opinions, my condolences):

A) Sentries. Haven’t noticed the tagging so much, but I like the beating the dead horse, and love the medikits for near constant swift.

B) Objective Messages. My main issue with them is that I’d like to be able to turn it off, or move it to somewhere else than middle of screen. Don’t mind the messages themselves, but don’t like the presentation.

C) Scaled-Champions: Finally

D) AutoUpgrade: I actually like it (Digs his own grave). Granted, I’m a filthy roamer that just likes to run around and fight a bit, frustrate a bit, and ninja about a bit in enemy borderlands. So I never really bothered that much with upgrading. But love that it doesn’t take gold or supply any-longer, and like that I actually see some of the other upgrades other than WP and walls/gates (though they are useful, I get that).

D-2) Way-Points: Mixed. For EBG I think it is fine atm, with free WP on same color keep, and the SMC, and no WP on other color keeps. Gives you local mobility, but gives the other colors a bit easier time to come-back and take back their corner. And leaves SMC somewhat desirable.

For Desert BL: Don’t rightly know yet, still need to learn the map more (been busy with other things). But I’m starting to think it might be nice to not have WP’s at the keeps at all, but all 4 towers, making them important to hold for mobility and to deny enemy reinforcing keeps (Random idea of the day).

E) Dino-Hammer: Well, don’t like it. "You must build additional pylons" is all I can think of when doing that event. It’s long, it’s fairly boring, and it might as well completely reset the map for all the good it does (make everything neutral, remove colors). The few times I’ve seen my server do it, is when we’re controlling the map, and just want to deny it to the enemy, so they can’t send in a roaming group to use it against us.

On idea, instead of having it destroy all gates. Since people dislike the auto upgrade, perhaps it temporary nullify the upgrades of one structure ? Or multiple over a small period so you could ninje 1-2 structures ?

E-2) Anyways, I’m an old Dinosaur fan since my childhood, and can’t stand watching these Mutasauruses being called Dinosaurs ! *fume*

F) Auto-Turrets: Can’t really comment yet, mostly stayed away from keeps, as I like learning the rest of the map first, and leave the keeps for last. They’re too much of a bother to take on alone or with small groups (we’ve taken Fire keep a few times with 5 man groups, goes a bit faster).

G) Fortified Gate: The few times I’ve seen a siege in lower tiers I thought they where nice. But as for taking them out, I’ll grab a cata and go for a wall. The gates are horrible to take solo or small team, gates takes forever, guards respawn also on the wall, and a single defender can toast you with those cannons + oil. It probably takes about the same time to cata down a wall, as it takes to ram down a reinforced gate now, but it’s so much easier taking the wall so something is a bit wrong here.

H) Pathfinder: Still learning all the paths, so can’t really comment. I do avoid the keeps though, but I did that in old Alpine as well when I started.

I) Reset-Saturday: I don’t really mind, I’ve always avoided reset anyways and done something else that day, so will just shift that anyways. Hoping we might get more silly/casual server events on Fridays now.

J) Guild-Upgrades: A pain. I don’t like the new system at all (Hey, I’m allergic to grinding, so sue me!), but I think the worst could have been staved off by putting the claim camp/tower/keep very low, and made +5 supply the first upgrade. Most WvW guilds probably won’t care about the rest anyways, but would be willing to work towards it as a long time thing as long as they had the +5 supply.

Swift.1930:

joneirikb.7506:

Or just reduce from 3 borderlands to 1.

Heck for T8 we probably can’t fill a single map…

This system will not work as long as it doesn’t adapt itself to the players and number of players. The WvW system is to rigid, it needs to adjust itself dynamically to numbers/players.

4 Maps is just overkill for the lower tiers, I don’t think any server in T8 right now could max more than 40 players each during reset, we’re not even half-way to a queue on a single map. All that means is that whoever leads gets to own 4 maps.

Honestly it doesn’t even matter if it is Desert or Alpine maps, there is still 5-40 players from each server trying to control 4 maps.

• Remove the HOME borderland system
• Run single map for Borderland
• Rotate Alpine back in (when it’s ready and updated again)
• Run EBG +BL map
• Use the EotM system to make more instances of maps as needed

Having one borderland would be tricky to manage (who gets the citadel? Or is it cappable, so the map would be a bit like a mini-EBG?); it might be a beneficial idea to expand EBG to include lanes based on (or cut and pasted from) the borderland maps behind each starting area, though – and then for Anet to increase server population capacity in EBG. (A bit like a 3-armed boomerang.)

Honestly, I think giving red Citadels would work fine (in most cases). Red is “usually” the weaker server in a match-up, so a slight map-based handicap (not fight-based) isn’t bad.

But the Alpine map would have to get the “services” (all the stuff in the Citadel) equalized, either removed or added to the south spawns as well.

But if they wanted to add some work to the map, then putting Citadel as a “Castle” does sound fun, but it is placed in a pretty weird spot for that. It would have made more sense to have a “Castle” somewhere in the ruins, but that would be way too much work on the map to be expected.

PS: You don’t want to expand EBG, most people complain enough about the lag as-is with 3 way battles in SMC. There are some pretty bad consequences that can happen if you start messing more with adding to map sizes and user limits. I think you would be much better off with just spawning a new copy of EBG, instead of increasing the limit to 200 per side.

@Amber

The beauty of the system, is that you could use it for all tiers, it would just adjust itself to the number of players online at that point. Create and destroy new map instances as needed, down to a minimum of X, depending on what the server is set to.

Example 1 for EBG only, 2 for EBG + RNG BL each week, or 3 for EBG+Alpine+Desert as base. You could even set different ones for different tiers if you wanted, 3 for gold, 2 for silver and 1 for bronze etc.

They are probably going to change how PPT works sometime during the next year, but you could also adjust PPT on the number of maps, or over an average of all maps, depending on how you want it to work.

@Jim & briggah

My experience so far is that the new BL’s are pretty quiet. I *should* note that I’ve spent half my WvW time after HoT in T8, but still. It’s usually a bad sign when I log on and find my guild running around in EBG, we used to be a 95% BL map guild.

I’m still determined to learn the map though, still don’t hate it. But boy do I wish they gave us Alpine + Desert instead of 3x single map.

Zetsumei.4975:

Go and look at some videos of your servers from 2 years back and you will realise how big of a difference it is.

Well, just to goof that up, looking back exactly 2 years, my server just got dumped back into bronze after the gamest biggest bandwagon up to Tier2 :p (I know, not a good example, but I just couldn’t resist!)

I do agree that the game is much more quiet now, and different than it used to be. And that is something they should somehow try to fix. The only ways I can think of is to either:

* Reduce the amount of maps, to gather the remaining population better
* Combine player bases (EotM, MegaServer, Merges etc)

atheria.2837:

No, I want them back too and I am in T1.

Our Alpine maps are what make WvW so amazing, not the dry, nasty, no WP, totally automated mess they call WvW.

You do realize that if ANet brought back the old Alpine BL, it would still use the AutoUpgrade, and follow the new maps WP system ? Those are changes they made to WvW as a whole, and not just to single map.

So would Alpine + AutoUpgrade + WP changes still be fun for you ?

Nubu.6148:

Close bronze and transfer the player to the upper ones . Problem solved .

Sorry, but that is still a stupid suggestion. And this whole “do it to them, and not to me!” attitude is just bad.

tluv.5821:

1.) His proposal said nothing about Large vs Small Guilds. Alliances would more than likely have a “cap”. Several smaller guilds (20-30) vs a powerhouse 500 man guild would be pretty sweet in my opinion. So the comment on “large guild” is null/void.

ANet is not very likely to ever add a system that lets players make own alliances by guilds (drama). Much more likely to just convert a server → alliance, and tumble together a random bunch of alliances into a battlegroup. Remove player manipulation, lets everyone play (as is).

tluv.5821:

2.) What is the title of this game series? Oh that’s right, GUILD WARS. And this is GUILD WARS 2.

And I absolutely hate this “argument”, simply because the name of the series has to do with lore/background. The Name Guild Wars has to do with an event leading up to Guild Wars 1, so beating on it for not having stuffed enough guilds stuff in it is just silly.

It’s like beating on WoW because it only has one World, when the title make it sound like there should be multiple. Or that it should be Strategical because it name implies it from the previous games.

I don’t think the small differences in balance from start positions in the BL is that significant, some are going to argue, but I think as long as Red get the most advantageous positions and green the weakest (SW), it should work fine. The main difference is that Red gets one more tower by "default", and easier to upgrade their keep. The other servers have to over-extend a bit more to take the lead.

Well that is why I said that they should use the EOTM/MegaServer system of generating additional instances. So the servers can spawn more copies of both EBG and the BL as needed. If EBG is queue’d, spawn a new copy. If there isn’t enough people over 2 EBG’s till make a queue on a single EBG shut one down, give players a 5 min warning how unstable the mists are etc and then force them back to the main EBG.

Besides, from one of the other threads where they compared queue’s, I don’t think any of the top tiers has an queue’s or even much activity in the BL’s as is. It would also be a good test, if T1 had 3 extra copies of EBG for a total of 4 EBG’s and not even a Queue on the Desert BL they would have spoken quite clearly about their preference.

PS: Always sad to see people transfer off ET, always liked that server.

Or just reduce from 3 borderlands to 1.

Heck for T8 we probably can’t fill a single map...

This system will not work as long as it doesn’t adapt itself to the players and number of players. The WvW system is to rigid, it needs to adjust itself dynamically to numbers/players.

4 Maps is just overkill for the lower tiers, I don’t think any server in T8 right now could max more than 40 players each during reset, we’re not even half-way to a queue on a single map. All that means is that whoever leads gets to own 4 maps.

Honestly it doesn’t even matter if it is Desert or Alpine maps, there is still 5-40 players from each server trying to control 4 maps.

* Remove the HOME borderland system
* Run single map for Borderland
* Rotate Alpine back in (when it’s ready and updated again)
* Run EBG +BL map
* Use the EotM system to make more instances of maps as needed

styx.7294:

joneirikb.7506:

Wolfric.9380:

Made a mistake here. EotM´s concept is fine.

I would consider removing borderland concept.
Take the desert map, build a castle in the center and add towers and a third access point.
So make a variant of eternal battleground.
Now we have two diffrent battlegrounds.

+1

For the rest, removing EotM will not bring much players "back" to the WvW maps. They will just go somewhere else to farm, quit, or just do something else.

That’s the thing though. Does basically the Queensdale champ train need its own map that gives WXP as well?

Well, I don’t mind if they have their own map, it is certainly better than having them in WvW or Queensdale yelling bloody murder in map chat, hated that, still avoid Queensdale to this day for that reason.

No-one else wanted EotM after the first month of release, so why not let them have it if they enjoy it ? Seriously, as long as people don’t disturb others and enjoy themselves, let them. The problem with the QD-Champ train wasn’t what they where doing in itself, but that it bothered the rest of the map.

Edit: Man I almost forgot, this also means I can GANK Queensdale champ trainers! I’m sold!!!

Probably they would just start of with the servers as an "Alliance" and then shuffle random of these together into a "battlegroup" or something. So the server community remains, but with the randomizing the battlegroups they can ensure some way of avoiding large parts of the stacking problems we currently have with servers.

And by setting a certain "size" to it, they can fuse together servers until they reach that "size", thus a single server can’t make or break a battlegroup alone.

The main advantage is that it would be dynamic, it can change and adopt itself to the number of players. So in worst case it could group down to a single match-up if there was next to no one left.

Also, it retains as much server identity as they can manage and still do something about this.

If this happens, I’m going to actually like the new Desert BL, since it’s large enough that it will *feel* less populated when I want to small-server-roam again.

Wolfric.9380:

Made a mistake here. EotM´s concept is fine.

I would consider removing borderland concept.
Take the desert map, build a castle in the center and add towers and a third access point.
So make a variant of eternal battleground.
Now we have two diffrent battlegrounds.

+1

For the rest, removing EotM will not bring much players “back” to the WvW maps. They will just go somewhere else to farm, quit, or just do something else.

The CDI thread had quite a bit of ideas around Alliance systems, and even one of the ANet reps was talking specifically about it.

I strongly suspect we are going to see something like this in the future, when they have had time to develop on it, and it is finished enough that they will present it. Which also means it will be finished enough that they won’t listen to player input about it, unfortunately.

Expectation management: It seems everyone in this thread have different opinion of what is a "healthy population", I think you should agree on that before discussing further. Some examples I’ve seen used here:

A) Activity in EBG

B) Activity on multiple/all maps

If people can’t agree what is a "healthy population", they will never agree on server merges or any other topic regarding this.

The only sign we have of what ANet thinks about this, is their new population caps. Anyone got some rough estimations for how much activity these locks up at ? (my own server is nowhere near the caps to find this out).

MithranArkanere.8957:

I’d rather just have each world get a different Emblem, and show just that emblem colored to their team’s color, next to just the word “Invader”. Something like the world completion badge, just slightly bigger and before the word instead after.

For example, Baruch Bay would have Stefan’s chain coif as an emblem, Isle of Janthir would have the Eye of Janthir as en Emblem, and so on.

There could even be “WvW” armors that show your world’s emblem, the same way Guild armors show your guild emblem.

Why just “Invader” next to the emblem? Because Invaders Must Die . That’s the sole purpose of their existence. It should be made very clear.

Then selecting the enemy would show the full nameplate, world name, guild name, titles, and the like in the ‘selected target’ UI element.

Like this take on it.

Also +1 respect for linking Prodigy!

Fellfoot.8156:

Edit: my guild got bored during our WvW raid the other day… we went to EotM just to find people to kill… mapchat: why are there two tags here?
mapchat: it’s a wvw guild, they probably can’t find anyone to fight so they came here to farm lootbags
mapchat: ok, so, which tag do I follow?
mapchat: depends on if you want bags or if you want karma

laughs +1

This is an alternative mode, changing the idea from local upgrades to a more Global/Map wide system.

This would change the tactical to a more strategical choice, where to upgrade, and the whole map can help with it. Example N and NE dolyaks are still important if you want to upgrade Fire-Bay-West Keep.

Idea 2:

* Note: this uses the current tiered upgrades!
* Keep the gold/supply cost at 0
* Instead of the timer, use X number of Dolyaks received
* Make the Dolyaks a Global/Map wide resource
* You can only work on a single upgrade at a time.
* Vote for which objective to upgrade (map vote)
* If no-votes/tie, upgrade the cheapest option
* Example: Tier1, Tier2, Tier3. And Camps, Tower, Keep etc.

-----

Option 1:

Same as above

-----

Option 2:

Same as above

After discussing with a friend, he came up with an interesting alternative to the current and last Objective Upgrade system, that I thought might be interesting to get feedback on. This is sort of a mix between the new and the old upgrade system. In short terms:

Idea 1:

• Revert back the different upgrade tiers with multiple choices
• Keep the gold/supply cost at 0
• Instead of the timer, use X number of Dolyaks received
• Vote system for upgrades, each player can put in a vote, highest get prioritized
• If no-votes/tie, upgrade the cheapest option (give old upgrades an arbitrary cost/priority order)

Option 1:

Keep votes for a time, so they retain for next vote/upgrade (remove half for next upgrade). Gives some weight to further upgrades, and lets your choices affect wvw over time even if you leave map.

Option 2:

In addition to normal Dolyaks, have a system that gives a slow but constant amount of “Resources” so that upgrading never locks entirely down, but still much slower than we currently got through AutoUpgrade.

Using a simple X/Time and Y/Resource model, the amount of resources and time would have to be tweaked. Some examples visual effects:

• Simple timer until we get a free “Resources”, like we have now.
• Charr Helicopter once per “Time” drops “Resources” at each objective
• NPC Worker scavenging parts around objective for “Resources”
• Personal Favorite: Steal the Cattlepult from the Charr 15-25 area, plant it with the NPC (Siegerazer’s brother) in the spawn area, and have him catapult “Resources” at all objectives held once per “Time”. While throwing out witty charr quotes.

PS: Not going to go into the arguments of brining back WP or not, this is completely irrelevant for this idea. So for all practical purposes, even if rolling back to old upgrades system WP would be locked down or replaced with something else. Discuss the WP problem somewhere else please.

Chase.2798:

Kaineng: No queue ever, any map…since i started playing in august lol

I remember we had a queue once, I think it was august 2014, I think it was one of our match-up’s against Darkhaven. We had 3-4 man queue for a few minutes in prime time on EBG!

\m/ ^_^ \m/

Doesn’t sound like it would be too hard to implement either. Just make separate RI for each objective type, and have the RI give a buff to walls/gates to make then invulnerable while RI is up. Then set separate timers for each, or have them behave to specific timers.

I’m a bit for and against the whole "timed openings" aspect, and have a gut feeling that I’d like it better to simply have longer RI periods. Even though I expect them to end up working pretty similar. Something about that feeling "Yes we got the tower, now its safe for one hour before someone can take it back!".

On the positive side, I think the "Timed Openings" would work well with the new upgrade system (with some time tweaks). So that you could see over each defense that the tower or keep upgraded and get easier to defend etc. This *might* return some of the perceived reward in defending.

Interesting idea, looking forward to more discussion.

@Gudradain

+1 from me, no surprise there, been advocating this for about a year now Also can you please change your post from a question to a normal post so I can give it a +1 ?

@misterdevious

Good points, I’ve been wanting to see people play more like they do on EBG with each their corners instead of dominating the map myself, you put it into better words than I have.

@Diku: In short: When he says MegaServer, he is talking about the way Edge Of The Mist is using it.

(The combining multiple servers into one color/alliance is also part of what the Mega Server technology can do).

Don’t make it more complicated than it has to be

@RedBaron: I do think we’re going to see some use of MegaServer/EotM in the end, but no idea what ANet has in mind.

I do think that moving everyone into 3 groups will be too small, and should at least be 6 groups. So we actually have Match-up’s. And Europe is going to create so much problems for them with all the specific language servers.

I’m still worried about how this will affect coverage. If all they do is splash on MegaS/EotM teams, we will still have plenty of empty maps during the non-prime hours. I really hope they look at using the MegaS/EotM system of creating/destroying maps, so they can adjust the number of maps to the current population, I think that might do more good in the long run.

Very much wish they add rotation to maps.

At the moment I think we might need to cut down on the number of maps (preferably dynamically), so EBG+Alpine+Desert, single copy of each. Just remove the home BL definition and leave each map a stand a lone map.

I wouldn’t mind EotM in rotation myself, just that there is already to many maps compared to the population, shifting the number of maps down would concentrate the players a bit more.

Also just remove the "home" advantage to each map, or give it to all sides (this is mainly the services of Citadel).

Even more than a rotation, I’d love to see a dynamic adjustment to the number of maps, so that it responds with the active population at all times. So 10+5+3 players during middle of the night, they might shift down to a single map, instead of trying to defend 4 maps with 3 players etc.

Wolfric.9380:

What about this?

No more home map. Two maps (alpine + desert) with three starting points each.
So ist not 3 Maps per Server its two and these are diffrent.

Both maps exist. A small redesign seting a new start point at the top, one less selection bar and off we go. Ranking deside start positions on the two maps.

Effect more players on one map, both maps used.

Do like, been advocating this for a while. But must agree that it is off-topic :p

Jim Hunter.6821:

That would require completely redesigning both maps. It took 3 years to get the numbers tweaked on WvW achievements, how long do you think it would take to redesign 2 maps?

That’s why I suggested this game mode should be a 2 way fight instead of 3 way. Start the teams in the southern corners and no one ends up with the home field advantage. No redesign required.

To be fair, the main change needed would be either eliminating the advantages of citadel (mostly services) or share those with the other starting positions. Place red in north so they get the “advantage” since most of the time they’re the weakest team (all modes).

Dawdler.8521:

No redesign required, except well, you know, the entire code base for WvW, the matchup system and it would also rebalance all WvW maps from scratch including EoTM.

Anet has several ways forward but I seriously doubt they would ever consider such an option. Then again they have a tendancy to throw curveballs at us. Wouldnt surprise me the slightest if they announce the complete closure of WvW next week, EoTM and desert will run alternating 3 hour 3 way instanced matchups from now on.

I have no idea how much work it would be to change the internal work code for WvW, but I’m not sure if they even need to change it, save reduce the number of maps by one. They could probably just rename “Red Home Borderland” to “Desert” and nobody would notice the difference.

Jim Hunter.6821:

I already said this isn’t a replacement for WvW. This game mode would be a replacement for eotm.
WvW should have the alpine map returned and the new map should be used for the “War” game mode.

It will basically be the hotjoin version of WvW, that should end up working better than eotm currently does since the sides will be better balanced. If they balance PPK and rewards well enough it will promote fighting over karma training.

Maybe make each player kill worth 3 points (5 if stomped), 5 points for camps, 10 for towers, 25 for keeps. Give bags for player kills but increase the odds on getting gold/exotic/ascended drops. Reward players with tricks, traps, or siege from camps towers and keeps. The bonus for winning could be something simple like a chunk of wxp. Ideally they will add reward tracks to WvW and this could benefit from the reward track as well.

I think some of this sounds fun, and something I’d love to try. I’m not sold on making it red vs blue, and think this could work just as well with 3 teams as we have it now. I like the way you suggest the points work, as it would actively discourage zerging for one thing, and work best if people split up and take multiple thing (and fights). Though, I don’t see any reason or reward to defending, is this intentional wit this being a “hot-join” ?

If you kept it 3 side, with the same rules for joining etc, you could cycle all the existing maps with no problems (ebg, eotm, alpine, desert).

Wow, someone remembered we HAVE those WvW bonuses o_0 (I play lots of WvW, and even I usually forget those...)

While in principle, I like the idea that WvW’ers get their own bonuses, it is probably even worse to have a "semi-competitive" mode with PvP have advantages over each others, especially considering how those bonuses are acquired (them numbers!). That will just make it a few percentages easier for the winning severs to beat up the losing ones.

PvP and bonuses are tricky stuff!

No

Just want more variety in maps, number of maps.

coglin.1867:

Feedback is one thing. Outright bashing and disingenuously claiming they said stuff that they did not, is another. This type of accusation and QQ when they try to open WvW dialogue is exactly why we receive so little dialogue.

Perhaps it would be wiser to offer your complaints in a more constructive manner. When you make post that cannot be stomached, how can you reasonably expect your feedback to be digested?

This.

Also what Colin says about WvW matches pretty well with what we’ve heard in other places. Like how we got our new map, the feedback (DCI threads), and how John Corpening talked about getting the live dev team after HoT release/fixes. So they have something in plans, and it became too big for the ExPack.

Also considering the entire WvW core system needs to be available for everyone anyways (or most of it at anyways), all these changes to WvW are likely to be for all accounts, and not just HoT accounts (Hey, we’re fixing population and coverage for HoT accounts only!). So it makes sense to be the content they doesn’t focus to get out with the ExPack. (Hey, we killed guild halls and maguma, so all accounts, not only those that got HoT, can get a better WvW!).

I do think it is sad that they won’t talk about features in development, but in a way it does make sense. The input was at DCI threads, if they started taking input now, it would probably become a titanic train-wreck at this stage, with all the different opinions players got.

Anyways, I’ll see what they do, when they release/fix WvW, if I don’t like it I’ll quit for good (WvW at least). And if I like it, I’ll keep playing.

Server loyalty can affect more people than you would think. If you want to move server, but if 2-3 guilds you play with often and like roaming or zerging with stays. Are you still going to move ? For some, the community itself, guilds, friends etc. So even if not everyone is a server loyalist (in the strict sense), they want to play with people that are server loyalists.

We noticed this when my own guild moved to CD to try out the higher tiers. Once we got tired of it and started talking about moving somewhere else, half the guild or more wanted back to Kaineng, because we missed our friends and other guilds etc. (my poor guild leader nearly cried, he wanted so much to move to FC instead).

So many of the people that are loyal to a server, might not mind some server fusions etc (as they would still keep their friends and guilds on the same server). But others would be upset.

And if you delete SoR, at least 50% of their server will leave the game :p (Just rename it to Sanctum of Ranger Rall)

So far not liked the event (not done it much though, need to test it more etc). But I *suspect* that they might have made this with some of the changes they plan forward in mind.

Thus I suspect it will keep being bad until all their planned new changes is revealed. In which case, I’d rather they just disabled it, and stuff an arena in the middle, where people can fight for points in some controlled manner (like cap points that only allow 1 person from each side inside at a time).

Problem: Everything is fortified.

I know I’m going to get yelled at now, but link the auto upgrade to npc workers (we got them already, just add 1-2 more), as long as they are alive the upgrade progress, if they’re dead, the progress halts. Have them walk around on the walls and sometimes outside to "build" on some walls, gates, and cannons etc.

Lets players interact with the upgrade system. Roamers can "halt" progress by sniping out all the npc’s (who then as usual gets dead and must be rezzed), and defending roamers can rez them again and protect them.

It will still auto upgrade if no-one comes and interrupt the npc’s, but it gives the enemy an option to slow down or stop the process. Thus require human interaction to keep all the objectives upgrading smoothly.

Jamais vu.5284:

They should’ve had the foresight/intelligence to institute a new server paradigm for WvW with the release of HoT. That they are still not prepared to deal with the problem of ghost town servers and would need another few months and "more data" to decide on the best way, I don’t know how to comment except call it utter, total unprofessionalism on their part. I guess we both agree on this point, but I still find it flummoxing to the max.

Kinda agree with this. I also think they realized this last year when they started the DCI, but have had all their resources handling HoT. Guessing that the reason WvW crew got the entire dev-team now, is because they’ve been nagging entire last year. Don’t know what will happen, it could break what is left or fix everything, so just waiting to see what happens.

Jamais vu.5284:

I think you underestimate the danger of an empty major game mode, originally the third pillar of the game, during the very biggest release the game has had since launch 2012. The maps should be BURSTING, regardless of Halloween and the new PvE maps. Instead, they are dead, leaving everyone interested in it indifferent in a vicious circle. Once a game mode is dead for a couple weeks, its insanely hard for it to recover, since core player losses during that time are usually permanent or semi-permanent.

Can see multiple sides to this.

I agree that new shiny map should get more people interested. But at the same time the map will stay there. So why not do the new things or the time-limited things ? This has the problem of creating the negative feedback loop you mention of: "nobody is in WvW, so I won’t either". Can only hope that people decide to get back again afterwards.

Also, the new guild hall system (not entirely fan, especially of the +5 supply placement) also affects this a good bit, unfortunately.

I don’t say this is good (or bad, yet), I had expected more people to be fascinated by the new map and play it to death first, not flat out boycott it as is seen.

Jamais vu.5284:

They should put out some server mergers now to stave that dead zone off. It’s naive (on ANet’s part) to think WvW will get a player influx 1+ months down the line, during a xpac’s lifetime when most returning surplus players have started going back to other games/hobbies. Nothing will change, it will only get emptier or stabilise on a low level at best.

I believe they have something planned (upcoming, for when they get the live-devs), didn’t have resources to deal with it pre-HoT. Also, if you start server merges you will also lose people (the server loyalists). Probably the most extreme example, if they remove Sanctum of Rall most of their community will rebel and perhaps even quit the game entirely (Backstory of naming and the GHSC guild).

Jamais vu.5284:

Of course they won’t do it, because "server merges" PARTICULARLY after a major release is absolutely toxic PR. That is the cross they have to carry for still not having abolished servers. If they had a WvW-specific faction/alliance system or something else, it would sound much less drastic.

Agreed.

+1 been advocating the same.

Jamais vu.5284:

"Get statistics". Lol! The standard soulless ANet "method" for "feedback". You can wait for statistics, but please be advised that to Fortune 500 companies, a psychologist is an even more valuable asset than a statistician. And honestly, you don’t need a psychologist to get a feeling for what people are currently feeling about the new WvW content: They are utterly meh’d. They think the map is just boring and/or poorly designed. At best. At worst, the new map represents EotM 2.0 in all aspects except (still) server-based, and is thus toxic to them.

Also waiting 2 months just to START considering changes, which at ANets tempo would then follow at the soonest half a year later amounts to ... yeah. Gamers and consumers don’t like to wait more than half a year for a solution that should be high priority.

If they just start doing things/changes before they see how people move back and forth between new content with halloween and expack etc, they would most likely end up doing even larger mistakes. In the case of server merges, we could end up with some very badly matched merges. For example Kaineng + Isle of Jantir, two of the servers in bronze with the least NA presence, and best off-time presence. Or even merge together three different servers that would end up filling all queue’s in NA time, and be a waste land at night time. Information is needed, and right now people are moving so much about and trying different things, that it’s the worst time possible to make changes.

Map design is completely separate problem. More interested in what people think of the map one month forward than right now, this forum is incredibly resistant to change.

I do agree that WvW needs a lot of fixes, and that they should have been done 1-2 years ago. But expecting them to start just pushing out changes for changes sake now is not going to do anyone any service. They’ve had about a year since the DCI threads, they should have some plans ready, and now they have the live dev team (once the HoT patching is done I guess).

Jamais vu.5284:

This just made me doubt you are actually a WvWer. Megaservers would be the extinction of WvW. It would just become EotM, there would literally be no difference anymore (unless you think the reason EotM is universally despised among WvW circles is because of the map).

The servers themselves need to be drastically reformed into a WvW exclusive system, so pop balancing is not impacted by PvE player count. But yes, this would definitely include merges and would also have to be more flexible in other aspects.

Just to clear one thing right away, I said what i thought most likely from ANet’s side, and not what I personally wanted.

Anyway, the reason I believe ANet is looking at the MegaSetver/EotM model, is that it will be the most dynamic way to adjust both population and coverage. They’re probably not going to remove servers or go full EotM mode (they said before that they would like to avoid those). But they might find a hybrid solution, like the Alliance system that was kicked around a lot in the DCI threads. Or they might actually combine all servers during time periods so people have someone to fight outside of NA time etc. We will have to see what they do.

Also, with the change earlier this year, Servers are now ONLY WvW population active. No Pve, no EotM, no slumbering accounts, or any other theory people have had over the years. Only the total amount of man hours in WvW.

The server structure itself is inherently not flexible. That is the largest problem with it. I can see ways that server merges could be beneficial, but that also requires several other changes as well, and could end up being a lot more work than simply falling back to a hybrid MegaServer solution.

Jamais vu.5284:

Are you aware that the exact same WvW problems have persisted for *two-and-a-half* two-billion-plus-kilometre-earth-around-the-sun-float years? Since the locking of free server transfers?

Yes.

displayname.8315:

WvW was broken before the xpac and is broken after. The “reason of the month” doesn’t need to be brought up at all.

Just merge, or make a new megaserver tier, whatever its clearly broke so fix it.

Well, it was fairly obvious they where not going to change this before the Xpack, and not right after. Remember that the main dev team should start working on WvW now (according to the big WvW boss), so we’re not going to see anything happening right away.

But I’m going to guess that they have made plans (DCI threads), and made the things we’ve gotten so far with that in mind. So… we will just have to wait and see, until they’re good and ready to reveal what changes they will be making for WvW.

And considering that they specifically wanted to solve Population, Coverage, and PPT (DCI threads). I’m expecting the chopping-axe to the game-mode-as-we-know-it. So I’m just curious what comes out on the other side of the blender, could be good or bad.

Fun idea, but I doubt you will find much like for it.

The Hero Points is needed for the Spez, and a good bunch of players doesn’t want to leave WvW at all, and they want a way to earn their Spez while playing WvW.

Removing that, they would have to unlock WP’s and then go to those WP’s in PvE and do the skill challenges, and they’re just not interested in doing that.

+1

Would like to see it on top right, in same style as the daily achievements etc. With an option to turn off.

Agreed with Arius.

Completely wrong time for even considering something as drastic as server merges. They would at least have to wait 1-2 months to get better statistics to base things on.

Also suspect they would rather solve this in other ways than server merges, and guessing they will find a variant use for their MegaServer/EotM technology. No idea how they would do it though.

Knee-jerk solutions are always bad solutions.

@Puck

Like the idea! Still got to get some more experience with the event myself before I can come up with any ideas for myself.

Also like the idea of actually having a dueling area, or something similar, perhaps an arena of some sort, where you get points for winning fights.

Yes you can still roam. Solo, Duo, small group.

* Most NPC’s gotten a little upgrade, little bit harder
* Auto upgrade can make you stumble into upgraded camps
* Map is larger, expect to run more for objectives
* Map is larger, expect to run into less enemy players
* PvE/Ween/HoT Vacation, expect to run into less enemy players
* Camps are a bit tougher, recommend 2 players, or separate and kite npc’s
* Shrines are about same toughness as old non-upgraded camps
* Towers are much harder, I’d recommend 4 players, less the better the players are
* Easier to learn the rest of the map if you skip keeps, they are pretty complex

You will still be able to view it from the API, so if you remove it, people are just going to check it on the live map sites instead, or probably already do.

@Puck

I really think that Desert + 3x Alpine would make a lot of players just rage quit until EBG rotated back. I could be wrong, but there seems to be lots of players that only likes EBG, even before removal of Alpine.

Not enough experience with either SkyDino or AutoUppgrade yet to make a good statement. The feeling I’ve gotten so far is that I’m slightly positive to the AutoUpgrade, and slightly negative to the SkyDino.

@zombyturtle

That would be simpler, and was what they hinted at earlier in the development of HoT, that they would rotate the BL’s. And I agree that Desert lack a good middle objective.

I’d love to see alpine come back as well, but as I’ve noted a couple of times now I’d like to see it as a single map, and not 3x identical maps.

@Puck (again)

Agreed on the size and number of copies. Putting an objective in the middle of the Desert map would solve most of the issues, but EBG still has 2 more towers (6 total) to make all sides equal. And it would still not be popular with the EBG crowd.

Still think putting all 3 maps in would be better, everyone would get a map they liked.

seele der leben.7280:

I think if they simply downsized the scale of the new desert borderlands (and made it possible for us to use gliders in the WvW maps) they wouldn’t be so bad. The maps are crazy vertical so it’s easy to fall and die, and they’re massive so it takes forever to run anywhere.

Your ideas are pretty interesting, but it’d change the aspect of WvW completely. We have home borderlands so that each server has the “need” or reason to defend their map. I think if they mixed the borderlands up, they’d have to still keep it so that there are home borderlands.

Commenting on the design of defending a home map:

I don’t see why that has to be a complete map, why not part of a map ? Just look at EBG where we already have “color corners” that people try to keep and defend. This creates a much more dynamic style, as things change back and forth, people attack at the edges or tries to sneak past and take a camp etc.

The current system, we have an entire map, that is for large periods un-touched by the attackers. That makes people sit around and defend, basically upgrading, running around for nodes etc, but very little active WvW. Some like this, others gets bored.

But you could just as well do that on a map setup like EBG, and probably see some more action. If everyone is interested in protecting “their home corner” instead of “their home map”, you create less barriers between the defense and offense actions in the game.

To go a bit against the grain, you could also do this a bit different and have a single HOME map for all servers, and they have to fight over objectives to unlock extra services. Thins a Keep for Trade Post, another for Mystic Forge, a tower for crafting armors, another for crafting weapons etc. Would probably never fly with ANet, but could be an interesting concept to see different types of rewards.

@Puck

You really don’t want to "mess with" EBG, it is the most popular map, and if you removed it, even temporary it would probably create even larger backlash than what we got now. At the moment, many people consider it the last bastion of WvW etc. (This comes from me, that doesn’t bother going into EBG unless the other guildies force me)

I don’t think that it requires that much work to adapt a BL map to be fairly neutral. For the old Alpine one, the only thing you really needed was to adjust so all servers had access to a "Citadel" of their own with all the Services/Resources. And let red have the north position (Handicap advantage for red, they usually need it). I even expect that Bloodlust would be more interesting if it was a single map/bloodlust.

I’m not experienced enough with the new map yet, so can’t really say how that would work. But for the size, I think it would do much better as a singular map than 3x copies.

Kusaku.9056:

I would like it if every wvw map was different.. so green could have a forest map, red could be desert and blue could be the old bl map.

I like this, but to take it one step further, I wish each map also could have different play-styles, and let people enjoy different things. Instead of all being based around the same aspect that the current maps do. (fighting over objectives for ppt, upgrading for defense etc).

Would like to see some maps that actively encourage and reward you for small group/solo roaming where going more than 5 might be inefficient. Some sort of huge multiple arenas where you as groups have to fight against others to gain points for your realm, to reward fighting guilds etc. Or even some map where players compete indirectly without actual PvP for bonuses and points to the world, that would help ease non PvP players into the game-mode.

Unfortunately this doesn’t work all that well with the Home BL system, since that encourages identical/fair maps. But the way people fight over EBG I’ve always considered EBG corner of your color to be as much of a “home” as the home BL anyways.

Yup, been saying this for a year now.

The HOM BL system just encourages 3 identical maps, forces each map to have the very same play style, instead of branching out to make different maps for different people.

* EBG
* Alpine
* Desert
* <Optional>

People can go to what map they like, that fits how they want to play. Instead of right now where the few people left in WvW (that isn’t on PvE/Ween vacation) avoids the new BL because it’s new and they’re not used to it, or doesn’t like it (for whatever reason).

We already suffer from having too many maps for many match-up’s, and most of Bronze (At least for NA, probably EU as well, but I can’t answer that) just doesn’t have the population to fill this many maps.

Which is why I’ve been encouraging ANet to move over to a dynamic system for adjusting amount of maps.

And all this leads easily into a system where they in the future could focus on making more specific maps for play styles that currently feels left out. We already have *4* maps now with the same general principle of big groups beating on each others for keeps. Next I want some dedicated roamer maps, some huge arenas for large group fights etc.

I like the new map, I also like the old map

Instead of removing maps, remove the HOME BL system, so we can run different maps instead of 3 identical.

* EBG
* Alpine
* Desert
* <optional>

more variety, people could go to the maps they liked the best, that suited their play-style the best, and less whining about hate this and that.

"Catalin.5341"

Blobbing will always exist as long as an aoe cap exists. Making these maps larger helped with diminishing the blob, but not eliminating it completely.

This deserves a +1 and some recognition.

"Xillllix.3485"

3 copies of this map is too much for the current tier populations

Worried about the same thing, granted I’ve been stuck in bronze for a long while, but I keep thinking that a single copy of this map would have been sufficient (Thought the same about Alpine BL as well).