Guild Wars 2

The problem with making (for ex) towers longer and harder to take, is that they at the moment serve little purpose, they don’t really give you much other than a bit more PPT than a camp. I think the HoT map could change a bit on this, but we will have to see.

And because towers are largely so pointless to take, making them take longer to take will just make people ignore them, unless they have a zerg of 30+. There is also the whole population issue here, not many servers can actually spare enough people to defend a tower, especially when you take coverage into consideration. So everyone focus on keeps and ignores towers.

If you where to make towers take longer to capture, I think I’d rather see something like focusing more guards inside the tower, and have other defense mechanisms that would slow down an attack inside the tower. I’m going to get accused of being a filthy PVE’r now, but add a bunch more guards (especially the zealots and ritualist ones) inside the tower, and make the lord scale with the number of players, and have aoe abilities (the tower lord is stupidly annoying on single target, and not good for much else).

That way, instead of banging head at a door, we can at least kill a few guards, slight improvement.

Regarding the whole keeps vs towers and numbers. I’ve suggested before to have ANet scale the number of maps to the number of players. So we don’t sit with 3 empty borderlands depending on the Population & Coverage. There is no reason why Tier 7+8 for example should have 4 maps open at night time when nobody is awake anyways, EBG would probably be enough. This would force more activity on the remaining maps (and could also possibly remove the queue problem on higher tiers by opening more copies of maps).

Regarding HoT map I think it will be interesting to see what they do, but I doubt a single map can fix everything. Still looking forward to it though.

I’m already burned out on the whole PPT system/mechanic, so these changes wouldn’t really do anything for me personally.

increasing the health of walls/doors is just going to make PvD even more boring. Making siege more health is just going to make fighting against siege more boring. Making it worth more points to hold one object longer is going to favor the side with the greatest numbers even further, and create even larger landslide victories.

Instead of rewarding for taking things in enemy BL’s reward players for actually holding/defending something. Atm you will be better rewarded by taking a tower, running to take next objective while defenders back-cap it. There is no reason to defend anything.

When playing with guild, our main reason to take towers etc in enemy BL is mainly to get the defenders to come out and play with us. Unfortunately not often they do, it is just so much easier to just scout from the next nearest walls, and run and back-cap when we get tired of waiting and goes to take something else.

Well, just to clarify one thing, ANet does not want to remove zerging. ANet will never (ever!) remove a reason to play together with other people. It is one of their core tenets in the game, that you should never feel negatively about playing with more people (as in no disadvantage).

So nope, collision detection and friendly fire will never happen, because it is completely opposed to ANet’s game philosophy.

PS: Even if they did make collision detection, they would probably exclude friendly models, to avoid road-blocking-trolling. Just imagine a dozen idiots standing in the way for all the portals in and out of a keep or a tower.

It is a perfect way to get rid of zerging. Just imagine what happens when you throw a few AC shots or some red rings on top of a zerg. Everyone tries to run out, and collides with their allies outside of the rings. Or tries to dodge roll and crashes into another player.

I’d laugh myself silly.

Friendly fire is another thing that would completely kill zerging. Just imagine a zerg of 60 players, and the 20 guardians all fires up the loot-sticks #1 and watches the commander in front just go *poof*

I’d love it.

azizul.8469:

1. clear glicko score.

2. shuffle match up regardless of the tier

3. megaserver OS

I’m all for change, but not just for changes sake.

Blackgate vs Sorrows Furnace vs Ehmry Bay

That does not sound like a fun match-up for anyone involved. The differences between server sizes are so large (at least in NA) that making random match-up’s is just going to trainwreck the entire system. People most likely would just stop playing, which makes it even worse, and makes even more crazy glicko ratings.

In the end we would have for example 6 months where nobody enjoys playing WvW because most of the match-ups are so loopsided. And then everything would “finally” be back to the old glicko ratings we got now, and we would be stuck in the same match-ups.

And then people start talking about reseting glicko again…

Fix the root of the problem (Population/Coverage imbalance or the Point system!) not the symptoms (Glicko).

Agreed on OS megaserver/EotM style. (For those worried about the instances, just tax people in).

On the whole I like it.

The main problem I see with this solution is this part:

- A player chooses a Faction when he first logs into WvW. Their names are of minor importance and up for discussion. Essentially, it’s green, blue, and red. Factions can not be switched, unless a reasonable gem-price got paid.

What stops players from joining on one "faction" and create another unbalanced mess ? I have not seen anything yet that limits this. And even the soft-cap system will likely mean that this over-grown-faction will start new maps to dominate, or taxi in to existing maps etc. Because just as you see with EotM maps now, blue and red will typically try to taxi as many as possible into one instance, and let Green dominate the 7 others.

@ Dawdler: Just pointing out that he meant this as a 1 week game/match, not as a 3-4 hour matches as EotM is now. He listed that in his first few points. So community building isn’t impossible, but I agree it will be harder.

From the sound of things, they might be redoing the WvWXP thing a bit, think they talked about making it account based, so we might get a refund of it, but make one for all characters etc.

T raw.4658:

joneirikb.7506:

T raw.4658:

Dayra.7405:

T raw.4658:

Sube Dai.8496:

They can leave it TBH.

Its just played by people levelling/karma training – people you dont want in a competitive wvw match anyway.

Problem is unless you are talking about a T1 server then those ppl can play WvW to Ktrain. This will get some of the lower tiers players to fill their otherwise empty maps.

The same number of WvW-teams for 1/10 of people (compared to 1st year) interested is the problem of WvW and that you can only resolve by reducing the number of teams and the manpower requirement of a matches. Trying to force (it will loose more people than it brings people to WvW) people to play something they aren’t interested can’t be the solution.

People will always take the easiest path to their goal. That doesn’t mean it’s correct in keeping that path open.

Get rid of EoTM and dump resources into WvW. All those K Train fans would be ecstatic

They would just go back to Silver Wastes for loot. No idea where they would go for leveling though, sure ain’t WvW.

If you are using the WvW system to get loot you’re doing it wrong….

My point exactly. Players play EotM and not WvW, because of the XP and Loot you get very easy. If you remove EotM, they will go back to PvE. They will not go to WvW (little loot and little XP).

T raw.4658:

Dayra.7405:

T raw.4658:

Sube Dai.8496:

They can leave it TBH.

Its just played by people levelling/karma training – people you dont want in a competitive wvw match anyway.

Problem is unless you are talking about a T1 server then those ppl can play WvW to Ktrain. This will get some of the lower tiers players to fill their otherwise empty maps.

The same number of WvW-teams for 1/10 of people (compared to 1st year) interested is the problem of WvW and that you can only resolve by reducing the number of teams and the manpower requirement of a matches. Trying to force (it will loose more people than it brings people to WvW) people to play something they aren’t interested can’t be the solution.

People will always take the easiest path to their goal. That doesn’t mean it’s correct in keeping that path open.

Get rid of EoTM and dump resources into WvW. All those K Train fans would be ecstatic

They would just go back to Silver Wastes for loot. No idea where they would go for leveling though, sure ain’t WvW.

Here is a link to a video where one of the techs explains a few things about how servers work in a technical sense. If you full screen, you should get a chapter listing and can click on servers etc.

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/180776/Video_The_tech_challenges_in_Guild_Wars_2s_nosub_MMO_model.php

Frankly the only way I know of is to go into WvW itself and ask, or go there and find a WvW guild to hang out with.

No idea how it would work under HotM mode.

I think a better idea would be to move it to EotM mode.

That way you can fight against 16 enemy servers at any given time, and it will create new instances with lots of people, like for example if guilds are fighting in the arena.

1.

Latest word from ANet was that they moved all the WvW maps over to their own servers/resources for testing to find the lag bugs, so as of this moment, we’re still running WvW entirely on own resources, no mix with PvE, PvP or even EotM I imagine. So that statement is entirely false. If memory servers this has been the case for a month or so now.

Also from what I understood from listening to an interview with one of the developers about the server structure, that really would not be a problem in the first place, and I do consider him to be much better informed about Server related things and how they work etc than some random person on the internet forums. Sorry.

2.

And what would happen if they removed EotM ? I don’t think for a second believe that all those players are going to go to WvW and fill up your missing ranks of needed level 80 WvW experts. I imagine 99% of them goes straight back to PvE or PvP etc, and only a minority would go back to WvW. The only serious WvW people I ever see in there are people bored of completely dead match-up’s or training on playing as a group while their own match is to dead to try to fight as such.

Not to worried about the Queue’s either, unless you’re Tier 1+2, in which case you’re already boned. This entire idea about EotM eating up your serious dedicated WvWers is ..... I don’t think I’m allowed to use that word on the forums.

3.

De-stack won’t happen. Ever.

If they wanted to they would have already.

They prefer the Queue’s to the Tumbleweeds, get over it.

4.

I’ve been a dedicated WvW player this last year, but witnessing posts like this with people wanting to destroy an entire aspect of the game because they don’t like it, and they might get 1% more people in their own mode, and ruin it for the 99% of others. Makes me want to vote for the destruction of WvW just to rub you the wrong way.

@Hexin

Well if all servers with sea coverage rolls into one kingdom, then yes, pretty kitten. Hopefully it means that the other sides get more coverage in other times to even it out. On the whole however for NA at least, I think the top 3 servers are still going to face each others each week, and that is probably going to solve 50% of the coverage by itself with their numbers...

@lordhelmos

Kingdoms:

Battlegroup system, will solve the population problem as well as can be done with the game in current state. The only other alternative would be to remove servers entirely and make everything into a join random color system (which would tick off people even more). This would allow for changing teams to avoid stagnation and to much server jumping to stack one. IF you also avoid the 8vs8vs8 setup of current EotM, this can also adjust itself better to the big (WvW) population differences between servers by having it scale itself.

Problems related to this:

Server PRide: While this will retain servers, it will reduce the value of one, it is up to each individual to how bad this is for them.

Communications: Each server is setup with their own voice-com/forums/websites etc, and there is no reason to share this with players from other servers, if they might be enemies the next week. This will limit communications inside a "Kingdom".

Languages: As someone else pointed out earlier, EU has a unique problem here with non english speaking servers.

Personal opinion: I’m not a particular fan of this system myself, but it probably the best solution we have to the problem, and the alternative is most likely a slow bleeding death to WvW.

Map Rotation And Battles:

Dynamic Map Adjustment. Good, this will deal with coverage, Queue’s, nightcap’s and other changes in population over the day. Depending on the amount of players online it can range from 1 map to dozens.

The change to a sPvP style map selector is a nice touch, easier to adjust to the number of maps. The ability to see number of players feels a bit weird. I guess a graphical representation would work since ANet refuses to show clear numbers. The numbers seems a bit off but as you said they are to be adjusted, another idea here is to dynamically remove maps once they pass a certain low threshold to avoid empty maps for 2-4 hours.

Love the ideas for new maps, been wanting some of those myself. The more diverse maps the more interest for larger amount of players, the more variation etc. Especially think we would need 1-2 maps designed specifically to ease new players and PvE’ers into WvW, to get used to the format and play style without feeling overwhelmed.

Some points:

Keep EBG as the default map. It is the most popular one, and a good amount of players would just leave if they found the EotM map etc. (Each to their own, personally like the EotM map, but no point in making more frustration than needed)

One important note is to make certain people feel/notice that each map actually does matter for the WvW points. A *lot* of people are just going to join and casually say "meeh eotm" and leave the map without even bothering to check that it does indeed give points, and Queue on the main EBG map thinking it is the only map "that matters". Keep maps open for as long as there is population, shut them down when they get empty, and somehow show clearly that you gain points from the other maps.

Kingdom and Army Rewards:

Don’t have much comments on rewards, never really mattered to me.

What I am curious about is how will this work with the leaderboard, server ratings/glicko etc. This would make it mostly hopeless to keep a ranking system as we have today. I don’t really have a problem with that myself, but the ranking is important for some, and a driving motivation for many. Having a hidden rating for match-ups is ok, but how will servers be ranked ? This is a huge part of driving peoples competitive instincts.

Problems Solved:

Agree with all points except these two:

-Kingdoms and servers have to tactically decide where to spread their armies as new battle maps are spawned in order to continually win victories on maps.

Servers perhaps, but kingdoms will lack the communication to pull this off. Some minor ways to work with this is to make a new chatt channel "/server" that will work for all players in WvW maps on the same server to communicate. And change "/team" to work for the kingdom and all players in WvW for the same kingdom. It would also make them troll-able, so some way to deal with that would be needed, but that is not the purpose of this post.

-Players gain server pride by winning and gaining gold, silver, or bronze wearables.

I guess this might work for some (wouldn’t do a thing for me though), but I’m mostly curious how this should be rated ? I mean if Blackgate and Eredon Terrace plays in the same Kingdom what metrics are used to calculate this ? Blackgate has a gazillion more players and a bunch more guilds, are they going to grab the gold reward every week ?

And if they don’t, won’t they feel cheated for having "participated the most" and not getting rewarded for it ?

Tricky.

Love the idea all over, thank you for sharing this and hope to see more from you forward.

Reto.6712:

BrettM.9062:

Come to IoJ! What other servers call "solo roamers", "duos", or "small teams", we call zergs. You won’t find smaller zergs anywhere else! Pop a tag and be your own zerg! What could be finer?

You’ve never played in T7 or T8, have you?

Ah beautiful Kaineng, where more than a full party = Zerg.

Considering how a server status can change during the day (how many are on), and that guilds can log out to change status etc. It looks like the server status is based on "currently online" accounts. Not accounts that are offline.

So 2 year old accounts, or inactive accounts etc, shouldn’t count for how full a server is.

I definitively agree that WvW is rough on a new player trying it for the first time. Been there and done that, was confused as all heck.

I lucked out and found a guild with roamers, that likes to run around 1-5 players. Started running with them, and learned a whole lot. The lower servers also gives you some more leeway with this, in that the map isn’t packed to the rim with enemies.

The local Kaineng joke "Queue’s ? Never heard off."

What worries me the most is that through the entire tiers, CD is 48% to get same match-up, And T8 is a pretty even shot which of the 4 servers gets to play with T7. Outside of that, there is 50%++ chance of keeping the SAME match-ups through entire NA.

It is official, WvW players hate change, and wants to meet the same servers day in and day out every week, every month. I can feel the love in the match-up threads already.

*grabs popcorn*

Agreed. Also like BrickFurious idea of using /team for this.

Bishop.6120:

The new cap reduction, whatever it is can be a good thing. It pushes players to BLs instead of all turtling the Dorito in EB. I can’t tell you how many times EB was player capped with a karma train extending the length of the map and we couldn’t even find a few people to flip a camp in our own BL.

I really feel this is wrong, why are everyone piling into EBG and avoiding the Borderlands ? In that case they should rather reduce the number of Borderlands, and put up more copies of EBG.

Stupid Homemap system. They could have so much more freedom with maps if they just got rid of it.

*Changes to walls*

Agreed.

*Changes to doors / Gates*

Interesting, though I’d prefer 20% less damage with rams, and remove PvD.

Heh, another idea here would be to make each ram within same area do -10% damage to each others. Which would make 1 ram good, 3 still faster, but not as fast as today.

*Changes to landscape*

No comments

*Changes to siege*

I actually think this could be a valid solution to the FoC/AC situation.

*Changes to policy*

Agreed, but I think this is already in there.

TheSongBringer.2834:

unfortunately, it looks like FA will not make it into T1, unless something drastic changes in T2. The servers there have reached a glicko equilibrium, where FA is simply not capable of beating YB and SoS enough to gain appreciable amounts of glicko off it.

And so they are stuck, FA straining at the end of a tether, T1 just out of reach, with YB and SoS at the other end.

Actually, as long as they are close enough to roll a random week into T1 they still got a chance for that. If they actually match up against 2 T1 servers a single week, they will gain lots of glicko unless they are completely destroyed. Which will increase their chances further for later weeks.

As coglin said, the dev said he had reduced the cap limit, and upped it up to 10% of what it was before he changed anything. And it is a temp change until he has rooted out the problem with the server-lag. And for all I know it might be to make metrics easier to read on his end etc.

It will be back, once they have killed the problem.

Also reading this I’m wondering just how much action is on EBG compared to BL’s. Might be more worth replacing 1 BL with another EBG copy at this rate.

Edit: just to clarify since I realized my above was a bit unclear:

* Dev reduced population by approx -20% first when there was a problem. (80% of original)
* Dev then changed it to only -10% as it stabilized a bit (now to 90% of original)
* Dev is going to put it back once the problem with the server lag is fixed.

Dayra.7405:

Currently in off-time zergs jump around on the maps to cap stuff without resistance i.e. they actively try to avoid each other. So they CURRENTLY do a lot PvE/D as PvE/D as this is faster and gives more points.

The idea behind my proposal is: If you make PvD more effort than fighting each other, people may fight each other more and do less PvD

I think this is more a player thing. Some people enjoy PvD and others light fights. Nothing wrong with that, both are valid play styles in this game. But people that enjoy PvD for PvD’s sake probably would get more fun out of EotM, with better rewards and how some of them coordinate to avoid each others.

In WvW I see PvD happen the most when one server has a huge advantage in a certain timezone, so the opponent just doesn’t have the numbers to fight back, so they just go back or go back flip camps. My own server tend to do this at night time, as we have higher night presence than most other bronze servers. And several of those PvD not because they enjoy it, but often for a lack of something else to do, or just to grind PPT for the server’s sake.

I’ve posted some suggestions regarding changes I’d like to see to the outnumbered buff before, probably buried a dozen pages back by now. But the gist of it was to give outnumbered players some tools to compensate for the number difference, but not the actual stats or strength of a character.

The main change to npc’s that I suggested, was to add scaling to champions, so they still took roughly the same amount to kill with 5 or 50 players. So zerging wasn’t the fastest and most efficient way to take everything, to make it very obvious that it would be faster to split and take multiple objectives instead.

Edit: wow, it sensored "as" followed by "50". that is pretty harsh.

Dayra.7405:

joneirikb.7506:

Outnumbered effect is simply useless in the current form:
+33% Experience
+20% Magic find
+25% World Experience
Take no armor damage on death

If you want to make Outmanned-Buf useful, without hurting fights make it affect what really hurt the outmanning side: PvD

If you are outmanned you have:
Double upgrade speed for objectives
Half Supply demands for objective upgrades
+20 lvl for all NPC on the outmanned side
Twice as many NPC
Tripple life for walls, door and siege
no (5min) invulnerability buf for enemy lords
a 15min invulnerability buf for your lords (everything you turn lasts at least till tick)

No idea how you managed to quote my name to the part of the post that was from the other poster.

In summary to your suggestions, I think it would make a whole lot of people really annoyed to get “more pve”. I would be more interested in a gradual scaling of NPC’s myself to even out things a bit. But dislike some of your ideas here, like the RI changes. And feel the upgrades would be largely useless outnumbered.

RedBaron.6058:

Outnumbered effect is simply useless in the current form:
+33% Experience
+20% Magic find
+25% World Experience
Take no armor damage on death

To be a little more meaningful I would add the following effects considering the outnumbered world is fighting for survival, all soldiers have the despair adrenaline power and all resources are used like there is no tomorrow:

Double supplies carry capacity
Permanent +33% running speed
-10% damage taken
+10% damage done
3 stacks of stability refreshed every 60 seconds (non stackable except with other skills)
Aegis refreshed every 60 seconds

The reasons this is such a bad idea:

• If 2 roamers meet far elsewhere on the map, one will have this huge advantage
• If 2 havoc groups meet 5vs5 elsewhere on map, one group will have this huge advantage
• If a guild group of 20 meet a 40-60 map blob they can have this huge advantage
• This probably also affects siege…

And a few more I can’t remember.

This buff invalidates the “rough balance” we have between characters. There is a reason why ANet have never added stats to outnumbered, or much anything yet (people are still surprised the bloodlust buff gave stat bonuses).

I don’t mind the extra supply limit (helps against larger amounts of enemy = more supply), not really against the speed boost either, though it should be smaller than the speed signets, so less than 25%, to not invalidate options for players. I can see a 10% fitting.

Oscuro is on FC right now, some of the guild transfered over to fight our own guys. (I moved my second account there for the same reason, I didn’t see any queue’s when I checked yesterday but only checked twice).

I’ve never seen that happen in the BL’s myself, and I’m almost never in EBG. And here I thought our server was safe from that kind of trolling Ah well.

Radke.9467:

Lol at people upset over fighting the same server 3 weeks in a row.

People in T1-NA have been fighting the same 3 servers for the last 7 months.

They’re also the only ones not complaining…

Dayra.7405:

Isn’t the Reason for outnumbering obvious?

The match capacity is to high.
4 maps a 100 people a 24 hours a 7 days is 67200 play hours per team and match.

No server is even close to use that, in mean the capacity is probably used to less than 10%.

You can only have balance at times where the capacity is used. And as it is never used you have never balance.

If I understand you right, you think that the map population limits, the 24h game system are parts of the problem. That as long as we can’t fill these up around the clock, the problem will remain ?

Then the obvious answer to that would be EotM style “server combiners” and “overflow maps” ? With the note that at the moment, EotM is not quite balanced for the numbers game either.

The more I think about the server system and population, I don’t think we can avoid either server merges or a “MegaServer” system along the lines of EotM. HoT might give a surge of returning players but that won’t sustain itself in the long run and something still has to be done.

Either a limited server merger, or making smaller EotM like alliances could work well if also moving all maps over to a overflow system. This would allow the servers and system to adjust the number of maps, thus the total “map population limit” to the number of players available.

The actual amounts of points doesn’t matter so much, since you can still add them all up and divide them up by the numbers to still get the percentage difference, which is what you need to make glicko ratings anyway.

While I’m still against actually messing with servers, and changing to either of these ideas would anger some of the server defenders. Not doing anything might be even worse in the long run, since the game is still losing players.

Just to throw in my experience on this. I have not experienced any notable "server lag" on Kaineng at all since these issues came to be. Do note that I’ve played 99% Borderlands and rarely if ever touch EBG.

All the "lag" I’ve had, has been because of own connection problems, me forgetting to turn something else off, or router/wifi problems etc. Where it has affected me only. So I have no experience with this whole Server-Lag.

My respects to you for taking hold of this ANet!

Raolin Soulherder.3195:

can’t really blame Anet. when they vary the opponents, people complain about the large disparities in matchups that result in lots of blowouts. when they pair up the closest ranking servers, people complain about it getting boring fighting the same people.

This.

Sometimes I wonder if they should make every EVEN week “no random glicko” and every ODD week “large random glicko” (Current is “approx” +/-100, how about change it to 150).

That would give us a bit of both. And give ANet a bunch of headaches I can imagine.

* Many servers have experienced way worse
* For way more weeks (Poor NSP and IoJ)
* Which server would you rather be matched against ?

Forgot if you’re SoR or AR. But look at you options:

Above EBay, IoJ and CD. There is a reason GoM is in Tier 6, because they have recently lost to all of those, so what makes you think those are going to be any more fun to fight against ? They’re probably much bigger or have more coverage.

Below you got FC and Kain, neither of us can really keep up with you at this time, and will be no challenge for either of you at this stage.

In short, you have the most balanced match you can get right now.

Haven’t played against many sword based thieves, I do love them for not running SA, thus making it a more fun fight for me on the other side. But I haven’t really tried a sword build yet myself (outside of pve). So I can’t really comment.

Though sword is better off with more power based stat sets of that is what you wondered about. I looked at one of the S/D meta builds, and saw a mix of berserk, soldier and valkyrie stats.

No thief expert, suffered a bit of the same as you. Thieves are mainly good for roaming in WvW, small groups of 1-5, and some of the best solos. The most common builds I see used are D/P power builds (mainly Berserk, with some mixes), and P/D condi builds (Mainly Dire, some mix with apotechary).

These two are very different from each others, and I’d try to play and get used to them in pvp first, before starting to buy all the equipment.

Most people that play WvW a lot, will either run "meta builds" or something similar, either from having come to similar conclusions from playing a whole lot, or because they’ve taken a Meta build and adapted it for their own preference and style. So take a look at this site to look at the most common thief builds, and see what you like, then try it in pvp to get a "taste" for it.

http://metabattle.com/wiki/MetaBattle_Wiki

Just don’t take it as the holy gospel or anything, sometimes they don’t fit your style, and you need to reinvent the wheel yourself.

Edit: Forgot to add, my main problem with playing thief is getting the key skills to hit, from other classes I’ve played, I’m not used to the larger time for activating certain skills, so I tend to flounder about and not hitting with the most important skills. Definitively something I need to practice on more.

No buffs = expire

That alone would fix a good bit.

But letting multiple claims work, would let 2-3 guilds have claims with different buffs. But expire with their buffs per above.

godofcows.2451:

farm the farmers.

I more and more would love to see this happen, someone make a video of this please.

When you get a match-up with very large glicko differences happens, it is because there are no other servers with similar glicko left to match-up with, which is when you get 300 glicko difference etc. Because they system MUST match you up against someone. If there was enough closer options it would have picked those instead, but servers are to different in size for the glicko to do its job as it is supposed to.

The Human Error.

Hardvark.6572:

Why oh why does outnumbering in WvW even exist?

All it does is give any side with more people to automatically win any matchup, which is quite obviously a ridiculous schoolboy error by Anet.

Why does outnumbering exist ? because this game is played by HUMANS. Which live and work and sleep in different times of day and night, which have their own motivations or interest to play or not. That play as little or as much as they feel like when they feel like it. And sometimes change servers.

The point here is that this isn’t something that ANet really have any control off at all. So what are they going to do about it ? Take people OUT of servers and force them into new servers, and refuse people to change servers afterwards ?

Hardvark.6572:

If anyone out there thinks that Outnumbering has anything to do with skill, please let me know what it is, because I can not see any good reason for it.

I also think that Golems should either be taken out of the game, or restricted to day time use, as a hard days work fighting to win towers etc can be overturned in an hour or so by just a few night-cappers! At least this would make them have to work for their auto win.

Come on Anet…lets make this a fun and fair game of skill, instead of just about which side can muster the most players.

Nobody thinks numbers = skill. Numbers does however = PPT, and PPT is how you win a match-up, if not a fight.

And restricting anything at specific times is just really bad design and customer service. There are a lot of people that work strange hours and can only play at night (I’m one), or live in other nations like the Australians playing in the NA servers, are you saying that no Australians should be allowed to use golems ?

These two problems (Population + Coverage) are probably the two largest problems with the entire WvW system, and the reason they are so difficult, is because there are no clear cut answers on how to deal with them. They are considered “inherent problems with the real vs realm mode”. From what I’ve seen old DAoC players comment before, it was the same back there as well.

There have been several discussions and arguments over these before, and there are some ideas that could somewhat help. But just going “kill it now.” is not going to help at all.

bradadad.8915:

Simply put, I would like to know what the various top WvW servers are like. I have 6 lvl 80s but haven’t played in ages. Would like to decide where to go.

You kind of need to explain what kind of server you’re looking for.

The differences between servers can be larger between tiers than between servers in many aspects, so without knowing where in the tiers you’re interested in sitting, there isn’t a whole lot to recommend.

I could always say “Come to Kaineng!” since you haven’t specified any criterias at all. But the truth is that Kaineng is pretty solid in T7 right now, has one of the (NA) games worst NA presences, live entirely on night cap, few commanders, no real guild groups running etc. Unless you like fighting outnumbered, or night-cap-pvd, you’re probably going to have a hard time here. Heck we’re also the only server without a community web-site, and a mess of 3 different team-speak servers and nobody can agree which to use

But hey, if you’re the kind of person that strive on challenge and believe you can thrive under ANY circumstances!

So:
- How “large” a server are you looking for ?
- What level of coverage ?
- What level of guild presences ?
- What time zone you interested in ?
- What play-style you interested in ? (Roaming, zerg, duels, guild, defense, etc)

And probably a dozen more I can’t remember right now…

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/The-Death-of-Sanctum-of-Rall/first

Won’t work for the start, as a lot of people are interested in trying the new map etc.

Also, that would mean that only one server got access to the "citadel shopping service" as things stands right now, since those will only be on one side of the new desert map.

besides those (which can be solved with some time, and moving a couple of vendors around), the main issue is that it completely ruins the "home borderland map" system (which I’m all for!).

Besides, For us in bronze, we currently fill a single EBG at prime time, now what are we supposed to do with 3 EBG’s ?

Sure wouldn’t mind trying though, any map change is welcome to me. Just note that only EotM and EBG are designed for being a single stand alone middle map. Alpine+Desert BL maps are designed as BL maps, which favors the home server.

Bronze is tier 6+7+8
Tier 8: 24+23+22
Tier 7: 21+20+19
Tier 6: 18+17+16

9 servers total.

I really enjoyed Munkiman’s suggestion in the DCI point thread, about removing PPT entirely, and replace it with PPK, PPC (capture) and PPD (Defense).

But yes, PPK was fun, I really miss it.

Also read your other thread, just don’t argue with the Lawyer Troll.

My main annoyance with the food could be solved by simply buying the food once, and have an upkeep cost for it per 30/60 min. I just find it tedious and dull to have to reapply the food/util every 30 min, find that it has worn off in a fight, and remember to buy new stacks of it.

I’d much prefer it they where changed into specific food slots, where you rather buy the food and have it permanent, and can swap it out. I’m just tired of the "wear off" aspect.

Though +1 about the comments above regarding condi duration +/- food. bad design.

Agreed. Mainly because I hate to have to refresh them all the time.

dancingmonkey.4902:

The jumping puzzle is outside the actual WvW realm.

As well, you cannot argue that you contribute to the PPT unless your ensuring bloodlust is active or you are honestly killing guards and yaks.

BL JP is still there (and I occasionally see people go there and leave map).

The halving of the population per map takes care of the largest problem.

The bad effects I can think off would be mostly for servers that can put larger numbers on maps, generally t1-2. They might not enjoy being so split up over 7 maps instead of 4.

Interesting idea, looking forward to see more ideas and input about this.

<kidding>New strategy to make us spread out over servers!</kidding>

Haven’t even logged in yet, sorry, just needed to get the imp out.

* I don’t like the stealth mechanic in this game.
* I don’t think the stealth mechanic itself is broken or completely bad.
* I think the problem is the "Shadow Arts" trait line.
* And that Thief doesn’t have any other reliable condition cleanse.

If I play my guardian, and I meet a Thief and engage it, and discover that it runs SA. I just stop fighting and walk away. I’ve so many times walked from North Camp all the way back to one of the south spawns, while the thief keeps trying th harass me, while I keep cleansing off his condi’s, heals, blocks, invulnerability, and otherwise slowly negate most of his damage, while I just walk back to spawn, because it is faster and less boring than bothering to fight against him.

Haven’t met many thieves that can kill me on my way from north camp back to spawn yet -_-’