Guild Wars 2

The problem with server merges is as always, that you re-create the same problems we’ve always had in WvW. That people stack on one server, fairweathers come bursting out of the shrubbery, and the usual lack of balance between populations.

Players will not balance themselves, so the only thing ANet really can do with this is block transfers. Or only allow transfers to the lowest pop or something, and even that will get gamed.

Starting to like the idea of nuking all servers, creating new servers with a HARD-SET limit, and then just use the linking to toss together a few servers each link. Sort of like what the Battlegroup idea was supposed to accomplish.

Or separate wvw/pve servers entirely. Just randomly assign new accounts to NA 1,2,3,4,5 or EU 1,2,3,4,5 etc, but let you pick a wvw server when joining WvW.

The WvW “server” doesn’t even need to be a own server, just a way to sort people out. This could also build the foundation for changing how servers work in the future.

Good post Foghladha.

I really wish I could agree with more of it, but Kaineng has had this habit of getting thrown into T1, or near enough. And unfortunately myself and the guilds I run with isn’t very fond of that. We wish we where linked more with T3-4 servers. But it seems to be our lot in life.

But we’re sitting crossing fingers for next pairing! I do like the idea of being a mercenary server sort of, and several of us have friends on various other of the old low tiers servers, we would love to play with/against.

Deniara Devious.3948:

- better rewards and WvWvW specific unique rewards e.g. ascended and legendary back item (this will have positive effect on population)

I know I’m not one of the hip kids that runs around with shiny stuff, but I can’t imagine a single thing less constructive for fixing WvW than slap some Legendary ugly backpack skin on it.

Deniara Devious.3948:

- fixing population imbalance issues
- better skill and gear balance (currently few professions/builds and gear sets e.g. durability runes dominate the meta)
- reducing the lag

- How ? I really agree that population is one of the 3 largest problems with the game mode, but just how are you going to fix that, short of deleting all servers, and randomly distribute players to servers, and remove transfers ?

- Do like!

- I’m afraid they probably reached their limits for the engine, and it might need a whole lot more work than it is worth at this stage. Doubt it is something as simple as “throw more cpu at it!” as some people seem to think. But obviously less lag is always better.

On the map idea:

• I would prefer a true 3 way map (ala EBG, another BattleGround map), focused on keeping things active. And preferably also do some changes to EBL/DBL to make them similar. I’ve stated my preference for this several times, you’re all sick of it by now.
• If not that, then I liked some of the ideas above. Including Gudarain’s mini map !
• If it has to be a BL map, well then I don’t really care. :p Just take Tangled Depths and make it a BL map and call it a day (J/K)

takes a breath

• If willing to move away from teh BL system/design, so we could actually get different styles of maps, aimed at different play styles, some that could be interesting:
• TheRing, mentioned this before a few times, a circle map where you have moving fronts, where you have to take a tower/keep to progress to the next one. The idea is to always know where the action is, and always be able to run to where the fight is etc. Not my pers favorite, but I think there are a lot of players that could appreciate it.
• TheJungle, or some other thematic to allow for lots of small points/objectives, that does things like open new paths, change terrain, affect traps etc. But nothing big, basically something aimed at roamers and small havocs. With a good bit of los breaking and places to hide and run. Just whatever terrain used, don’t make the map hate all ranged with “Obscured”.

Because that is how the map/mode is designed to work.

Tifa.6473:

The yaks are fun in wvw and one of the things that hasn’t changed about wvw since launch. They also look cool in their little christmas gear at christmas time. So hands off the yaks op.

I really don’t see where he wanted to change Yaks ? Perhaps adding a bit more supply to Yaks? HE is talking about changing other things like the amount of supply in camps and a few other things, but not the yaks.

Would there be a way for ANet to disable any tonics or stuff that gives you active new skills ? Like the example above Dash. Alternatively just make a WvW variant of all tonics or the entire tonic transform effect to remove all such skills ? So people could still transform for the look ?

I like some tonics and stuff in WvW, I’m especially sad that my Frying Pan doesn’t work in WvW I keep wanting to use it to cook up a mean with flaming vomit and all when the group is taking a short break, or dueling or something.

And again people complain about condition without seeing the other side of the coin.

Condi is powerful in roaming (1-4)
Condi is ok in Havoc (5-10)
Condi is useless in Zerg (10+)

The problem isn’t “Nerf condi!” because it is strong in one aspect, the problem is that they need to re-think/design how condi works for the whole game, so it doesn’t get polarized on the amount of people. They need to find a way to make Condi scale with the number of players (somehow).

The first thing they should look at is “condi cleanse”, things like aoe cleanses, few cleanses on some classes, more personal cleanses, less aoe cleanse, and probably add another stat to reduce the effect of conditions (or include it into one of the existing ones NOT TOUGHNESS).

“My car is old cheap and rusty! Remove all speed-bumps, because they make my car into a wreck!” <- Fix the root problem, stop complaining about the symptoms.

Actually it is 4 for Zerging (GREN)
Pretty much all of them for Havoc
And like 5 for Roaming (the other 5)

Zenith.6403
Jeknar.6184
+1 to both

This might be a bit extreme, but I’m curious about the possibility of removing supply from camps entirely. And only have camps generate Yak’s to up-grade and fill up the tower/keeps supply. It would definitively change things.

• There would be much fighting over objectives.
• You would need one structure to have a foothold on a map
• Would give a logical path or branch of paths for where people strike
• Siegerazer would make sense, to get that start tower so you can fill it with supply

It certainly comes with some weirdness that might be considered negative.

• Probably lots of fighting in map chat about who takes supply for what from towers
• Generally restricts supply
• Less supply around because of no free supply from camps and flipped camps
• Less reason for most groups to go to camps, send a few roamers instead.

Don’t know how I’d like it myself, but interested in how people think this might play out for various tiers, sizes, etc. You would almost certainly need to allow supply through maps, or optionally just give full supply on map change automatically, or this would collapse under lock-down. My own guild would likely get annoyed at inability to get supplies for catas to take down towers and keeps when people aren’t coming out to play with us on the camps.

Interesting idea. Looking forward to seeing someone more versed in use of supply than me to comment with their thoughts (I mostly roam when I play, so as long as we have enough for a cata or two we’re happy)

morrolan.9608:

Jayne.9251:

I’ve suggested that you cap existing servers like the battle group suggestion and keep them locked, no matter what, with spaces only opening through attrition.

Overcrowded existing servers would evict accounts based on seniority, until parity is reached.

The alliance system locks people into a group for 14 weeks. You don’t think that will annoy people?

Couple that with a doubling transfer cost each time you jump, and I think you’d begin to see stability, cater to ALL players who all paid the same cost of the game, and keep everyone happy, rather than the select few who have clearly outlined their agenda in the past couple of pages of this thread.

Most games are scrambling to create community, because they know that equates to player attachment and longevity of the game.

Blow that up and it will be a steady slip into obscurity.

If they are going to keep the current system then I actually agree they need to make changes something along these lines. However in a broad sense IMO this will lead to the mode continuing to stagnate, plus it doesn’t really fix the issues of population disparity. There’s real no incentive for player engagement so the player base will continue to decline. It will become more and more casual, which probably means less headaches for anet it must be said.

Wanted to highlight this post. It is a good prediction of the direction of WvW.

Basically we’re moving toward EotM mode. And the more I think about it, I think that is what the developers wanted or had in mind from the start of WvW. I honestly can’t see a single way to make the current WvW design competitive in any fashion. So the question becomes:

“What is WvW supposed to be?”

Unfortunately the practical effect of this would be a whole lot of trash talk.

I could see a point for “/say” but even that would mostly be abused for more trash talk.

Caliburn.1845:

Been watching this discussion with interest.

First, the battlegroup idea. To what degree it was developed and the specifics of how it would work are unclear, and if it had gone Live the finished product would almost certainly have been different than what Mal’s sources told him.

But it is clear that World Linking is only a band-aid solution to WvW. A short term fix for larger systemic problems that need to be addressed to revitalize WvW.

I have been a WvW commander since the first month of the game(and am still active). The game-mode is incredibly stale, players and guilds are quitting, disbanding, or branching into other game-modes to maintain interest in GW2.

So to McKenna and the other members of the WvW team, pick a direction for WvW and go with it. It might be wrong, it might be right. It might work, it might not. But right now WvW is just sliding into oblivion.

If you have to do away with servers in the process, do it. If you have to fundamental change how scoring works, do that. If you need to revamp mechanics and maps, do that.

But don’t rely on the players to direct your attention. We’re a diverse and argumentative group that will never agree on anything, and if you leave things to us WvW will never change in any meaningful way.

+1

[Spikes]

Nope, I’m never going to get over that…

Aeolus.3615:

Btw factions would work on NA, but would also work on the EU servers?
Dont actually EU side have more servers to stack?

And about the new sistem Anet wants to adopt, 1k players where that 1k is devided across 4 maps right?
Wich means, arround 250 per BL+EB wich leads to arround 80ish players per server… what is the diference that we have now??

Some good soul, can help me to understand how the battlegroup works?

From what I understand, it means that one “Battlegroup” can max be 1000 people. We don’t know if a single Battlegroup would be a single team or part of a single team (say red). But if this is the entire team in an entire match-up, it would mean that you have a total of 1000 players, depending on their activity, to cover your entire 24/7 of a match-up, from a single side.

So if those 1000 players all go full tilt entire weekend, through all times of day. How much do you think they will have time to play during the week ? etc. It isn’t entirely clear from the brief base idea, exactly what they mean or how they planned to solve this.

Edit: Also it isn’t a new system, and ANet is not going to adopt it. While we can’t confirm it either way, it is what might have been one solution they considered before we got Linking instead. But a plausible one that matches comments and rumors etc from people in the know.

Agree with Hexinx.1872 and Jana.6831 on this one.

If you want to reduce lag, then reduce the map caps again. (That and get ANet to reduce all the silly glittering animations or let us turn them off, I’m sick of watching puking unicorns when 5 people attack at the same spot).

If you remove doors, upgrades, heck lords ? then people would stop going to SMC. And well it might fix lag, since people might go fight elsewhere, but you’re kind of ruining the purpose of the map. Siege is a part of the game, doors is a part of the game (Well used to be, lately I only see people using catas on walls instead of doors).

So by Stopping Upgrading, Remov Doors, and Disable Siege, Always Paper. Hey, that actually does sound like EotM! I’m not really against some of those in limited dozes, but it sure would kitten off a lot of players, I’d dare say “most”. What you’re describing though, sounds just like an EotM Keep, fixed level with no upgrade available, people doesn’t bother siegeing it, and often doesn’t bother even using rams when you can just map blob AA the doors. People leave it and just re-cap it, because it is easier and faster than trying to defend it (not to mention more rewarding in terms of loot). Lacking only one thing you’re talking about, actual fights.

Might be more interesting to look at Tactivators, how much Siege you can put down in one area (does this even work?), map limit. But frankly if you want fights I don’t think there is anything you can do, since most players seemingly is afraid to hut their pretty precious pixels, and would rather flee from any fight rather than risk the possibility of death.

Other fun options though, is to stop objectives from repairing itself on capture. I imagine SMC might look like a swizz cheese entire weekend afterwards. And honestly I don’t think that “ninja smc” is really worth much, I’ve taken SMC severl times with 5 people back in tier 6-8, and it really isn’t anything special unless someone comes and defend it, the ninjaing tends to be very boring. For everyone.

Also very much like PariahX.6970 suggestion! +1

Pumpkin.5169:

Manually running supplies to repair stuff is already boring enough and you’re asking to people to run hundreds and hundreds of supply to upgrade things.
Nah.

Have to agree with this.

I do think that removing supply on change map might be worth a separate consideration. That seems to be the main problem ?

1000 players is pretty small to fill an entire WvW match-up for an entire week. Including all time zones, and all days a week. If all those 1000 players decide to play weekend only, it could be completely dead in week days etc.

Still pondering what I think of the system, it is interesting, but also not developed enough to give all the answers and details needed.

For one thing I can’t see anything but a rough idea on how to actually construct the teams. It mentions mixing BG’s, Guilds, and single players, but no details at all on how, other than trying to keep friends and guilds etc together (guess they would use the existing megaserver matching up to do the last bit).

By that vague definition we could end up with 5 different small BG’s combined with a dozen solo players, and a few random small guilds.

Also see no clear signs of when it locks downs the teams, and for what period. Does it only lock it down for the 4 week tournament at the end ? But stays open for the 8-10 weeks before that ? They can’t shut people out of the entire thing for 8+4 weeks just because they just joined a guild/bg and want to try ? Perhaps they only mean per week, or for the final tournament style 4 weeks.

For the game design of a PVP game mode, this makes a lot of sense. It doesn’t solve everything, but it does solve a few things. Ah well, will have to ponder it more.

A giant [Spike]

I’d wear it.

My main problem with the no gliding in WvW, is because in the rest of the game, you’re getting conditioned/programmed to use gliding to save yourself from falling down. So many stupid deaths because you stop thinking for a moment and try to press you jump button to glide the last bit, so you don’t die, and… splat…

Suggested before to make a variant for WvW, that is just a small parachute (that looks like wings for ease, and no need for new graphics). That you can use to fall slower, just so you don’t have to paint the floor in a lovely shade of Scarlet Red. Stuff it into a WXP track or whatever, but at this stage, most people are so used to just using the glider to tap the jump button near the bottom to halt the fall enough to not die.

+1 Tongku.5326

This is the single biggest problem with the game mode, it just plain isn’t fun (for most people) to play outnumbered. Makes players leave and come back when they’re leading. No amount of points or rewards are going to fix that.

You could probably hand out precursors for defending maps 10 vs 100 ratio, and you would have a hard time to fill that map.

Also regarding the Vendor, I think he is there simply in case someone still have some tokens from the tournaments they haven’t spent yet. I know I had a few spare for about a year after last tournament (until I finally relented and wasted them on infusions…).

Jana.6831:

joneirikb.7506:

Even if they did try to make DBL a bit more 3-way like than Alpine was, it was still nowhere near what EBG is/was. And there was still 1 map designated for each server, with a clear home advantage in north. It is still designed to be a “Borderland” not a “Battleground”.

No, it wasn’t, it was just like EBG, the server it was assigned to had no advantage.

I think you’re the only person I’ve ever seen compare DBL to EBG. It doesn’t have anywhere near the same dynamics for channeling people toward SMC/center, the closeness of objectives that you’re always fighting for or protecting something, or have somewhere to run back to. DBL is just overly wast, doesn’t have anything in the center at all to encourage people to come (not even with the lazer). Everything is much more tricky to get to, objectives are scattered around in a circle and not a 3-star like EBG.

So no, even if it did have free waypoints in towers -> keeps, it is nothing like EBG, If anything it is more like EOTM map. I don’t see your point at all, no matter how much you say: “No, it wasn’t,”

Jana.6831:

In your mind 4 EBGs might work out – I don’t think it will and there are a lot of people who only play on their BL /BLs in general. So I guess you’re pretty alone with your idea how wvw should be like.

And now I feel you’re putting words in my mouth. I have not said 4 EBG, or any number of any maps. I’ve said that the servers should dynamically change the number of maps to the population.

If there are 20 people online tops per server, we probably shouldn’t have more than 1 map (but probably would still have at least 2, for 1 ebg and 1 bl map). If there are 200 people in queue for EBG, by all means, open more EBG maps. Less lost zerglings to get lost in the alpine/desert maps.

I for one have played 95% of my time in WvW in Alpine and some Desert, I hate EBG like the plague.

The one thing that would be lost, is the definition of a “home map”. Instead you would have to defend or focus on a “home corner” in one of the maps, I’d guess EBG might fit the best for this as most people seem to care for it (for some reason).

But this is diverting the topic, so I’ll stop responding about this.

Jana.6831:

joneirikb.7506:

Just to clarify that what I’m talking about is not DBL.

That’s great, but the DBL was set up as tiny EBLs when they launched – just that people didn’t get it and anet didn’t tell us. The WPs south, then keeps were only usable by enemy forces.

joneirikb.7506:

DBL is built around the same principle as ABL, that each server has 1 borderland map to call home, and that it favors that side dominating the entire map keeping it single color. And having the south objects flip a bit more often.

See above.

joneirikb.7506:

They tried to change thing sup somewhat with the waypoint changes, but it would still be a far cry away from working like a true 3 way map like EBG.

No, it would’ve been a 3 way ebg, just that we didn’t have enough people to fill 4 maps. And that no one got what anet wanted to do with the DBL – in the end it’s better like it used to be and like it is now, isn’kitten The forces that are strong enough can afford to have a keep in an enemy BL.

joneirikb.7506:

I think that a lot of the things going backwards, might no longer work because the players and times has changed. But there is a whole lot of things changed, so I might think of different things than you do. People certainly can’t agree on where they want to roll builds etc back to.

The thing is: wvw is turning more and more into EotM and we already have that. I guess people would still be able to learn tactics if that made sense again, otherwise we could just delete wvw and spare us the hassle.

Even if they did try to make DBL a bit more 3-way like than Alpine was, it was still nowhere near what EBG is/was. And there was still 1 map designated for each server, with a clear home advantage in north. It is still designed to be a “Borderland” not a “Battleground”.

I’d just like to see them go all the way with that, and remove the entire “Borderland” system. Make “home” a home corner on a map, instead of a whole map. But yes I fully know that there are people that disagree with me. I just think that the other advantages to such a system would out-weight the draw-backs. You obviously disagree.

Jana.6831:

joneirikb.7506:

I personally am of the opinion that a single colored map is a boring map, so I’d like to see all maps (alpine/desert) remade into the EBG style with 3 roughly equal sides. And I would love to see one of them, or a new map made as a dedicated “home map” for all 3 servers, with defensive advantages, benefits for controlling things etc. Basically making keeping your side matter. I think that would be a more fun “home” system than the current “keep the map in single color”.

We had that, it didn’t work (DBL).
Also what a lot of people (and anet) should realize in my opinion: Things were rather well back in the day. Instead of trying something new every other week, we should go backwards in a lot of cases. Unfortunately the situation is that dire for wvw that it’s a ton of problems which can’t be solved at once (unless you roll back the game, at least for wvw, to before June 23th 2015).

Edit: Grammar

Just to clarify that what I’m talking about is not DBL. DBL is built around the same principle as ABL, that each server has 1 borderland map to call home, and that it favors that side dominating the entire map keeping it single color. And having the south objects flip a bit more often.

They tried to change thing sup somewhat with the waypoint changes, but it would still be a far cry away from working like a true 3 way map like EBG.

I think that a lot of the things going backwards, might no longer work because the players and times has changed. But there is a whole lot of things changed, so I might think of different things than you do. People certainly can’t agree on where they want to roll builds etc back to.

Yuffi.2430:

Joneirikb – while I understand your suggestion I would not be in favour of losing the “home” map. That’s just a personal opinion. I am one of those players who will happily run around in my home BL refreshing siege, retaking stuff and keeping an eye on things. I enjoy a good run in other maps too, but my priority has always been home.

WvW is a game mode that has so many different ways to play – and they’re all good. It would be good to find a solution will allow this variety to continue.

Understandable, fully recognize that you lose the current definition of home map in what I’ve suggested.

I personally am of the opinion that a single colored map is a boring map, so I’d like to see all maps (alpine/desert) remade into the EBG style with 3 roughly equal sides. And I would love to see one of them, or a new map made as a dedicated “home map” for all 3 servers, with defensive advantages, benefits for controlling things etc. Basically making keeping your side matter. I think that would be a more fun “home” system than the current “keep the map in single color”.

But there are as many opinions as there are humans (+ a few extra, for those with multiple personalities, or that just never decide on one).

But basically in this case, I wanted this system, so it could generate “low-pop” maps in the current match-up’s without interrupting the games too much. If we just tacked on another map on top of the existing ones, it would just get deserted 90% of the day, and queue’d with people that don’t want to be there on reset, that would try to zerg it.

8/10 good troll, would be trolled again.

The more I think about this situation, the more I want to promote the idea of removing the “home map” system, and clone up more maps as needed. And add a specific map as “low-pop-skirmishing-map”.

Yes that whole no home BL system, so they can add/remove maps with the currently active population, and such that I’ve promoted a bunch of times before. But I still think it would fix this issue, and a few others. Just have the servers self adjust the number of maps needed, and if they need 3 copies of EBG so be it, if they need 2 skirmishing maps ok done. Only 1 borderland ? or 3 ? sure.

I think it is an interesting idea with some fun options. Would need a lot of pondering and discussion first though, to think through all implications. Would be a very fun 1 weeks test.

+1 to this thread in general. Think I’ve argued for most of these points before.

I’m a bit torn. On one hand I had more fun in the told T6-8 myself, but I have also seen how much others have hated it and prefer the new links.

Personally I’m just sick of getting linked into T1, I just can’t stand playing there at all, and it just ends up with me leaving the game for weeks or months at a time. And as the OP said, the worst part about this, is that there isn’t anything I can do about it, I can’t even transfer, as whatever server I transfer to might get lumped into a T1 server/match-up next.

I realize that I’ve been very unlucky with my links so far (T1, quad-server, t1 again), but I believe that the linking also have done some good for a lot of others.

I would very much like to see some servers put in a own t5 or something for small scale (KN+AR+ET for lyfe!) but realize that there would be a whole slew of other problems related to this (All those on those servers that wants a more t1 experience, the whole select server on first toon creation, before learning about servers and wvw etc).

Ideally, they would have the time and money to make it so that the game mode had a place for everyone. Own maps designed for various scales and play styles. A own small scale roaming map, with no keeps, but lots of camps, towers, and other small objectives to be fought and harassed over. Low map pop, lots of spread out terrain with plenty of small points etc. Who knows. Then we might be able to play how we like in any tier, but I expect people throwing a fit over this as everything else.

+1 lmperdigao.2567

+1 for this. Doesn’t help that each new linking is effectively a whole new server, old ratings does not reflect this properly.

Mixed. Glad they are active and tries to fix problems faster. Sad that they fixed it with a manual adjustment.

I don’t resent the manual adjustment as much as others obviously do (as I don’t consider points competitive, and largely ignore them for anything but match-making).

But would still prefer to see them fix it another way (fix the system, not the symptom).

• Full reset Glicko to 1500 start of each link
• Partial reset glicko to 1500 +/- 100 start of each link, after rank.
• Glicko slowly creeps back toward 1500 each week to remove glicko walls
• Set upper and lower cap to avoid glicko walls being formed

Agreed with how backward the Glicko works with the linking. Support changes done to it, like reset all glicko to 1500 (median) on new linking, and let servers battle out to new positions, until we got established tiers last few weeks. Bit of both for everyones taste.

Alternatively, make a mechanic where servers gain/lose a certain amount of glicko each week, so everyone slowly creep back towards 1500 (median). Or cap Glicko at X and Y, so they can’t run away far enough that they can create glicko-walls.

Jana.6831:

joneirikb.7506:

Or more likely, there are a bunch of devs that would love to do just that, but don’t get the “go” signal from their bosses, so thus can’t do anything about it, as it isn’t prioritized. Company gotta make money after all, you don’t make money from patching/updating the existing game (unless there is a montly sub), so I’m betting 90+% of the effort is on the new expansion.

Be glad we got people patching and fixing things at all.

~80% of my buddies left the game because there’s no balance.

All of my real life buddies left the game after 1-2 weeks after release, essentially because it wasn’t WoW. People get tired of the game, find other things, things change the game etc. Sad to hear you lost people you used to play with.

But ANet specifically stated when they released the game that as with GW1, they didn’t plan on making a game to keep players playing all the time, they planned to make game people could come and go from/to. I do think they’ve done a good job at that, it is a very easy game to put aside for a few months and come back to for a few weeks etc. Unfortunately most WvW’ers love to burn themselves out :p

Obviously the world would be a better place if they fixed balance, not arguing against that. But the world would also be better with Rainbows, Unicorns and free funding to game developers so they could work on what they wanted to work on and not what their bosses tells them to prioritize.

And the best balance, is when there exist absolutely no reason to pick one over any other play-style, except for what fits you personally the best. Haven’t seen a game manage that yet.

@ Offair

It does change a thing, it isn’t a big change though. It means that unlike before where Server A (Evil) completely dominates all maps for several days and gets ex:

Server A: 100 000
Server B: 10 000
Server C: 10 000

Now at the very least

Server A: 60 000
Server B: 40 000
Server C: 20 000

Or more likely a mix of them.

It is also a mental change that you can fight hard to win a skirmish (2 hours) to get that +3, despite how much you lose out in coverage.

If you want changes past this, you’re going to have to consider EotM style changes with 4 hour long matches and full reset. Because this is an inherent weakness in the 24/7 game mode, that can only be fixed by players actually moving servers to balance out.

(I mean, there are dumb suggestions like just having ANet program teh game so you’re given points for anything, including dying, so all servers always are identical in scores no matter what….. to always have close matches, even if none on your server shows up. But seriously, we’re not PVE!)

Timelord.8190:

Yes, it’s very strange that they won’t tell us the number limit. They might keep it secret because the limit is un-even, or scales after the server population. I don’t know. I just think it’s just very strange that they are so secretive about it. Something fishy must be going on…

ANet has never given out ANY numbers for anything ever. So don’t bother with conspiracy thoughts etc, there isn’t any, it is just the company line to not give out hard numbers. They only thing they have said is that they promise it is equal between the servers.

I can understand them in a way, it makes it easier for them to adjust and change things as needed in background (as when they where testing on the map-population regarding a lag issue a while back) without people blowing totally up, as you know they would if they had clear numbers say: “Modified EBG from 100 pop to max 80” you know the forums would be full of rage.

It is also a fact that anything players know, they will game. So if we knew the pop limits, or numbers to outnumbered etc, we would likely find some way of abusing that, because that is what players do.

So it does make sense for them to keep some numbers back (that we strictly speaking don’t need). Heck, had I been in charge of that, I’d have added a 1-5 randomizer on the trigger of outnumbered just to mess with players trying to calculate it.

The Skirmish doesn’t stop night-capping, it stops runaway scores, which is usually a result of night-capping.

So instead of the night-cap server getting 8 hours of +695 PPT every 15 minute as it used to be (forgot the current numbers, sorry, been lazy), now they can max get 3 points per 2 hour, while the other servers still get 2 or 1 points.

instead of night being server A 2345132445 points, and server B and C 0 points.

Or more likely, there are a bunch of devs that would love to do just that, but don’t get the “go” signal from their bosses, so thus can’t do anything about it, as it isn’t prioritized. Company gotta make money after all, you don’t make money from patching/updating the existing game (unless there is a montly sub), so I’m betting 90+% of the effort is on the new expansion.

Be glad we got people patching and fixing things at all.

It’s all a conspiracy, it is actually entirely random!

Infusion.7149:

Jeknar.6184:

I think he’s asking for itens with these stats combinations which are only avaible in the spvp amulets and not for the amulet system itself. I would like to see some of these stats combination added to the current stats in the game. I surely would play a lot around Destroyer, Diviner and Seeker builds.

exactly.

I’m not asking for the PvP system to replace the WvW one, only the stat combinations.

Oh my bad, mis-understood your post.

I don’t have an opinion about the stats to be honest, as long as they don’t take away my Celestial stuff Typically I don’t really care about the new stat sets since they take too much grinding and PvE for my taste. So I tend to just keep rolling with my old Celestial + mix of other stuff.

As long as they’re “Equalized” I’m happy, either direction

nerovergil.5408:

WVW is all about PPT, if u dont want ppt, just want fight, go play 1v1 spvp server..

Actually, WvW is all about sandbox open world PvP game.

So it is all about going out and do what you want to do in such a mode. As long as it is not considered griefing. After all, all those people that like to play for fights also bought the game, and no-where does it say in the game, rules, account agreement etc that you must play WvW maps for the points.

If your great passion in the game is to make map-queue tonic parades, sure go for it.

This is why trying to ficus balance around Points is futile.

If you’re getting beat in Points, the system should ideally put you down a tier, until you’re “competitive” again. If you start handicapping the points too much, then there will be even less movement between tiers, and a server that is collapsing will have a really hard time moving out of a tier it no longer belongs in.

Ex: If blackgate rolls low on Glicko and gets a T2 match, and then the two other servers gets pile of bonus points from outnumbered handicaps, and scores almost competitive with black gate. They will hinder Blackgate to get back up to T1 again. While at the same time, the two other servers in T2 will still be greatly outnumbered, all the time.

Most people don’t think it is fun to be outnumbered.

+1 to “toned down”

EDIT: Please disregard this post, I completely mis-understood what the OP posted. Leaving it so others can see what the responses are about.

This one again, very short:

A lot of WvW players prefer to be able to mix their armor, trinkets etc, for different stat combinations. As well as the larger selection of Runes and Sigils etc. This is notably the Roamers and other players that typically can handle themselves.

As such, those same people gets really annoyed at the idea of getting less options for customizing their build and variety etc.

On the other hand, WvW would benefit from copying some of sPvP’s restrictions on runes/sigils etc, I think most would agree on that one (you know, no trapper runes, durability or perplex etc).

Personally I’d like to have the option to run either a PvP build or a PvE build, since I tend to hate grinding in any form, and like to test out new stats and builds etc, without breaking the bank.

Other options suggested before, having a slightly expanded PvP Amulet system where you can split it up in either 2 or 3 equal parts, so you can pick some mixes to get more different combinations (ex: 1/2 Berserk + 1/2 Knight).

TLDR: You’re going to get a lot of negative comments in this thread.

I don’t remember that one, so I stand corrected !

I just can’t stop laughing at the mental image:

“The numbers are wrong!” -players
“Uh, we’re looking at the code and live numbers they’re right, the sides are equal.” -devs
“No they’re not! We don’t trust you! Put someone that knows what they’re talking about here!” -players

Just how it feels like at times.

Slightly off-topic, but how many times to the poor devs have to state that there is not a different queue number for any color in the WvW maps, before people stop asking that one ?

I think my earliest memory of reading these forums some 3+ years back was people complaining “Green has more people on map than we have!”. And I’ve seen devs state “nope, no team can have more than any other team.” about once every 3 months or so.

Geez, you people really can’t give them devs a break on that topic :p Whom would you trust to answer this if not the devs ?

PS: The chances are higher that it is a bug with Outnumbered effect and how it triggers.