Guild Wars 2

dank.3680:

lil devils x.6071:

ThomasC.1056:

lil devils x.6071:

Actually they DID advertise it as " Large scale PvP" and stated that was what the players asked for and was giving us when they discussed the results of the surveys they used to create this game. They specifically told us the players asked for large scale PvP, that they heard us and they were giving it to us. So YES, they not only advertises it as large scale PvP, they outright told us that is what they were giving us and why many bought the game.
Raiding castles is still nonstop PvP if implemented properly. Players fighting other players over objectives = WvW. " nonstop PvP action" should be players fighting other players nonstop over objectives. I am not sure what you are understanding that to be.

PvD undefended structures on the other hand has no place in a PvP game mode, nor should it be rewarded.

I was there in the beginning too… Yet, many things changed since then in WvW, PvP and PvE, so it feels more relevant to look at what they advertise now, instead of sticking to what they used to advertise, even if I understand the disappointement.

As much as I understand their official site, the main focus of WvW seem to be taking on and holding objectives (and thus, PPT). And in the process, you may encounter opponents, thus have PvP. Not necessarily in a big scale, by the way.
If no player defends an objective, then you can take it on your own, just by opening it, and fighting the NPCs. That’s more or less impossible to avoid in a 1 week persistent map. It’s hard to have a sufficient amount of players any time, everywhere.

There’s here a slight difference with using objectives as an excuse to do (I exaggerate on purpose) blob vs. blob (what many ppl understand as “large scale PvP”) in the middle of a field, with no interest in camps, keeps or towers. And there’s such a biais currently in WvW, as I stated in another post, where I related 2 comms blob vs blobbing in the field amongst green objectives (we play red) and not caring about our red towers and camps being taken over. We were players who took those objectives, and raised them to T1, and we were disgusted.

In a nutshell, and from what I understand from updates and official site, ANet expects players to focus on objectives, ways to take them, upgrade them, get benefit from them, and hold them ; and have large scale PvP at various stages of the process.They do not expect players to focus on looking for a big crowd to fight in some kind of large scale courtyard ; and not care much about objectives which would be mere “PvE gimmicks”.

Since you have been here as well, you would know that the reason players moved to the field and stopped messing with the objectives and caring about the score was due to the Arrow cart damage increase on players and the rewarding of PvD. Winning became an embarrassment, not something players were proud of. Players started out in the objectives and caring about the score, but due to Anets decisions, they changed that. Anet has to change the way they treat WvW for players to care again.

They moved away from the arrow carts, and if they want players to return to the objectives they need to change siege vs player and the way it is rewarded. The focus should be on players fighting other players over objectives and to get it to return to that they need to make necessary changes to correct the problems otherwise it will never change and only go downhill from there long term. Currently die fast, go back and PVD undefended structure have your zerge jump on siege inside objectives and not fight = WIN. That has to change if they want players to care about winning again.

There are multiple ways to accomplish that easily. One, for example, would be to use the objectives to just “BUFF” the fights, not score on it’s own. Instead the objective gives players the most loot and PPK while fighting over it instead. That way the objective is actually MORE valuable than it is currently, but doesn’t actually do score points on it’s own without players doing something to earn it. If you only score points and get loot while fighting other players over yaks, towers, sentries, camps, keeps then the objectives actually matter, it is not an embarrassment to win, and players are willing to fight over them as they should have been all along. Players fighting in the fields and not caring about the score or objectives is due to the game being broken and needing to be fixed, not because they players are actually doing something wrong. Fix the game and players will play it and enjoy it that way.

Every time you make kitten up like statistics and make lump assumptions of who did what and why, you just look like an idiot and invalidate any argument you may have.

I’m getting real tired of seeing you talk like you speak for every kittening player in the game… And making up bullkitten about the maps being the reason players were lost or gained, it’s just kittening rediculous.

Hey I’ve been here since obt1 and I left the game right when HOT came out TOO… Guess WHAT…. IT wasnt due to kittening DBL…….. I came back later TOO… Guess what… it wasnt because of kittening ABL..

I don’t know why I’m surprised though… Coming from KILL who spews nonsense daily in WvW about if you aren’t on a melee train class and not on TS you don’t deserve to WvW and are inferior to KILL…. Such ego’s.

Yea.. Not sure who kittened in your cheerios but No need to " invent" stats. They should outright email poll past and present WvW players over a certain rank and stop assuming what people want and don’t want. They can actually get back old players if they find out why they left and address the issues.

Here this may help you get a grasp on how this came about:
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/WvW-Timeline-Situation-Explained/first#post6083538

Not speaking for every player of course, only the ones who I asked specifically what it would take to get them back to the game, which happen to be quite a few. One of my multigame RL college guilds ( over 2,000 members) actually are in numerous guilds on many servers both Eu and NA servers on this game, and the other guilds I am in here also have quite a few players that were affected by this. I play this with real friends and family, so yes I do care whether or not my friends are happy with the game, even if we disagree with what will make “us” happy to play it. ( Get this.. I don’t actually mind going to the DBL so much, but those I want to play with DO mind is the issue and they left the game over it. Enough of my friends left the game over it that we would no longer play this game and have to find a new game to play together if this isn’t resolved). I do not recall ever saying you came back for the ABL, so sure whatever your reason for coming back is your reason, not everyone else’s. I never left, but have plenty of friends and family who did, and will do so again if they bring the DBL back.

I primarily play Necro, not a melee class, but will switch if we are short heavies as needed since I play for the team ,not about just doing whatever I want. What classes and builds are played depend on party composition so you can have a properly formed squad, so I change according to what is needed. Every player should be on voice coms however, for communication purposes so they know what is happening in the game and do not miss 99% of the calls made.

I do not recall ever calling anyone " inferior". In fact, I am the one who says people should be nicer to " uplevels" and help them rather than discourage them. Everyone was new at some point. If you ever get to a point that you don’t think you need to evaluate what you are doing or have room for improvement and listen to criticism, you have gotten to the point you should / uninstall and find a new hobby.

Not sure what got your undies in a bunch, but I think you may be a tad mistaken about what you think is going on here.

Straegen.2938:

I thought these trebs were able to be countered by cheap ballista fire?

They are.. or you can just go over there and kill them like any other open field siege. It wasn’t hard to do unless of course they are just one of those nublets that run around on the walls in circles screaming about being attacking instead of doing something about it.

DenaDeathbringer.8419:

You’re wasting my time with your biased thread. Nobody wants to be bothered by it. Oh, wait, I’m speaking for everyone when I don’t know what everyone thinks. Wish I knew what everyone thinks like you do. By virtue of the fact that ArenaNet is doing polls to see what the WvW’ers want shows that they care very much about the players and want to deliver the best gaming experience possible. How better than to have polls to then deliver such content?

EXACTLY! Give us the " keep or scrap DBL" poll and see what happens. No reason to second guess, they just need to poll for it. Of course if they refuse players can just petition AGAIN and make their own polls AGAIN as they already did during the DBL boycott.

testpig.5018:

Desert BL does need some fine tuning with the overall layout. Main thing.. the Towers in DBL.. don’t offer much reason tactically to be taken. I guess when you had the Oasis event, the southern towards had some reason to them for a shortcut.

But now, with the removed waypoint, the towers don’t provide any purpose.

in the ABLs the Towers(atleast SWT, NWT, and NET) allow you to start a treb siege against the near by keep.

in the DBLs.. you don’t have any of that. Making towards just something to Do for PPT instead of pushing the fight.

The strategic placement of towers on the Alpine map not only make the towers more valuable to defend and take, they also force the hand of the defenders that if they let this go they will lose their keeps as well. It is a nice strategic move to turn the tables and force the defense to play offense to take out the trebs and get those towers back.

Bandini.6185:

lil, if you’re advocating for a removal of DBL, this is not the right topic. We both know a lot of people (me included) don’t want to (and won’t) play on DBL, but the option of scrapping DBL is out of the table.

So, you think it’s a bad poll. Ok. But repeating it every 2 posts is rather counterproductive.

I was told having Alpine back in Spring was off the table too, see how that works? As long as players do not give up letting them know, NOTHING is off the table. Players just need to make sure they are heard. If Anet does not offer players a poll with the options they want, they create petitions and polls of their own..

While this should have been fixed long ago, I am still not sure why people get so irritated with them. I never had any issue taking down a spawn treb any more so than any piece of open field siege. It isn’t like there were legendary defenders to kill you near where they were placed, nor were the trebs invulnerable so you could just go over there and take them out or bali them the lazy way…

To me was no different to take out than any other placement for open field siege. Just go over there and kill it.

Dawdler.8521:

lil devils x.6071:

With 2 alpine 1 DBL, you still have the issue of:
Server with most players willing to go to DBL = WIN
Everyone else don’t bother.

Makes absolutely no sense.

No matter which server gets it, its still only 1 out of 3 borders. If one server put lots of resources into it then thats less players on 2 alpines – which mean the other 2 servers will outnumber them and gain ground there instead.

Your comment is about as logical as saying whoever has the most people willing to go to EB wins, dont bother with the borders.

If it is someones home BL, it makes all the difference. If no one will siege it, refresh siege for it, scout it or respond to calls to defend it it is a guaranteed loss for that team. If your server has players that will only respond to Alpine maps& EBG , and not DBL s (what actually happened to numerous servers since HOT release), the game mode is broken for those servers.

Players are willing to go to ALpine and EBG, they dont go to the DBL because they hate it. That was why the had a boycott , EBG queues were insane and players left the game over it and they brought back Alpine in the first place.

Whichever server in the match has the most players willing to go to the DBl at all, will win since the other teams will not EVEN if that is another team’s Home BL since if the home team will not defend it due to it being a DBL, the team who has most players that will go there at all will have free reign over it.

Will the same amount of players who will respond to Alpine and EBG calls ALSO respond to the DBL? They didn’t respond, scout or defend the DBL is why so many left the game over it, they considered the game mode unplayable at that point. When you have 25 people that will hop to EBG to defend and those 25 people will hop to Alpine to defend but only 7 of those 25 will hop to DBL to defend out of that group so you are forced to fight 7 vs 35 people are not very happy with the situation it creates.

The most important thing to remember is players do not stay on one map, The same players hop to all maps to defend all objectives in the game, they will do for all maps EXCEPT the DBL is the problem.

Crise.9401:

lil devils x.6071:

Of course! That must be it? How much you care to wager?

For starters HoT’s poor performance is reference to less than expected rate of conversion from F2P to HoT purchases. It doesn’t necessarily correlate with the people playing the game right now vs before HoT. It just means there is/was less than expected number of actual paying customers.

Secondly, short of that one month shift in their internal priorities there is no public record of expansion pack 2 being “pushed back” or delayed. As far as anyone here is concerned bulk of their development resources are still on expansion pack 2. Beyond that we have never known when it was supposed to be coming at all. We know/knew next to nothing about their content pipeline for this year beyond the last raid wing and LS3, likely coming around the next quarterly update.

As far as WvW is concerned the most current authoritative sample of its state are these recent polls and so far, this utter loathing for DBL is not evident. At least not to the degree that you make it out be or then people are more willing to accept a compromise than you think.

This dialogue has probably ran its course, so I too will be bowing out now.

Poor Hot sales are due to the vast majority of $10 and F2P Purchases being WvW players making more accounts for every server in the game. Care to count the number of posts in this very thread alone that are asking to remove the DBL? How about the numbers on the petition they had on on here a few months ago? There is no need to speculate, it should be voted on outright. No harm in taking an actual vote is there? The population decline for WvW due to HOT was addressed thoroughly in these forums, just scroll back and have a read.

TheGrimm.5624:

Liston.9708:

what xtd said – NO != no DBL….

IMHO, this poll was worded much better than previous polls. The results pie chart doesn’t differentiate the 2 yes votes however….

A NO vote actually means you will have 3 months of DBL when it comes around where as the YES vote means ABL and DBL are up with differing mixes of how many of each.

The base poll remains, all of one type of borderland with a rotation or both types are always up, hence why there are two YES options.

That is assuming they let WvW maps population decline for 3 months again. They very well may realize that is bad after the fact and change their minds. They have been doing that quite a bit lately.
With 2 alpine 1 DBL, you still have the issue of:
Server with most players willing to go to DBL = WIN
Everyone else don’t bother.

Teon.5168:

lil devils x.6071:

Teon.5168:

Crise.9401:

Teon.5168:

Translation: Source does not exist. Have fun wasting your time trying to find it.

I would tend to agree, I am pretty sure I have read every single red post on these forums, at least since HoT, and most dev comments or reddit on top of that. However, I don’t recall anything having been mentioned about next expansion beyond the fact that Mike Z is at the helm of that ship and that the team was “offline” for about a month to fix up HoT.

There is no feasible way to construe that as ArenaNet changing the next expansion ETA, because to my recollection we never had any ETA to begin with outside unofficial predictions by third parties or trying to divine the future from NCSoft forecasts.

Agreed. Am sure it was something said by the devs that lil devils misinterpreted in some bizarre way, and that now is his ‘source’ for this mysterious Anet saying HoT was a flop garbage. Just projecting ones’ own biases on some innocuous dev post, I would be willing to bet.

Of course! That must be it? How much you care to wager?
If you make it worth my time I may consider retrieving it for you.

You already did retrieve it, and I am getting a very good chuckle at your biased assumptions and misinterpretations becoming something that “Anet actually posted”

If nothing else, you’re certainly entertaining.

No, I have not retrieved it that was just their quarterly report they posted a couple of weeks ago.. Not all the other data that was posted over the last 6 months… That is a pain to go and get again. Keep talking though, it makes you look brilliant to everyone here that already read this stuff. Day late and a dollar short to the wrong show.

Teon.5168:

Crise.9401:

Teon.5168:

Translation: Source does not exist. Have fun wasting your time trying to find it.

I would tend to agree, I am pretty sure I have read every single red post on these forums, at least since HoT, and most dev comments or reddit on top of that. However, I don’t recall anything having been mentioned about next expansion beyond the fact that Mike Z is at the helm of that ship and that the team was “offline” for about a month to fix up HoT.

There is no feasible way to construe that as ArenaNet changing the next expansion ETA, because to my recollection we never had any ETA to begin with outside unofficial predictions by third parties or trying to divine the future from NCSoft forecasts.

Agreed. Am sure it was something said by the devs that lil devils misinterpreted in some bizarre way, and that now is his ‘source’ for this mysterious Anet saying HoT was a flop garbage. Just projecting ones’ own biases on some innocuous dev post, I would be willing to bet.

Of course! That must be it? How much you care to wager?
If you make it worth my time I may consider retrieving it for you.

Crise.9401:

Teon.5168:

Translation: Source does not exist. Have fun wasting your time trying to find it.

I would tend to agree, I am pretty sure I have read every single red post on these forums, at least since HoT, and most dev comments or reddit on top of that. However, I don’t recall anything having been mentioned about next expansion beyond the fact that Mike Z is at the helm of that ship and that the team was “offline” for about a month to fix up HoT.

There is no feasible way to construe that as ArenaNet changing the next expansion ETA, because to my recollection we never had any ETA to begin with outside unofficial predictions by third parties or trying to divine the future from NCSoft forecasts.

Yea.. No. Surely if you had read the forums for months and watched the boycott and why they brought Alpine back unfold, you would have to have amnesia to have missed it.. I am not going to go drag the numerous threads and posts about it all back from months back, but I will leave this tiny bit here referencing the discussion since this was just on the forums a little over 2 weeks ago:

The performance of HoT was not as expected. We have taken that as a lesson. A second expansion is in work and will be released as soon as possible.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Guildwars2/comments/4j3ntv/ncsofts_earnings_report_1q16_strong_performance/

Of course if you have read the forums as you suggested, you would know that already though right?

ThomasC.1056:

lil devils x.6071:

Actually they DID advertise it as " Large scale PvP" and stated that was what the players asked for and was giving us when they discussed the results of the surveys they used to create this game. They specifically told us the players asked for large scale PvP, that they heard us and they were giving it to us. So YES, they not only advertises it as large scale PvP, they outright told us that is what they were giving us and why many bought the game.
Raiding castles is still nonstop PvP if implemented properly. Players fighting other players over objectives = WvW. " nonstop PvP action" should be players fighting other players nonstop over objectives. I am not sure what you are understanding that to be.

PvD undefended structures on the other hand has no place in a PvP game mode, nor should it be rewarded.

I was there in the beginning too… Yet, many things changed since then in WvW, PvP and PvE, so it feels more relevant to look at what they advertise now, instead of sticking to what they used to advertise, even if I understand the disappointement.

As much as I understand their official site, the main focus of WvW seem to be taking on and holding objectives (and thus, PPT). And in the process, you may encounter opponents, thus have PvP. Not necessarily in a big scale, by the way.
If no player defends an objective, then you can take it on your own, just by opening it, and fighting the NPCs. That’s more or less impossible to avoid in a 1 week persistent map. It’s hard to have a sufficient amount of players any time, everywhere.

There’s here a slight difference with using objectives as an excuse to do (I exaggerate on purpose) blob vs. blob (what many ppl understand as “large scale PvP”) in the middle of a field, with no interest in camps, keeps or towers. And there’s such a biais currently in WvW, as I stated in another post, where I related 2 comms blob vs blobbing in the field amongst green objectives (we play red) and not caring about our red towers and camps being taken over. We were players who took those objectives, and raised them to T1, and we were disgusted.

In a nutshell, and from what I understand from updates and official site, ANet expects players to focus on objectives, ways to take them, upgrade them, get benefit from them, and hold them ; and have large scale PvP at various stages of the process.They do not expect players to focus on looking for a big crowd to fight in some kind of large scale courtyard ; and not care much about objectives which would be mere “PvE gimmicks”.

Since you have been here as well, you would know that the reason players moved to the field and stopped messing with the objectives and caring about the score was due to the Arrow cart damage increase on players and the rewarding of PvD. Winning became an embarrassment, not something players were proud of. Players started out in the objectives and caring about the score, but due to Anets decisions, they changed that. Anet has to change the way they treat WvW for players to care again.

They moved away from the arrow carts, and if they want players to return to the objectives they need to change siege vs player and the way it is rewarded. The focus should be on players fighting other players over objectives and to get it to return to that they need to make necessary changes to correct the problems otherwise it will never change and only go downhill from there long term. Currently die fast, go back and PVD undefended structure have your zerge jump on siege inside objectives and not fight = WIN. That has to change if they want players to care about winning again.

There are multiple ways to accomplish that easily. One, for example, would be to use the objectives to just “BUFF” the fights, not score on it’s own. Instead the objective gives players the most loot and PPK while fighting over it instead. That way the objective is actually MORE valuable than it is currently, but doesn’t actually do score points on it’s own without players doing something to earn it. If you only score points and get loot while fighting other players over yaks, towers, sentries, camps, keeps then the objectives actually matter, it is not an embarrassment to win, and players are willing to fight over them as they should have been all along. Players fighting in the fields and not caring about the score or objectives is due to the game being broken and needing to be fixed, not because they players are actually doing something wrong. Fix the game and players will play it and enjoy it that way.

Crise.9401:

lil devils x.6071:

They already stated they HOTperformed miserably and they greatly LOST numbers from WvW due to Hot, not gained them. They posted this INFO on these forums months ago.

If you are going to make such a bold claim at least bother to provide a source, either way… people that are no longer here do not matter, why would ArenaNet at this point have any reason to cater to people who have already left their game.

Those players JUST CAME BACK due to Alpine, many have been posting on here thanking them for the changes and telling them they are back for that reason.. Read these forums and you would know that. The worst mistake a game would make is ignoring why players leave their game rather than focus on changes to the game to keep them and make the players come back. Players WILL come back if you are doing it right. Of course those players matter, why would they not matter when it was the companies misstates that drove off their business?

Not any " bold statements" here, just what has happened here over the months leading up until now. Reading the forums you will see what everyone else already read here. Due to the poor performance of HoT, they changed their stance on the expansion ETA..

You are welcome to dig through the forums to get caught up on your homework, I am not going to do that for you. :p

Crise.9401:

lil devils x.6071:

You do realize that there ALREADY was a game wide boycott of the DBL — since this already happened and is going to happen again.

You have an interesting definition of game wide

Majority of the playerbase will play what they are given… it is only a matter of time before compromises would have been found. Besides, any player that joined the game with HoT was not boycotting DBL, they were just naturally gravitating towards other players (as they had no experience with Alpine map, so their opinion of desert borderlands was not a factor on what map they chose to play on).

Also, the current votes on the poll hardly reflect your interpretation of the situation, which makes sense as why should players who already left the game matter. If these players are willing to come back every three months then, they have an option to vote for right now, that being no… otherwise they are no longer relevant in how this decision turns out.

They already stated they HOT performed miserably and they greatly LOST numbers from WvW due to Hot, not gained them. They posted this INFO on these forums months ago. That was why they brought back Alpine so fast when it was not even being worked on at the time.

ThomasC.1056:

lil devils x.6071:

Xeno.4610:

Why there is no option for NEVER EVER DBL!?!?!?!? I’d love to vote for deleting all the dessert borderland code, burn all backup files and brain wash the guys who designed them just to be sure it never gets back Of course I voted for 1 DBL and 2 ABL, since this makes still at least two borderlands playable. But if there was an option for no more DBL I’d choose this one 1000%.

There is no option to keep or scrap the DBL because they already know players will vote to scrap it and they don’t want to give players what they want actually here and are expecting them to “settle” for a bad map which then in turns makes more players leave the game again completely reversing the progress they already made on this.

Rather than create actual WvW maps from the ground up designed with nonstop PvP gameplay as the primary focus, they want to handcuff us to a dysfunctional map they are attempting to make playable. Players deserve actual good maps designed for PvP, not just broken PvE gimmicky Bouncy maps made somewhat" playable".

Just have a look here : https://www.guildwars2.com/en/the-game/competitive-play/

It says :

World vs. World (WvW) is PvP combat that involves hundred of players. Three huge teams —each representing a server, or world—battle for control over objectives on four massive maps in week-long matches.

Each map – one for each server and a huge “neutral” center map – is loaded with objectives that are worth points for the team that claims them. Players can band together to lay siege to castles, raid enemy supply caravans, clash with other players in truly massive battles, wreak havoc behind enemy lines, or build mighty weapons of war like trebuchets and siege golems.

PvP indeed matters, but WvW obviously has never been intended as “nonstop PvP gameplay as the primary focus”. So please stop trying to handcuff ANet into enforcing something they don’t intend. Or ask for it somewhere else than in WvW’s forum.

What you want truly is an important feature, yet it’s not WvW as ANet wants and advertises it.

Actually they DID advertise it as " Large scale PvP" and stated that was what the players asked for and was giving us when they discussed the results of the surveys they used to create this game. They specifically told us the players asked for large scale PvP, that they heard us and they were giving it to us. So YES, they not only advertises it as large scale PvP, they outright told us that is what they were giving us and why many bought the game.
Raiding castles is still nonstop PvP if implemented properly. Players fighting other players over objectives = WvW. " nonstop PvP action" should be players fighting other players nonstop over objectives. I am not sure what you are understanding that to be.

PvD undefended structures on the other hand has no place in a PvP game mode, nor should it be rewarded.

Xeno.4610:

Why there is no option for NEVER EVER DBL!?!?!?!? I’d love to vote for deleting all the dessert borderland code, burn all backup files and brain wash the guys who designed them just to be sure it never gets back Of course I voted for 1 DBL and 2 ABL, since this makes still at least two borderlands playable. But if there was an option for no more DBL I’d choose this one 1000%.

There is no option to keep or scrap the DBL because they already know players will vote to scrap it and they don’t want to give players what they want actually here and are expecting them to “settle” for a bad map which then in turns makes more players leave the game again completely reversing the progress they already made on this.

Rather than create actual WvW maps from the ground up designed with nonstop PvP gameplay as the primary focus, they want to handcuff us to a dysfunctional map they are attempting to make playable. Players deserve actual good maps designed for PvP, not just broken PvE gimmicky Bouncy maps made somewhat" playable".

Crise.9401:

lil devils x.6071:

Mixed Borderlands = Players that came back for Alpine leave game all together.
Rotate Borderlands = Players only Play when Alpine is in use.
Mixed Borderlands= Broken game ALL the time
Rotate Borderlands= Working game part of the time.

You are, incorrectly, assuming that the status quo about the two maps would hold long term if mixed borderlands wins. Considering we have never been in a situation where the borderlands maps have been asymmetrical what would happen if that becomes the norm is anyone’s guess.

At the end of the day, you are assuming people hate DBL more than what could potentially be as bad as loosing by default. There will never be a game wide boycott of DBL, if mixed borderlands does happen, because there will always be people looking to capitalize on the fact that some people would ignore one of the four maps and at that point the majority will either sit by and let it slide or play the fourth map they would rather ignore.

You do realize that there ALREADY was a game wide boycott of the DBL and thousands of players left and just came back due to it right? ( look back through the forums here, the polls the petitions going on for months.)The guilds have already been posting in this forum they will leave GW2 again when the DBL comes back…
Not sure what you are trying to say here since this already happened and is going to
happen again.

In the end it still boils down to a new win mechanic:
Servers who have less players who hate DBL =WIN,
Everyone else don’t bother trying.

That is what happens when you put something so disliked into the game.
If the servers do not have enough players willing to hop to DBL to save keeps, scout and refresh siege, it will change the way the game is played.

Budman.2934:

anyways i think we nipped this thing in the butt i don’t see anymore people complaining about the maps so we can all agree for the current way things are going for now its a good option to add DBL back into rotation with alpine so everyone gets there piece of the candy without effecting one group over the other to negatively even for the ones that want to torch there GW2 account because of this option

if you opinion doesn’t feel like it has been heard post it here but understand negative feedback with most likely get a negative response hence the saying negative energies attract more negative energies

How about look at the glass as 3/4 full? Rather than 1/4 who want to keep the empty DBL in WvW, 3/4 want want the ABL maps FULL with PvP activity.

I have yet to see a DBL thread or poll get anywhere near the hundreds that signed their user tags to the petition to remove them.

morrolan.9608:

lil devils x.6071:

1)Will the same amount of players who would defend the keeps on the ABL hop to DBL to defend the keeps? ( No they hate the DBL)

2)Will the same amount of players who build and refresh siege on the ABL hop to the DBL to do the same? ( No they hate the DBL)

3) Will the same amount of players who scout the ABL also scout the DBL? ( No they hate the DBL)
[…]
They do not play the game mode to stay on a map, they play the game mode to actually hop to all the maps to defend the objectives, and when no one shows up or sieges or defends due to most players hating the map.. the game mode is broken/ unplayable.

1. I would bet most would hop to there so long as its only a defence. After the changes to the DBL plenty of people were willing to defenda servers objectives on the map.

2. Those who build and refresh siege are teh deidcated players so I would say yes.

3. Scouts on JQ actually like the DBL better because there are more places to hide.

On your last point I think you are overstating it especially if its 1 DBL and 2 ABL.The map is poorly designed in a strategic sense but was playable once they made the changes to it.

lil devils x.6071:

This is not an argument of different vs the same. It is an argument of : design a GOOD map from the ground up for Nonstop PVP action vs take a crummy broken map and try to make it playable.

Voting out the DBL is voting out bad map and have them make better instead. Players deserve better instead of settling for this.

Tyler has explicitly stated that a vote for simultaneous means it is more likely that they will build another map ie. a vote for rotation means they won’t look at building a new map, at least in the short term. In a pragmatic sense it is the best solution considering the resources required to build a new map.

The pragmatic thing to do is to attempt to retain the game population until they get new maps made by Not bringing back DBL without polling " Keep or scrap? " first. Bringing it back knowing what happened last time would be the LEAST pragmatic thing to do if you do not want to lose more players and the money they spend.

’There is nothing pragmatic about running off players and funding from the game rather than trying to grow and increase the player base.

morrolan.9608:

lil devils x.6071:

1)Will the same amount of players who would defend the keeps on the ABL hop to DBL to defend the keeps? ( No they hate the DBL)

2)Will the same amount of players who build and refresh siege on the ABL hop to the DBL to do the same? ( No they hate the DBL)

3) Will the same amount of players who scout the ABL also scout the DBL? ( No they hate the DBL)
[…]
They do not play the game mode to stay on a map, they play the game mode to actually hop to all the maps to defend the objectives, and when no one shows up or sieges or defends due to most players hating the map.. the game mode is broken/ unplayable.

1. I would bet most would hop to there so long as its only a defence. After the changes to the DBL plenty of people were willing to defenda servers objectives on the map.

2. Those who build and refresh siege are teh deidcated players so I would say yes.

3. Scouts on JQ actually like the DBL better because there are more places to hide.

On your last point I think you are overstating it especially if its 1 DBL and 2 ABL.The map is poorly designed in a strategic sense but was playable once they made the changes to it.

lil devils x.6071:

This is not an argument of different vs the same. It is an argument of : design a GOOD map from the ground up for Nonstop PVP action vs take a crummy broken map and try to make it playable.

Voting out the DBL is voting out bad map and have them make better instead. Players deserve better instead of settling for this.

Tyler has explicitly stated that a vote for simultaneous means it is more likely that they will build another map ie. a vote for rotation means they won’t look at building a new map, at least in the short term. In a pragmatic sense it is the best solution considering the resources required to build a new map.

You do realize that the majority of the scouts on JQ were on this very forum already ranting about The DBLS? Scroll back month ago.. Oh wait there are JQ scouts on the very first page in this thread as well. I don;t think you are talking about many JQ scouts.. lol

ASK JQ’s most valuable scout..Dewolfe, he was here..

Every single time we map hopped on JQ to defend DBLs’ we lost half the zerg refusing to hop.

Teon.5168:

lil devils x.6071:

Teon.5168:

lil devils x.6071:

X T D.6458:

To be fair there were a lot of other factors that turned people away from wvw aside from the dbl, guild hall/upgrade grind for example, grinding pve for elite specs and other stuff, unbalanced gimmicks like banners, fog, airship etc.

Yes, so easiest way to know for sure is a poll :
Keep DBL or scrap DBL?
Wouldn’t that be easy if this were actually about what players wanted?

So I am assuming, by your above statement, and the many others that you have flailed about on these forums, that you, and you alone know what the players actually want?

Just going from the seemingly overwhelming confidence from your posts that YOU have your hand on the heartbeat of the playerbase.

In reality, I seriously doubt if any regular poster on these boards has even a slight clue as to what the majority of the playerbase finds to be fun in this game. It certainly varies with me and my wife, as well as a lot of my fellow guildies.

Anyways, this discussion is truly pointless. People’s opinions are very, very subjective….including (GASP!) yours.

Read back, look at the old polls. Talk to the players. Not " my opinion" . Just ask THEM. OH yea.. they already did. Did you miss the petitions? The boycott? Was already done.. They can take it a step further though, how about they actually email the poll to all past and present wvw players over a certain rank? like they did the ones they used to create this game and the ones they sent out after HOT?

I am not asking them to listen to me. I am asking them to listen to the players and actually ask the players. Why guess? ASK THEM.

You really need to lighten up. All that stress will catch up to you as you get older.

My stress relief is being able to play wvw with my friends and family. Wont be able to do that if they bring back DBLs since so many will leave again…

Will have to find another game for everyone to play together if that happens.. UGH half went to BDO last time and then the rest went to ESO but heard CU is supposed to be coming out at some point so at least there is that. It is just a pain to have to start a new game since people will not play this one anymore and if I want to play with them I don’t play either.

EDIT 4 your EDIT: Not looking forward to having to get everyone in one place again, but yes, that is the hope on the horizon.

Just look at the 1st page of this thread. It isn’t just “me” they are not listening to. That many posts on just page 1. WOW.

You see, this decision, runs off many players from the game, then it runs off the ones who want to play with those players as well, then the players who want to play with those players..

Budman.2934:

lil devils x.6071:

Budman.2934:

lil devils x.6071:

Teon.5168:

lil devils x.6071:

X T D.6458:

@Lil devils, Yes I am well aware of the flaws that the dbl has. I have been quite vocal about it ingame and on the forums. If I had it my way we would just have alpine until a better map can come along. HOWEVER, the reality is getting rid of it is not a choice for the poll, therefore I would rather be realistic. The best option as I see it is the 2alpine/1dbl choice, more choice, more variety, and we dont have to get stuck with dbl for 3 months.

The reality is it isn’t a choice in the poll means they refuse to listen to what the players have to say about = Players need to SPEAK LOUDER to be heard. If they are going to half do it , instead of do it right, it is up to the players to call them out on it. Either they are listening or they are not. If they would be willing to let thousands of players leave for 3 months or may not come back at all and stop waiting, that really goes to show their level of ca re about what players think then eh?

It is seriously messed up that people should be willing to " settle" for something they are obviously not happy with, and that the developer knows this and intentionally left it out for that reason does not mean players should just " take it". No, at that point if they want to ignore what players asked for an half do it, would be better to not play it at all then to just say " oh well I used to enjoy this game".. until they leave all together.

Has it ever occurred to you that the direction they’re currently heading might actually be the way the majority of the players want?

It certainly could be possible that your opinion on the fixes that you think they need to make might be in the minority, and not what most of the playerbase actually wants.

Players might not be “settling”. They just might not agree with what your opinion is on it all.

DID you miss the numbers after Hot and the months upon months of the game hemorrhaging players all the while them telling Anet in the forums it was due to the DBLS? I didn’t.. I talked many into coming back. Did it occur to you we had a poll about this too? We are not talking about a small number of players that left over the DBLs in the first place.

The numbers they posted in these very forums repeatedly showed that 1) EBG outnumbered all 3 DBLs combined in most every tier. 2) Alpine outnumbered EBG .. so what does that tell us? ALSO the number of guilds and players that left WvW over The DBLS was no small number, if they want those players to stay and continue to come back and grow, they cannot reverse the progress on that.

In fact, why not just make a poll asking how many want to scrap vs keep the DBL and you will find out pretty fast how this works..

you got 5 guys in a room maybe more maybe less maybe one is transgender and the rest is female, who knows however, they have to make a decision that will affect. how we as WvW players enjoy our game, maybe they made a few bad decisions before.

so now there starting a poll to see what the community wants and reading the forums on ideas they haven’t even thought of yet they have a few more ideas but there gonna let the community decide hence the poll….

but then they read the post about how anet is stupid and does everything wrong and to change everything back to way it was I hate this new stuff and so does everyone else which isn’t true and so I’m sure they just scroll down and look at the more positive post with actual feedback and ideas related to the game that could possibly make it better for everyone instead of complaining about it

this post is not completely related to the previous poster just to the majority of negative feedback on this and past forums

ACTUALLY, they are polling again ( like they used to) because players called them out on it. ( Those negative Nancies!) They are actually 100% fully are aware of these things.. it has been discussed at length.

Anet actually used polls to create GW2, and in those polls they told us that we asked for large scale PvP combat and they told us that they heard us and were giving it to us! At the same time, in fact the very same post on the same day that was asking them to go back to their roots and start polling again like they used to was the same post that asked them to only bring back Alpine ( immediately and not wait as they had originally intended) WHILE they made another map that had nothing to do with DBLs .. All of those things were in the same post and thread on the subject. We got the polling, we got the alpine.. but where is the map actually designed for PvP combat..?

ALMOST there.. but yet so far..

So YEAH… LIKE WE WERE SAYING ANET IS COMMUNICATING WITH US!!!

Yes but it should not be removing the one thing players asked for from the polls. LOL
Part of communicating is listening… and not being THAT guy.. you know the guy.. the guy who knows exactly what the people want so offers anything EXCEPT for what they asked for.

You know that guy. They don’t have to be THAT guy.

Teon.5168:

lil devils x.6071:

X T D.6458:

To be fair there were a lot of other factors that turned people away from wvw aside from the dbl, guild hall/upgrade grind for example, grinding pve for elite specs and other stuff, unbalanced gimmicks like banners, fog, airship etc.

Yes, so easiest way to know for sure is a poll :
Keep DBL or scrap DBL?
Wouldn’t that be easy if this were actually about what players wanted?

So I am assuming, by your above statement, and the many others that you have flailed about on these forums, that you, and you alone know what the players actually want?

Just going from the seemingly overwhelming confidence from your posts that YOU have your hand on the heartbeat of the playerbase.

In reality, I seriously doubt if any regular poster on these boards has even a slight clue as to what the majority of the playerbase finds to be fun in this game. It certainly varies with me and my wife, as well as a lot of my fellow guildies.

Anyways, this discussion is truly pointless. People’s opinions are very, very subjective….including (GASP!) yours.

Read back, look at the old polls. Talk to the players. Not " my opinion" . Just ask THEM. OH yea.. they already did. Did you miss the petitions? The boycott? Was already done.. They can take it a step further though, how about they actually email the poll to all past and present wvw players over a certain rank? like they did the ones they used to create this game and the ones they sent out after HOT?

I am not asking them to listen to me. I am asking them to listen to the players and actually ask the players. Why guess? ASK THEM.

Budman.2934:

lil devils x.6071:

Teon.5168:

lil devils x.6071:

X T D.6458:

@Lil devils, Yes I am well aware of the flaws that the dbl has. I have been quite vocal about it ingame and on the forums. If I had it my way we would just have alpine until a better map can come along. HOWEVER, the reality is getting rid of it is not a choice for the poll, therefore I would rather be realistic. The best option as I see it is the 2alpine/1dbl choice, more choice, more variety, and we dont have to get stuck with dbl for 3 months.

The reality is it isn’t a choice in the poll means they refuse to listen to what the players have to say about = Players need to SPEAK LOUDER to be heard. If they are going to half do it , instead of do it right, it is up to the players to call them out on it. Either they are listening or they are not. If they would be willing to let thousands of players leave for 3 months or may not come back at all and stop waiting, that really goes to show their level of ca re about what players think then eh?

It is seriously messed up that people should be willing to " settle" for something they are obviously not happy with, and that the developer knows this and intentionally left it out for that reason does not mean players should just " take it". No, at that point if they want to ignore what players asked for an half do it, would be better to not play it at all then to just say " oh well I used to enjoy this game".. until they leave all together.

Has it ever occurred to you that the direction they’re currently heading might actually be the way the majority of the players want?

It certainly could be possible that your opinion on the fixes that you think they need to make might be in the minority, and not what most of the playerbase actually wants.

Players might not be “settling”. They just might not agree with what your opinion is on it all.

DID you miss the numbers after Hot and the months upon months of the game hemorrhaging players all the while them telling Anet in the forums it was due to the DBLS? I didn’t.. I talked many into coming back. Did it occur to you we had a poll about this too? We are not talking about a small number of players that left over the DBLs in the first place.

The numbers they posted in these very forums repeatedly showed that 1) EBG outnumbered all 3 DBLs combined in most every tier. 2) Alpine outnumbered EBG .. so what does that tell us? ALSO the number of guilds and players that left WvW over The DBLS was no small number, if they want those players to stay and continue to come back and grow, they cannot reverse the progress on that.

In fact, why not just make a poll asking how many want to scrap vs keep the DBL and you will find out pretty fast how this works..

you got 5 guys in a room maybe more maybe less maybe one is transgender and the rest is female, who knows however, they have to make a decision that will affect. how we as WvW players enjoy our game, maybe they made a few bad decisions before.

so now there starting a poll to see what the community wants and reading the forums on ideas they haven’t even thought of yet they have a few more ideas but there gonna let the community decide hence the poll….

but then they read the post about how anet is stupid and does everything wrong and to change everything back to way it was I hate this new stuff and so does everyone else which isn’t true and so I’m sure they just scroll down and look at the more positive post with actual feedback and ideas related to the game that could possibly make it better for everyone instead of complaining about it

this post is not completely related to the previous poster just to the majority of negative feedback on this and past forums

ACTUALLY, they are polling again ( like they used to) because players called them out on it. ( Those negative Nancies!) They are actually 100% fully are aware of these things.. it has been discussed at length.

Anet actually used polls to create GW2, and in those polls they told us that we asked for large scale PvP combat and they told us that they heard us and were giving it to us! At the same time, in fact the very same post on the same day that was asking them to go back to their roots and start polling again like they used to was the same post that asked them to only bring back Alpine ( immediately and not wait as they had originally intended) WHILE they made another map that had nothing to do with DBLs .. All of those things were in the same post and thread on the subject. We got the polling, we got the alpine.. but where is the map actually designed for PvP combat..?

ALMOST there.. but yet so far..

Teon.5168:

X T D.6458:

To be fair there were a lot of other factors that turned people away from wvw aside from the dbl, guild hall/upgrade grind for example, grinding pve for elite specs and other stuff, unbalanced gimmicks like banners, fog, airship etc.

Agreed. The problems with this game are numerous, people leave for all sorts of different reasons. One of the things that I rarely see brought up about this game is its sheer age. That, too, is a reason for the playerbase numbers changing.

The above being said, I still enjoy the game a lot.

So where is the problem in asking them then eh?

Scrap DBL or KEEP DBL?

Would that not be the easiest way to tell ?

Yes, we already know the answer and so do they IS the issue. That is the question that should have been asked before ever letting it go live since it was actually abandoned during beta.

X T D.6458:

To be fair there were a lot of other factors that turned people away from wvw aside from the dbl, guild hall/upgrade grind for example, grinding pve for elite specs and other stuff, unbalanced gimmicks like banners, fog, airship etc.

Yes, so easiest way to know for sure is a poll :
Keep DBL or scrap DBL?
Wouldn’t that be easy if this were actually about what players wanted?

Budman.2934:

lil devils x.6071:

X T D.6458:

lil devils x.6071:

X T D.6458:

lil devils x.6071:

X T D.6458:

lil devils x.6071:

morrolan.9608:

lil devils x.6071:

Mixed Borderlands = Players that came back for Alpine leave game all together.
Rotate Borderlands = Players only Play when Alpine is in use.
Mixed Borderlands= Broken game ALL the time
Rotate Borderlands= Working game part of the time.

Why would players leave if its mixed? They can only play on the Alpine map(s) if they want in this case which seems like a good result to me.

1)Will the same amount of players who would defend the keeps on the ABL hop to DBL to defend the keeps?

2)Will the same amount of players who build and refresh siege on the ABL hop to the DBL to do the same?

3) Will the same amount of players who scout the ABL also scout the DBL?

Players who lose their objectives due to the map being in play will leave the game due to the map being in play. The same reason they left the first time. It is a broken game mode/ unplayable for those players who do actually do these things.

My guild has quite a few players that like the dbl, and I predict we will be one of the main forces that raid on it consistently since we pretty much raid exclusively on the borderlands anyways. I am not a fan of the dbl but I have fun during guild raids on it, at least this way I and others can have a choice on what map to play on, players who like the dbl can have it available, those like us that like alpine can have it available without having to wait 3 months at a time and having players forced to only play on one borderland map.

And yes we will absolutely hop maps to and from dbl/alpine if needed because we are community/server oriented and enjoy working with other groups.

Luckily you are on a server that has plenty of people to respond regardless of the map. Most servers cannot say the same, however. Most are strapped outside of NA prime and when you start out with 25 and wind up with 7 when you hop to a DBL, people tend to become a bit more than irritated when they lose all their objectives due to a bad map being in the game.
The question was specifically would “THE SAME AMOUNT” , which that answer is clearly “NO.” Of course some will, but not all servers have the same amount of " some".

New win mechanic:
Server with most players who likes DBL = WIN.
Everyone else go home.

Dbl is going to be part of wvw /shrug, deleting it and throwing it into the dustbin is not an option, not for this poll or in any practical application. Would you rather have it the only bl map for 3 months at a time, or have it limited to 1 map, and have alpine always available. Its the best option available.

I would rather them actually design a wvw map from the ground up that keeps players in nonstop PvP action the entire time they are on it and not try to shovel the Kitten they are expecting players to " settle" for. What you are suggesting is this:
Players massively leave the game again. That is what happened last time. they didn’t learn their lesson then they will leave for good. It should ALWAYS be an option to increase your player base rather than send them packing.

Yes vote for rotation, then have WvW abandoned while DBL is in play all the while forums and reddit light their kittens on fire and see how fast they scrap that idea is the better plan.
The alternative is to have:
Server with most players willing to go to DBL = WIN
Everyone else don’t bother showing up.

That is how it works in reality.
Best option available = Vote for rotation then protest when DBL is in play until they take it out.

Didnt I say multiple times that I dont like the dbl? However I dont think the devs should cater to my individual preferences at the expense of the community. What exactly is wrong with having more variety and choice? I prefer alpine, I can have alpine, those who like dbl can have dbl at the same time. A rotation means the same map for 3 months. Your the one who seems to want to see people leave so you can be proven right, you prefer alpine but seem to want dbl to be rotated for 3 months at a time so the playerbase can die off…wtf?

Nothing at all wrong with variety and choice, that is exactly what players asked for during the DBL boycott that came back over Alpine. Players asked for from the beginning GOOD WvW maps, they were only going to be waiting on Alpine WHILE THEY MADE A WVW MAP THIS TIME. It is the actual map design from the ground up that is the problem and needs to have a map designed that focuses on Keeping players engaged in Nonstop strategic, challenging, fun PVP action the entire time they are on it. PvP skills should not be an afterthought, they should be core showcased design. There are so many places some classes cannot even use their skills on that map at all. It was definitely not designed for PvP combat.. it is just bad.

The objectives should be close together, direct routes, easy access and players should have a reason to want to fight over them. IF you go more than a few seconds in between objectives, that is wasting everyone’s time. The map should be designed to bring players together not keep them apart and from using their skills in a PvP zone..
The keeps are poorly designed for combat as well as the entire topography of the map.

You see, when players found out they were getting new Maps, they got all excited and were happy WvW was finally getting something just for WvW.. then they saw this atrocity of a gimmicky PvE bouncy stupid map and they actually abandoned the map DURING BETA. It should have never been released. Players deserve to actually get a WvW map designed for the best WvW they can bring us, not just take a broken map and make it playable. Players actually feel ripped off with this map and it is insulting to attempt to chain them to something bad like that instead of give players the WVW map they actually deserve.

Players want and deserve good maps and variety. This IS not good or the variety that wvw players deserve however.

This is not an argument of different vs the same. It is an argument of : design a GOOD map from the ground up for Nonstop PVP action vs take a crummy broken map and try to make it playable.

Voting out the DBL is voting out bad map and have them make better instead. Players deserves better instead.

I’m just gonna go out on a limb here and say Is DBL really that bad?
and if so what has made it such a bad map for players like yourself to feel so riled into getting it completely removed, DBL was the map to fix all the alpine problems which has many

the map your suggesting is a war map where its just plain zerg and kill which seems ok at the thought but based on designs on previous games it will suck like really really bad after awhile because individual players won’t amount to much it would be based off numbers which would be pointless for the masses excluding the current system of course

unless you turn it into a GvG WvW map where its based off of a alliance of guilds competing against each other for kills then it would seem more plausible which would have to be regulated in a way that its not affecting WvW tiers to much and doesn’t end up like EOTM, but with the current players that are for DBL it would turn a lot of people away from wvw which is exactly what they are trying to prevent I can see a new map being added down the road but that’s then this is now and now is not to cater to the tastes of the few who don’t like one map in particular over all the other ones

right now adding DBL into rotation will be a good thing and if you can offer Evidence that 90% of the community will leave if we add it into rotation then please forward the results to me and this post but other than that I hardly see anyone going up in arms over adding a little bit of diversity to the current system

as anet said many times before this poll is the start of a very long line of projects that anet is trying to do to fix the game if you can wait 2 months for a good movie to come out then you can wait a few months for WvW to get back on its feet again

(this post was tended to relate to several topics not specifically this the predecessors post if you feel kitten in anyway please write a letter to your nearest congressmen)

The DBL was not to fix the Alpine issues at all, it was to incorporate PvE and Jumping puzzles into WvW game play… not about PvP at all was the issue. Yes, it was that bad.. scroll from the WvW beta onward and you will see the thousands of posts on the subject if you wish. The terrain is actually preventing PvP skills from being used in combat rendering some classes unplayable on parts of the map..

Where you here from the release of HOT until present? All you have to do is read These very forums and reddit.. Anet already saw this, why do you think Alpine came back so fast? They released their financials from HOT already too….

Teon.5168:

lil devils x.6071:

X T D.6458:

@Lil devils, Yes I am well aware of the flaws that the dbl has. I have been quite vocal about it ingame and on the forums. If I had it my way we would just have alpine until a better map can come along. HOWEVER, the reality is getting rid of it is not a choice for the poll, therefore I would rather be realistic. The best option as I see it is the 2alpine/1dbl choice, more choice, more variety, and we dont have to get stuck with dbl for 3 months.

The reality is it isn’t a choice in the poll means they refuse to listen to what the players have to say about = Players need to SPEAK LOUDER to be heard. If they are going to half do it , instead of do it right, it is up to the players to call them out on it. Either they are listening or they are not. If they would be willing to let thousands of players leave for 3 months or may not come back at all and stop waiting, that really goes to show their level of ca re about what players think then eh?

It is seriously messed up that people should be willing to " settle" for something they are obviously not happy with, and that the developer knows this and intentionally left it out for that reason does not mean players should just " take it". No, at that point if they want to ignore what players asked for an half do it, would be better to not play it at all then to just say " oh well I used to enjoy this game".. until they leave all together.

Has it ever occurred to you that the direction they’re currently heading might actually be the way the majority of the players want?

It certainly could be possible that your opinion on the fixes that you think they need to make might be in the minority, and not what most of the playerbase actually wants.

Players might not be “settling”. They just might not agree with what your opinion is on it all.

DID you miss the numbers after Hot and the months upon months of the game hemorrhaging players all the while them telling Anet in the forums it was due to the DBLS? I didn’t.. I talked many into coming back. Did it occur to you we had a poll about this too? We are not talking about a small number of players that left over the DBLs in the first place.

The numbers they posted in these very forums repeatedly showed that 1) EBG outnumbered all 3 DBLs combined in most every tier. 2) Alpine outnumbered EBG .. so what does that tell us? ALSO the number of guilds and players that left WvW over The DBLS was no small number, if they want those players to stay and continue to come back and grow, they cannot reverse the progress on that.

In fact, why not just make a poll asking how many want to scrap vs keep the DBL and you will find out pretty fast how this works..

X T D.6458:

@Lil devils, Yes I am well aware of the flaws that the dbl has. I have been quite vocal about it ingame and on the forums. If I had it my way we would just have alpine until a better map can come along. HOWEVER, the reality is getting rid of it is not a choice for the poll, therefore I would rather be realistic. The best option as I see it is the 2alpine/1dbl choice, more choice, more variety, and we dont have to get stuck with dbl for 3 months.

The reality is it isn’t a choice in the poll means they refuse to listen to what the players have to say about = Players need to SPEAK LOUDER to be heard. If they are going to half do it , instead of do it right, it is up to the players to call them out on it. Either they are listening or they are not. If they would be willing to let thousands of players leave for 3 months or may not come back at all and stop waiting, that really goes to show their level of ca re about what players think then eh?

It is seriously messed up that people should be willing to " settle" for something they are obviously not happy with, and that the developer knows this and intentionally left it out for that reason does not mean players should just " take it". No, at that point if they want to ignore what players asked for an half do it, would be better to not play it at all then to just say " oh well I used to enjoy this game".. until they leave all together.

X T D.6458:

lil devils x.6071:

X T D.6458:

lil devils x.6071:

X T D.6458:

lil devils x.6071:

morrolan.9608:

lil devils x.6071:

Mixed Borderlands = Players that came back for Alpine leave game all together.
Rotate Borderlands = Players only Play when Alpine is in use.
Mixed Borderlands= Broken game ALL the time
Rotate Borderlands= Working game part of the time.

Why would players leave if its mixed? They can only play on the Alpine map(s) if they want in this case which seems like a good result to me.

1)Will the same amount of players who would defend the keeps on the ABL hop to DBL to defend the keeps?

2)Will the same amount of players who build and refresh siege on the ABL hop to the DBL to do the same?

3) Will the same amount of players who scout the ABL also scout the DBL?

Players who lose their objectives due to the map being in play will leave the game due to the map being in play. The same reason they left the first time. It is a broken game mode/ unplayable for those players who do actually do these things.

My guild has quite a few players that like the dbl, and I predict we will be one of the main forces that raid on it consistently since we pretty much raid exclusively on the borderlands anyways. I am not a fan of the dbl but I have fun during guild raids on it, at least this way I and others can have a choice on what map to play on, players who like the dbl can have it available, those like us that like alpine can have it available without having to wait 3 months at a time and having players forced to only play on one borderland map.

And yes we will absolutely hop maps to and from dbl/alpine if needed because we are community/server oriented and enjoy working with other groups.

Luckily you are on a server that has plenty of people to respond regardless of the map. Most servers cannot say the same, however. Most are strapped outside of NA prime and when you start out with 25 and wind up with 7 when you hop to a DBL, people tend to become a bit more than irritated when they lose all their objectives due to a bad map being in the game.
The question was specifically would “THE SAME AMOUNT” , which that answer is clearly “NO.” Of course some will, but not all servers have the same amount of " some".

New win mechanic:
Server with most players who likes DBL = WIN.
Everyone else go home.

Dbl is going to be part of wvw /shrug, deleting it and throwing it into the dustbin is not an option, not for this poll or in any practical application. Would you rather have it the only bl map for 3 months at a time, or have it limited to 1 map, and have alpine always available. Its the best option available.

I would rather them actually design a wvw map from the ground up that keeps players in nonstop PvP action the entire time they are on it and not try to shovel the Kitten they are expecting players to " settle" for. What you are suggesting is this:
Players massively leave the game again. That is what happened last time. they didn’t learn their lesson then they will leave for good. It should ALWAYS be an option to increase your player base rather than send them packing.

Yes vote for rotation, then have WvW abandoned while DBL is in play all the while forums and reddit light their kittens on fire and see how fast they scrap that idea is the better plan.
The alternative is to have:
Server with most players willing to go to DBL = WIN
Everyone else don’t bother showing up.

That is how it works in reality.
Best option available = Vote for rotation then protest when DBL is in play until they take it out.

Didnt I say multiple times that I dont like the dbl? However I dont think the devs should cater to my individual preferences at the expense of the community. What exactly is wrong with having more variety and choice? I prefer alpine, I can have alpine, those who like dbl can have dbl at the same time. A rotation means the same map for 3 months. Your the one who seems to want to see people leave so you can be proven right, you prefer alpine but seem to want dbl to be rotated for 3 months at a time so the playerbase can die off…wtf?

Nothing at all wrong with variety and choice, that is exactly what players asked for during the DBL boycott that came back over Alpine. Players asked for from the beginning GOOD WvW maps, they were only going to be waiting on Alpine WHILE THEY MADE A WVW MAP THIS TIME. It is the actual map design from the ground up that is the problem and needs to have a map designed that focuses on Keeping players engaged in Nonstop strategic, challenging, fun PVP action the entire time they are on it. PvP skills should not be an afterthought, they should be core showcased design. There are so many places some classes cannot even use their skills on that map at all. It was definitely not designed for PvP combat.. it is just bad.

The objectives should be close together, direct routes, easy access and players should have a reason to want to fight over them. IF you go more than a few seconds in between objectives, that is wasting everyone’s time. The map should be designed to bring players together not keep them apart and NEVER should a map prevent players from using their skills in a PvP zone..
The keeps are poorly designed for combat as well as the entire topography of the map.

You see, when players found out they were getting new Maps, they got all excited and were happy WvW was finally getting something just for WvW.. then they saw this atrocity of a gimmicky PvE bouncy stupid map and they actually abandoned the map DURING BETA. It should have never been released. Players deserve to actually get a WvW map designed for the best WvW they can bring us, not just take a broken map and make it playable. Players actually feel ripped off with this map and it is insulting to attempt to chain them to something bad like that instead of give players the WVW map they actually deserve.

Players want and deserve good maps and variety. This IS not good or the variety that wvw players deserve however.

This is not an argument of different vs the same. It is an argument of : design a GOOD map from the ground up for Nonstop PVP action vs take a crummy broken map and try to make it playable.

Voting out the DBL is voting out bad map and have them make better instead. Players deserve better instead of settling for this.

MangoCrush.7819:

having different maps for different BL’s… thats a bad idea. the differences between DBL and ABL are huge… its like eating plain white bread (alpine) and a multigrain bagel (DBL). It just doesnt work there are too many imblances between the maps.

My suggestion… why not have 4 diferent BLs for 4 different seasons of the year eg Summer = DBL, Winter = ABL

DBL ISN’T for summer THIS is for summer:
!http://www.astonhotels.com/assets/slides/690x380-Hawaii-Sunset.jpg!
DBL is not for any season..

X T D.6458:

lil devils x.6071:

X T D.6458:

lil devils x.6071:

morrolan.9608:

lil devils x.6071:

Mixed Borderlands = Players that came back for Alpine leave game all together.
Rotate Borderlands = Players only Play when Alpine is in use.
Mixed Borderlands= Broken game ALL the time
Rotate Borderlands= Working game part of the time.

Why would players leave if its mixed? They can only play on the Alpine map(s) if they want in this case which seems like a good result to me.

1)Will the same amount of players who would defend the keeps on the ABL hop to DBL to defend the keeps?

2)Will the same amount of players who build and refresh siege on the ABL hop to the DBL to do the same?

3) Will the same amount of players who scout the ABL also scout the DBL?

Players who lose their objectives due to the map being in play will leave the game due to the map being in play. The same reason they left the first time. It is a broken game mode/ unplayable for those players who do actually do these things.

My guild has quite a few players that like the dbl, and I predict we will be one of the main forces that raid on it consistently since we pretty much raid exclusively on the borderlands anyways. I am not a fan of the dbl but I have fun during guild raids on it, at least this way I and others can have a choice on what map to play on, players who like the dbl can have it available, those like us that like alpine can have it available without having to wait 3 months at a time and having players forced to only play on one borderland map.

And yes we will absolutely hop maps to and from dbl/alpine if needed because we are community/server oriented and enjoy working with other groups.

Luckily you are on a server that has plenty of people to respond regardless of the map. Most servers cannot say the same, however. Most are strapped outside of NA prime and when you start out with 25 and wind up with 7 when you hop to a DBL, people tend to become a bit more than irritated when they lose all their objectives due to a bad map being in the game.
The question was specifically would “THE SAME AMOUNT” , which that answer is clearly “NO.” Of course some will, but not all servers have the same amount of " some".

New win mechanic:
Server with most players who likes DBL = WIN.
Everyone else go home.

Dbl is going to be part of wvw /shrug, deleting it and throwing it into the dustbin is not an option, not for this poll or in any practical application. Would you rather have it the only bl map for 3 months at a time, or have it limited to 1 map, and have alpine always available. Its the best option available.

I would rather them actually design a wvw map from the ground up that keeps players in nonstop PvP action the entire time they are on it and not try to shovel the Kitten they are expecting players to " settle" for. What you are suggesting is this:
Players massively leave the game again. That is what happened last time. they didn’t learn their lesson then they will leave for good. It should ALWAYS be an option to increase your player base rather than send them packing.

Yes vote for rotation, then have WvW abandoned while DBL is in play all the while forums and reddit light their kittens on fire and see how fast they scrap that idea is the better plan.
The alternative is to have:
Server with most players willing to go to DBL = WIN
Everyone else don’t bother showing up.

That is how it works in reality.
Best option available = Vote for rotation then protest when DBL is in play until they take it out.
Best option would be No DBL in WVW, make an actual WvW map instead. You and I both know why that isn’t a poll answer.. it would have won hands down.

You don’t increase your player base and make a great game by half kittening it. The sooner they realize that the better.

X T D.6458:

lil devils x.6071:

morrolan.9608:

lil devils x.6071:

Mixed Borderlands = Players that came back for Alpine leave game all together.
Rotate Borderlands = Players only Play when Alpine is in use.
Mixed Borderlands= Broken game ALL the time
Rotate Borderlands= Working game part of the time.

Why would players leave if its mixed? They can only play on the Alpine map(s) if they want in this case which seems like a good result to me.

1)Will the same amount of players who would defend the keeps on the ABL hop to DBL to defend the keeps?

2)Will the same amount of players who build and refresh siege on the ABL hop to the DBL to do the same?

3) Will the same amount of players who scout the ABL also scout the DBL?

Players who lose their objectives due to the map being in play will leave the game due to the map being in play. The same reason they left the first time. It is a broken game mode/ unplayable for those players who do actually do these things.

My guild has quite a few players that like the dbl, and I predict we will be one of the main forces that raid on it consistently since we pretty much raid exclusively on the borderlands anyways. I am not a fan of the dbl but I have fun during guild raids on it, at least this way I and others can have a choice on what map to play on, players who like the dbl can have it available, those like us that like alpine can have it available without having to wait 3 months at a time and having players forced to only play on one borderland map.

And yes we will absolutely hop maps to and from dbl/alpine if needed because we are community/server oriented and enjoy working with other groups.

Luckily you are on a server that has plenty of people to respond regardless of the map. Most servers cannot say the same, however. Most are strapped outside of NA prime and when you start out with 25 and wind up with 7 when you hop to a DBL, people tend to become a bit more than irritated when they lose all their objectives due to a bad map being in the game.
The question was specifically would “THE SAME AMOUNT” , which that answer is clearly “NO.” Of course some will, but not all servers have the same amount of " some".

New win mechanic:
Server with most players who likes DBL = WIN.
Everyone else don’t bother showing up.

morrolan.9608:

lil devils x.6071:

Mixed Borderlands = Players that came back for Alpine leave game all together.
Rotate Borderlands = Players only Play when Alpine is in use.
Mixed Borderlands= Broken game ALL the time
Rotate Borderlands= Working game part of the time.

Why would players leave if its mixed? They can only play on the Alpine map(s) if they want in this case which seems like a good result to me.

1)Will the same amount of players who would defend the keeps on the ABL hop to DBL to defend the keeps? ( No they hate the DBL)

2)Will the same amount of players who build and refresh siege on the ABL hop to the DBL to do the same? ( No they hate the DBL)

3) Will the same amount of players who scout the ABL also scout the DBL? ( No they hate the DBL)

Players who lose their objectives due to the map being in play will leave the game due to the map being in play. The same reason they left the first time. It is a broken game mode/ unplayable for those players who do actually do these things. Guilds have already announced they will be leaving when DBL returns, the same guilds who came back for the Alpines, so there goes the players who just came back.

They do not play the game mode to stay on a map, they play the game mode to actually hop to all the maps to defend the objectives, and when no one shows up or sieges or defends due to most players hating the map.. the game mode is broken/ unplayable.

Mixed Borderlands = Players that came back for Alpine leave game all together.
Rotate Borderlands = Players only Play when Alpine is in use.
Mixed Borderlands= Broken game ALL the time
Rotate Borderlands= Working game part of the time.

Bad Poll is Bad.

Sad they chose this route instead of understanding that players just wanted to play on Alpine WHILE THEY WAITED FOR A NEW MAP ( not DBL) to be made from ground up just for WvW instead and for Anet to remove DBL from WvW all together. This just nullifies the progress being made and will send people packing again. Was pointless to bring Alpine back and then not do what players were asking for in the first place.

Steven.7534:

I understand A-net are working really hard on WvW and the Polls are great ways to get the WvW Community’s input into the game. however, one of the questions that should be put to the community is…should WvW be considered END-game ( level 80)
As it stands, yes, a person can level a character to 60 and join in WVW and be a “up-level” in WVW, however they DO NOT have full armor rating, don’t put out full DPS as a level 80,they don’t have the full skills and abilities that a level 80 has, and seeing that WVW is a GROUP event, they are basically the “rally bots” is zergs. Level 80’s in the group are “carrying” them. So, Please ask the COMMUNITY if they want up-levels in WVW.

Of course when I was an " uplevel" everyone was an uplevel, but I solely leveled my first characters in WvW. Truth is, if there were not map limits as there are, people could care less that players are on an uplevel, but due to limited numbers to fight with every person counts that takes a place in the queue. Though these days you get so many tombs fo knowledge, no one is an uplevel very long so it isn’t as much of a deal now as it used to be.

I dont see it as a big of a problem now since they have made it so easy to level they are not an uplevel long to begin with. More people seem to care what class and build you are using than whether or not you are on a n uplevel these days. You can have a lvl 80 that dies much more than an uplevel if they don’t know how to play their class or are refusing to change their build . Truth is, it is better to be welcoming to the new players in the community and help show them around rather than rant about them learning to play.

I feel settling for a broken map they made somewhat " playable" vs having them design great wvw maps from the ground up with the primary focus on keeping players engaged in nonstop strategic, fun, challenging, PvP action the entire time they are on them is selling players short of what they actually deserve to have received instead.

“Settling” for poop instead of expecting them to start from the ground up making something that is actually good instead.

I do hope people realize that voting for Mixed BL’s is ALSO voting for those who came back for Alpine maps to leave the game again and to downsize the game population. The difference is the people who want to have DBL in play will not leave the game over it, since it does not make the game unplayable to them vs those who see the DBL as unplayable and left once already and will do so again.

The actual vote in regards o the DBL is :

• Have players that just returned leave the game again.
• Keep those players in the game by making new maps designed from the ground up for WvW this time instead.

Players will still leave since it makes the game unplayable if the same amount of people will not scout, refresh siege and defend the DBL’s and they would the ABL’s. They will still leave because having them in play at all results in the game mode being unplayable for those who do that stuff.

• I think the biggest issue with " mixed Borderlands idea" is whether or not they care about the score. If there is no score, the DBL isn’t an issue, if there is a score, those players will leave the game the same as they did before since you just made their game mode unplayable again. For players who actually care about being able to have their entire team respond to calls made on every map, having them in game play at all means the score will be manipulated by their existences and it will be a determining factor as to who wins. Bringing it back in play at all, means those players will leave again as they did before defeating the purpose of attempting to end the DBL boycott in the first place.
  For those who do not care about the score, they could care less, but for those who do, you just added a mechanic that will determine who wins every week and it will anger players due to it bringing back the reasons it had to go in the first place. Will the same amount of players who will respond to defend the ABL defend the DBL? IF NO, then it cannot be in play. Will the sam amount of players build and refresh siege in the DBL as they do in the ABL? Will the same amount of players be willing to scout the DBL as they did the ABL? Those should be the primary factors determining whether or not you can have them in play at same time.

• Merging is better than linking.
• Siege vs player is bad, let it die.

I love all the " hypotheticals" without actually thinking about how this works in the end.. Who pays for all of the addition voice comms and website upkeeps when there are less players on server to do so and this is already an expense that is difficult for the existing servers to manage? Who admins all of these things when you have less players available to do so? Who pays for all the siege and supplies it takes to run map raids 24/7 with less people? The problem is the current servers are already struggling to manage these things so more players are forced to bond together in order to reduce the costs on everyone. You need more people to be able to play at once on LESS servers in order to make this easier on everyone on each server. The opposite of what you suggest.

Players are not just " bandwagoning" as some may think, they are moving to servers they can afford to play on since it costs each person less to play on the more populated servers than it does on the others. You want MORE help, not less, so that all players on the server spend more time having fun and less time worrying about everything it takes to run WvW and having players to work as a server to make that happen.

The more servers you have the more expensive in both time and money is needed to maintain that server. We need far less servers, not more.

DeWolfe.2174:

lil devils x.6071:

ALL of our commanders get burned out like that, our guild coffers grew bare, and when pleas for help from those on the server fall on deaf ears.

I’m reading and I believe there is actually smoke coming out of my ears? Wait, was that the smoke alarm???

morrolan.9608:

If you have any sort of server pride you feel like you are letting the server down if you are not out there 6-7 days a week. This is a ludicrous situation, simply ludicrous.

It’s why I just suggested last week that we need a “Day Off” each week. Make matches 6 days and leave the 7th day off. Tyler, I hope you read this because it’s input you Dev’s are not going to find by staring at numbers on a screen.

The problem is guilds need to schedule their own days off and their own events at their leisure, not have that dictated to them. The one day off decided for them may not be the day off the guild wants to have.

The fire alarms were going off last summer ( read back in the forums) where numerous ppl were begging for more help and pretty much mocked and told they don’t have to because “No worries KILL can handle it”. We lasted longer than we thought we would in that environment. Then the posts in the fall, winter.. it just went on and on.. response to calls and willingness to cooperate I think are the most important factors.

If you queue up maps with people who will lose everything on the whole map and are not competent enough to handle their business, there is no room for anyone capable to come there to save it. The people that are there have to be willing and capable otherwise they are wasting everyone’s time.

morrolan.9608:

lil devils x.6071:

Being one of those guilds who cannot get all our members on server currently, AND being one that has transferred from T1/JQ. I think the point is missing here as to WHY transfer and what they are hoping to achieve.

Guilds do not want to be the only guild on a server, the biggest issue I think is a server being able to provide better coverage and support so your guild is not having to do everything for the server. Guilds want MORE, help not less.

Yes as a member of an ocx guild that is now the main ocx guild on JQ this is a huge problem with the way the system is set up. If you have any sort of server pride you feel like you are letting the server down if you are not out there 6-7 days a week. This is a ludicrous situation, simply ludicrous.

Believe me, I COMPLETELY feel your pain ( as you know). When a server relies so heavily on just a few guilds to do everything while at the same time are not even helping provide the resources or additional forces to do so, it can wear you down pretty fast.

ALL of our commanders get burned out like that, our guild coffers grew bare, and when pleas for help from those on the server fall on deaf ears.. Yes, it is a situation that should be remedied. They DO need less servers since the servers they do have open already need more support to keep running. No one guild or group should have to shoulder the burden of an entire server,this should be more evenly distributed.

Regardless of if you are PST, OCX, SEA, EU, or NA Prime, your guild should be able to come on, hold their own, and get to enjoy time spent in WvW, not feel like it is a chore. If all guilds on a server pull their weight, it is nice, but when you get stuck being the one who carries the server, it gets old real quick. They really need to look at less servers with MORE coverage if they want to balance servers, not more " slices".

atticus.5284:

Guilds on powerful servers (such as T1/T2) have little incentive to move even if it means not growing as fast as they would like. In order to balance population, I agree that Tyler is on the right track – you need more slices in the “cake” so every piece is roughly the same. Unfortunately the only way to do it is to force some changes.

You can see that BG is the most stacked server. Even without ET, I doubt any other server combo could take them (unless you paired TC with DB or TC with YB) and put them up against solo BG. Not saying you should but it will be impossible to balance population unless the larger servers are broken up…one way or another.

Actually, this is going in the opposite direction, not the right direction. More slices of cake means less people want to be on those slices due to it costing them more to do so. Guilds want MORE server support, not less. Thus to make match ups more balanced, you focus on server support and coverage of LESS servers, not more.

Being one of those guilds who cannot get all our members on server currently, AND being one that has transferred from T1/JQ, I think the point is missing here as to WHY transfer and what they are hoping to achieve.

Guilds do not want to be the only guild on a server, the biggest issue I think is a server being able to provide better coverage and support so your guild is not having to do everything for the server. Guilds want MORE, help not less.

The point of a server is to have everyone contribute so no one guild or group is having to financially support that server alone. Maintaining tiers in WvW gets very costly in both time and money spent to do so, so you want to be in a community where more in that community contribute to accomplishing common goals and the costs of siege and supplies spent to map pin every day in WvW for hours on end and being able to have numerous reliable commanders on from multiple guilds during any hour of the day to call for assistance or to take over if needed so you are not stuck doing everything on a server.

The idea of going to an empty world is not appealing as it places MORE financial burden on your guild and MORE reliability on your guild rather than have more people available at any time of day to have that more evenly distributed.

You are actually proposing the opposite of what is attractive about moving servers. Often large guilds move servers due to the host world that is asking them to join is offering to help with the costs of the raids, offering commanders and guilds willing to help cooperate and respond to calls and ensuring they have community support they may have not been receiving at their previous location. You do not get that from empty worlds, and from worlds unwilling to play as a server. You receive that from large words with a dedicated community that understands what it takes to maintain a tier.

Most important factors for appealing server is a server and community willing to work as a server to accomplish common goals in both willingness to cooperate and the financial burdens of the costs of running in WvW, coverage outside of NA prime time and capability of the players on that server to be able to at least hold their own.

More worlds doesn’t make that better.. that makes that worse. Merging worlds according to timezone coverage would help, but it still does not change the quality of the communities in regards to assisting with financial impacts on guilds for runs or cooperation of the guilds to respond accordingly as needed.

atheria.2837:

Tyler Bearce.3427:

Chris and I just made several informative posts about World Linking on Reddit. I’m reposting them here.

On Population Caps

Some information behind the current server population cap behavior:
Many may already know this bit, but for anyone else who doesn’t: world population is determined by activity level in WvW (Edge of the Mists and Obsidian Sanctum don’t count). If World A has many-times the number of players on it as World B, but World A does’t play WvW at all and World B plays tons of WvW, A will have the lowest population, and B will have a very high one.
/u/piInverse, to your point on increasing world population levels, and especially some becoming full
This is not caused by the additional players bought about by the server link, but from returning players and a lower population cap on the host servers.
This is only partly true. We’ve also had a substantial increase in global WvW participation since reward tracks, world linking, and the return of the Alpine borderlands. On top of that, we use a fairly long historical tail on WvW activity level for world population purposes. Intent being to prevent worlds from artificially lowering their cap with just a couple weeks of intentional inactivity. One flipside of that being that even if global WvW population levels dropped next week, if they were still higher than pre-<aforementioned factors>, population levels would still go up as a new, higher week replaces an older, lower one in the window of time being used.
World linking problem: linking, say, a T8 NA world with a T1 NA world and doing nothing with population caps will make it very easy to pile onto an already-healthy world. So something needs to be done with population caps.
There are two opposing goals we can aim for.

• Short-term prevention of bandwagoning. To do this, we’d need to make it more difficult to join a world that’s already low enough in WvW population to merit being linked in the first place.
• Long-term health of worlds with less WvW activity. To do this, we’d need to make it easier to join a world that’s already low enough in WvW population to merit being linked in the first place.

As for what modifications we’ve put in place for population levels to not allow world linking to break the meaning and purpose of population entirely, we’re currently trying a compromise between going completely toward either the long-term or short-term health goals for world populations.

• Unlinked worlds have the highest population cap.
• Linked worlds have significantly lower population caps.

Some things we’re considering to help discourage bandwagoning:

• Increasing the cost to transfer to lower-population worlds (since they’re now often going to be linked to high-pop worlds). For example, possibly 800 gems instead of 500.
• Having merge hosts always considered Full, and their guest(s) all sharing the population their host would otherwise have.
• Locking out transfers for a period of time after world links become active.

On Relinking More Often

We are also considering adjusting links more than once a quarter. There are some pros and cons to this, but assuming World Linking wins the current poll, we could poll on adjusting the re-link rate.

Pros:

• More variety in allies and opponents.
• Players are less likely to bandwagon.
• World populations become more stable.

Cons:

• Matchmaking becomes less accurate. There’d be more unfair matches.
• The WvW World Rank leaderboard becomes less meaningful.
• Additional administrative work for worlds coordinating voice-chat/forum access with their changing allies.
• Players may start to avoid socializing and forming bonds with their cross-world allies, since they are likely to change often.
• My team(WvW) spends more of our time analyzing population and match data, to determine new links, leaving less time for other types of WvW work.
• It becomes harder to remember which worlds are currently linked, and know when the next relink is supposed to happen.

Want an idea to change WvW?

Lock GUILDS to their servers (and the people IN them so they don’t guild or server hop!) for at least six months.

You haven’t looked at the populations or you wouldn’t have locked the servers together – they would be movable to whichever server is larger with a smaller server to augment.

It makes me crazy that we suggested the latter and you took it as a quick out to just lock bottom and top servers (at the time) without any recognition or care of the populations and the server stacking that is STILL going on.

And shall we talk about hacking? It’s getting ridiculous.

• There are more multiserver guilds in GW2 now than single server guilds, they are not bound by servers, so no they cannot be " locked" to a server.

• Locking servers reduces game growth. When players invite friends, family, coworkers, neighbors to come play with them, if they cannot get on server to play with them they do not play. If players cannot help expand the game population by word of mouth as they should, the game loses a large amount of influx of new players that prevent the game from dying faster.

• Locking servers just ensures players do not transfer off an already full server to balance out a match or be able to get more play time due to being afraid they cannot transfer their account back later.

• Locking people on to a server they are unhappy with just makes them leave the game all together rather than play when they are not enjoying their play time. You cannot " force" people to play your game, they either will or won’t and if you attempt to make it unenjoyable for them, they will just play something enjoyable instead and not play your game at all.

• Locking servers has shown repeatedly on other games that have done so that this just encourages account selling to the highest bid to allow people to transfer to locked servers. It drives up the value of accounts on locked servers and becomes profitable to sell those accounts instead of people transferring their other accounts. The locked servers do not disperse, instead players just buy accounts to play on the server they wish to.

Your suggestion is bad for the game short and long term and will directly result in reduced game population and the game dying out faster since you are blocking an influx of new players via locking them out while at the same time intentionally trying to make players play in an environment they are unhappy with. They do not stay long if they are unhappy. The point of a game is to have fun with those you enjoy having fun with. If you cannot do that, you play a game where you can.

CrimeMaker.8612:

Seriously tho anet do a complete blow up have total of 12 servers and give people chance to transfer only once so they can be with their guildies

So what happens when they invite friends, family coworkers and neighbors to come play with them later?

MOST important thing about a MMOPRG, being able to play it with massive amounts of people you want to play it with. The focus ALWAYS has to be about bringing in more people to play otherwise the game will die much much faster.
More important than what a world ranks is players being able to come on and be a part of a community they enjoy. Players need to enjoy the people they play with or they will not stay long. My sister quit playing long ago because she could not get on the same server with me every time she tried. Since she could not play with me, she didn’t bother playing at all. She bought the game, tried to get on server for a couple of months and left due to that.

You also have people who have no desire to play on the same server.. I actually know quite a few divorced players on this game where both parties play the game still… Do you think they would enjoy being stuck on the same server together? No one of them would prob quit the game and they shouldn’t have to do that when they can just go to another server instead.

We want to be sure the game is as inclusive as possible to ensure that the game keeps growing. Every person you run off due to being somewhere they are not happy is a player that ISN’T going to be bringing their friends , family, neighbors and coworkers to come play with them making the game die instead of grow.

TLDR; YOU SUGGESTED THEY KILL THE GAME FASTER

Tyler Bearce.3427:

Link info

Thank you for posting this here in addition to reddit.

What is wrong with the world linking is the way you are choosing to link them. Time zone coverage is MORE IMPORTANT than overall population when considering linking servers. As many had pointed out, it is bad to link 2 NA prime time heavy servers and then link 2 OCX heavy servers, as what appears to be the case in some of the linking done. You do not just take and match up bottom and top tiers, because that fails to address the balance issues made worse or solved by the pairings. All that happens when you merge a NA prime heavy with a NA prime heavy is bad queues and people leave the game over it since they cannot play the game during the time they actually have to play it. If you only have 2 hours to play and your server is queued that entire time, guess you do not get to play Gw2 anymore? That is how that is viewed by those in queues.

Balancing out the servers would be a much better solution to how servers are paired, and if it takes pairing a OCX heavy with an EU heavy with an SEA heavy with a NA prime heavy to do that, THAT is still a much better option than pairing 2 OCX heavy or 2 NA prime heavy timezones together.

Population alone should not be the determining factor for pairings, but rather when that population plays the game. Where the server sits on the bottom or top tier should not even play a factor in this though at all, since that can be completely by choice of the server to refuse to move up. Servers DO actually lose on purpose to not move up, this should be about coverage rather than rank.

Jayne.9251:

He actually reads the forum and people grousing about Reddit only.

*sniff

Feel loved folks.

For the record: No on elaborate system, it feels too much like EoTM at reference.

As for the 800 vs 500 gems, I think, as someone else rightly pointed out, if you can grind that in a day in pve it’s not going to have much impact on the bandwagoners. Make it 2500 (or more) gems, or do, as you suggested linking more frequently (which kind of wreaks havoc on the community ecosystem though).

That does not have the desired affect. All that happens is those who can afford to transfer do as they please, and those who are unhappy on their server leave the game entirely. Most of these transfers are paid for by credit card and if money is not an issue it doesn’t make a difference. Increased costs to get out of a situation you are not happy with = easier to leave the game entirely than pay.

This equates to only those who can afford to be happy will. I would think they would want to encourage more participation, not less.

TallBarr.2184:

StinkyLord.7950:

TallBarr.2184:

Zenith.6403:

I voted no, because I think it’s unfair to give one server two times population size for coverage. Desolation & Vabbi are destroying tier I matchups with hundred rating point difference to #2 server.

Deso was outnumbered and dead before this linking, Piken and SFR was stacked beyond belief. Whats the problem? I know it suck going from plowing over your enemies to getting plowed over by the superior deso forces.

Deso was outnumbered but never needed the linking.

Desolation has gained back most of their lost wvw players that decided to come back because of the alpins and stab change.

Linking had nothing to do with it.

People came back for linking and reward tracks

No, People came back for Alpine and Stab changes. I know this because I was talking to MANY people and why I was here ranting for months on the forums trying to make that happen for them as these were the conditions for their return. There was a DBL boycott going on for months you seem to have missed. Rewards are great and all, but they dont make you come back to a game you gave up on. Ending Map boycotts and improved game play does that. If they want to grow the game mode, they have to make it one of the best large scale PvP games on the market and you do not do that via " rewards". LOL

I personally have no problem server hopping to whatever servers I want to play for but ALSO see how server linking can be useful, though I think it is far from the best solution they could have come up with and it is sort of a " lazy fix’. I am pretty indifferent on server linking really as it does not affect my game play much either way. if they want to keep it? Great. If they want to scrap it? Great. It does not really impact me as I play on populated servers anyhow because I want players to fight with and against at all times.