Guild Wars 2

Thelgar.7214:

An alliance system isnt a way of solving the current issues. It is all of the worst of the issues made central to the game mode.

It is dynamic and flexible, as opposed to the current system which is stagnant and inflexible. Measures to prop it up like making changes in relation to transfers won’t fix it, they just delay the inevitable.

Shadow Abyss
Blacklight
Bloodstone Coral
Redemption
Midnight Ice
Electro lemon
Electro Blue
Molten

Thelgar.7214:

Yes. Your behaviour painted you as the bad guy. You aren’t seeking to solve issues. You’re pushing for changes that would put more control in the hands of the people that caused the issues in the current system such as yourself.

There would be more control in the hands of ALL guilds/players not just him and his alliance, and an alliance system is a way of solving current issues. Anet themselves clearly went quite far along in the design of the system as a solution and quite a few other players have raised a similar system as a solution. I dislike his actions in the past but they are irrelevant in this discussion.

Johje Holan.4607:

I think Anet need to add the suppression to Team Chat. Why is it on Map but not Team?

I agree with this. It would appear to solve these sorts of problems.

Gaile Gray.6029:

Depending on your chosen profession and your role in combat, these changes may require some stat-swapping on your gear. We feel that giving a bit of a “heads-up” is appropriate.

Problem is its not so easy to get alternate sets.

Standard of Heroes [SoX] has been around since the beginning of the game

fishball.7204:

morrolan.9608:

That doesn’t apply in this case since boon sharing is a problem in both WvW and PvE raids. In raids it is only an issue for speed running since you can easily finish all raids without the OTT boon sharing.

Boon sharing has never been a PvE/Raid problem, don’t talk about things you have no idea about.

Raids will still finish at the same speed now it just kills diversity since we’ll take 2 chronos instead of 1 and remove all classes that don’t benefit from alacrity (RIP thief, hammer DH, rev etc).

Will you be able to finish them with 1 after the nerf?

cranos.5913:

morrolan.9608:

Spira.4578:

cranos.5913:

The increased alacrity will make up for it slightly and put ele on top again. Depending on what they do with the chrono dmg boost we prob won’t notice an actual dps loss much. Just a big middle finger to people who play the other 50% of the classes.

Which is not the purpose of balance, is it?
We are all aware that balance patches are needed, we’re just not happy their approach to it.

Split modes.

That doesn’t apply in this case since boon sharing is a problem in both WvW and PvE raids. In raids it is only an issue for speed running since you can easily finish all raids without the OTT boon sharing.

Please be all means explain to me how boon sharing was a problem in raids and how forcing us to take more chronos will solve that issue.

Its a problem because it clearly results in a squad having greater access to boons than anet intended and makes the raids easier than they should be. You don’t need to take more chronos for successful raid runs, you might choose to if you want faster runs but thats a personal choice.

Spira.4578:

cranos.5913:

The increased alacrity will make up for it slightly and put ele on top again. Depending on what they do with the chrono dmg boost we prob won’t notice an actual dps loss much. Just a big middle finger to people who play the other 50% of the classes.

Which is not the purpose of balance, is it?
We are all aware that balance patches are needed, we’re just not happy their approach to it.

Split modes.

That doesn’t apply in this case since boon sharing is a problem in both WvW and PvE raids. In raids it is only an issue for speed running since you can easily finish all raids without the OTT boon sharing.

Wolfvox.7854:

Anet do you EVER think of what some of your changes are gonna do? i.e. Linking?

The concept of Team Chat is great and if used properly, it would be a great tool. To be able to broadcast to all maps that your T3 Garrison is under attack and needs help would be great!

Not the case. All 4 maps now are cluttered with messages about Pizza, Soiled Panties, Our BL Needs Help, What’s In Your Refrigerator, Homework and How Bored You Are.

This is a server problem not an issue with the system.

Spira.4578:

Ithilwen.1529:

Sounds as if we’re looking to send Mesmer to the bottom of the list, again. I don’t understand what seems to be an institutional dislike for Mesmer.

It’s because WvWers were whining about SoI being omnipotently powerful in WvW (2 chronos in a squad, bouncing all boons around, giving eventually the whole squad all boons with max duration and max stacks).
ANET should split the modes and stop doing this already. You can’t balance the whole game by balancing 1 mode only.

It applies equally to raid squads though.

Ithilwen.1529:

Sounds as if we’re looking to send Mesmer to the bottom of the list, again. I don’t understand what seems to be an institutional dislike for Mesmer.

Given that its possible to get minutes of quickness and protection across a whole squad primarily due to boon share mesmers interaction with revenants some change was needed. My reading is that it doesn’t impact non boonshare builds.

Pedroso.4603:

As always, balance focused on pve and not pvp.

gg.

What? Boon changes and druid changes are applicable to WvW and pvp.

arkaxify.3258:

Ironcloud.3892:

An actual dedicated teamQ (which would obviously be added if Anet were to introduce solo/duoQ – I don’t know why you wouldn’t just assume this, It’s a package)

no, read the poll carefuly.

the reason why it’s such a terrible idea is because you will ONLY be able to queue with one friend. did your other buddy log in? well too kittening bad, you better go play unranked because apparently that’s where the organized teamplay is supossed to be at in season 5 lmao.

This was probably deliberate because they want to manipulate the result. It would be funny if it backfired and people voted for solo/duo queue anyway.

You need to log out, go to the page and log back in when prompted.

Zelulose.8695:

Same issue here. However I love that they added polls please fix.

You won’t when they have a poll on every little change like they’ve been doing for WvW. This poll isn’t even required, it is obvious the majority want it.

Sad to see this poll driven approach infect spvp as well as WvW. There is no need for this poll, it is quite obvious the vast majority want a solo/duo queue.

And for those who don’t see the poll page you have to logout, go to the page and log back in then. There’s something wrong with their coding.

Jayne.9251:

Still think the idea stinks though.

It’s not inclusive enough. And will wind up presenting the same issues six months after it launches. It’s like putting lipstick on a pig.

But it clearly won’t have the same issues. The issues of population and the lack of flexibility would definitely be lessened.

Not only EU but theres a Chinese 15v15 GvG tournament, player run but with prizes from the GW2 Chinese distributor and advertising on their webpage.

But from anet we get nothing.

How about you just ask for that dash to be changed rather than remove yet another fun thing from WvW.

Martyr.1920:

morrolan.9608:

Caius.8094:

Other than players that use the ANET design, am I the only player that thinks attacking while stealth’d and staying stealth’d is stupid? GW2 is the only MMO where someone can attack from stealth, go back to stealth or stay in it due to kitten poor programing and exploits… do the dev’s even know this.. do they even play anymore?

Its the way anet appears to want stealth to work, my inference is they want to do something different to other games and stubbornly refuse to acknowledge that their version of stealth is arguably the worst in any online game on the market.

Couldnt disagree more, stealth in this game is not some stupid 60 second cooldown that makes you walk slower out of combat, you have to sacrifice resources to even use it, that 6 seconds of stealth can cost a thief all of his initiative, initiative that could have been used for attacking instead, if you dodge or block the backstab the thief just used all of his resources for nothing.

For other classes stealth is easier, just fire and forget cooldowns, but they still have to sacrifice a utility slot or burn cooldowns on combo fields.

All that means is as I said they are trying to do something different. It doesn’t work.

Caius.8094:

Other than players that use the ANET design, am I the only player that thinks attacking while stealth’d and staying stealth’d is stupid? GW2 is the only MMO where someone can attack from stealth, go back to stealth or stay in it due to kitten poor programing and exploits… do the dev’s even know this.. do they even play anymore?

Its the way anet appears to want stealth to work, my inference is they want to do something different to other games and stubbornly refuse to acknowledge that their version of stealth is arguably the worst in any online game on the market.

Literally the only think that needs to change is that there needs to be a WvW legendary backpack like pvp. The reward track is fine.

Platinumz.8756:

I don’t know why people are getting bent over YB. T1 is where all the best PPT servers end up in. There is no other way getting up there. PPK doesn’t provide enough to make a significant difference.

There is no magical T1 fight Tier. Honestly there are more fights happening in lower tiers because people down there have no care for PPT.

If you want more fights move down to a lower Tier server. Its that simple.

1. You probably don’t see it if you’re on YB but there is a difference playing against YB and every other server in the game. YB always back caps and runs away from fights, moreso than every other server in T1 and T2. YB specifically targets dead zones in a servers coverage and exploits it. And YB relies on siege a lot more than other servers. And an issue is that other servers are copying them.

2. If someone is not in NA they really don’t have a choice in moving to lower tiers. OCX for example can really only fit in 1 tier now. SEA is effectively the same.

Ben K.6238:

The downside is we’d need to get our own voice comms server. But I can arrange that.

Its easy with Discord.

Vash.9183:

I would really like for this new team chat to just be removed and reverted to the old team chat. It has mainly only been used for trolling and random chat spam so far.

Thats a server problem, its not happening on my server. So no it shouldn’t be reverted. Its a welcome change as far as I’m concerned.

Jacion.6302:

You want a good boon distribution.

Generally a Rev and a guardian per party.

This, plus 2 boon share mesmers in a party together. The way my guild does it is parties of 4 (to allow overflow) with guard/DH and revenant in each, necros and eles divided up with the guards and revenants, medium classes and warriors just where theres a spare spot.

Gunner Morton.8340:

Almost nobody is using repair hammers yet the result is 50 / 50? Its either rigged or PvE players are voting on kitten they have no knowledge of, skewing the result in the process.

Repair hammers were removed after the trial were they not? So no-one can use them ATM.

Smooth Penguin.5294:

Since Team Chat now works across your server maps, I would love it if we could have Map Chat work across servers for all 3 opponents. It’s so difficult to communicate with your enemy after a great 1 v 1 or GvG. The only option is to join the same party, or do the block/get account ID/whisper. With this, there could be an expanded chance for our different communities to be friendly with each other.

Examples:

• BG says in Map Chat to JQ “Jolly good game chaps!”
• Maguuma says to TC “Great defense on Garri! You sure had us on our toes!”

LMAO like this will happen, instead it will be accusations of hacking, you’ll hear things like gg ez when an opponent kills you etc. etc.

Mind you I would like to be able to message opponents just like in spvp but I’m under no illusions as to what would be said in the chat.

Jayne.9251:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Caedmon.6798:

Just remove it from team to it’s own seperate channel,World chat or w/e.

Team chat is its own separate channel. Team and map chat were the same, they were redundant.

X T D.6458:

Here is what I concluded from reading this nonsense about battlegroups….A bunch of elitists want to exclude the rest of the community. Yea…no thanks, how about we let people play how, when, where they want.

I want to move to BG ……….. oh wait

(I don’t really)

Balthazzarr.1349:

morrolan.9608:

ozzeh.7398:

I think it would be beneficial to tag team chat messages with an identifier telling people what map the message is coming from. What do you think about that idea?

Why can’t players do this themselves? Why can’t other players ask if the message isn’t clear?

Apparently you don’t play serious WvW… If you did you would know how much of a pain it will be to always add the extra stuff to a message when you’re rushing to defend/fight/run etc..

Yes because it is such a pain to add BGBL to a message. We do it in our guild chat now if we’re spread.

Diku.2546:

I’m curious to know what the driving vision for WvW is…because I’m hoping that someday…it will match what I can envision for the future of WvW.

There is no driving vision. The person ostensibly in charge of the WvW team seemingly has nothing to do with it beyond supervising the staff. The only devs with a clue about what to do have been taken off the WvW team. No-one left appears to have a vision for the mode.

ozzeh.7398:

I think it would be beneficial to tag team chat messages with an identifier telling people what map the message is coming from. What do you think about that idea?

Why can’t players do this themselves? Why can’t other players ask if the message isn’t clear?

This is something we have needed for ages and people still whinge! Go figure. Its pretty simple use map chat for that map and team chat across all maps identifying the map you mean, this is the way it always should have been, what would be the point of having a new chat when team and map chat cover the same area?

Jayne.9251:

I like Tyler. I think he has some great ideas. I think, given wvw’s history, he’s been very engaged. But for the multiple reasons I’ve outlined in this thread, alliances just aren’t conducive to building community; which is critical for any game’s longevity. Alliances would erode that self-identifier, would narrow the definition, and would exclude people when you want them involved.

Server links are doing a great job eroding server identity due to the implementation.

Norbe.7630:

Or Gaile could have merged them instead of just deleting, or even if pips dont want to post here

Yes they should have been merged.

Game needs less siege and less powerful siege not more and more powerful siege

Tongku.5326:

Also, there needs to be some sort of scoring adjustment based on outnumbered conditions. And by outnumbered for the score, I mean total players in WVW on all maps per each respective side during any skirmish. The game already has ways to keep track of how many players it has, it knows when map caps are reached and outnumbered buffs activated, so it wouldn’t be very hard to add a few tiered thresholds and some scoring adjustments based of off those.

Thats not going to help population disparity it will only drive players away.

Spurnshadow.3678:

Factions are a horrible idea. It would be super easy to manipulate that system.

Faction 1 full, make faction 2 an ally of faction 1. Dominate faction 3. or Make 3 factions and win trade.

Factions are too mercurial to create any kind of pride or identity, which is an important part of many players in this game. Of course, Mal, and players like him, don’t get that. They are the people who have multiple accounts on different servers, create their own factions and try to bully and manipulate other servers to their whims. He has no interest in community and usually ends up hurting them. He enjoys playing the political game to influence things to fit his way.

Funny how factions are regarded as the best systems for large scale pvp in game design then. A good factional system will be flexible enough to at least partly mitigate issues with population imbalance. As for alliances, sure but that happens now and requires the full time co-operation of the other faction.

And factions in any factional game have an identity, ESO does, DAOC did.

QuickRain.4735:

\
In my Opinion Anet needs someone on each server for “scouting” purposes so proper actions can be taken preferably during NA prime preferably if manual adjustment are possibly needed, for example DB needing to be moved down to T4

Yes I’ve come to this conclusion lately as well. Anet are clearly making decisions based on metrics alone, they actually need to get some experience of what is happening on servers.

Jayne.9251:

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

I didn’t write this. Only Arena Net can explain it not me. But from my perspective, this is what the game needs. It would even allow downtime tournaments and proper rewards. It would allow us to keep our communities together while keeping match-ups competitive and adding variation to them as well.

I don’t think Anet wrote this either, so it would be hard to explain for them.

Its along the lines of what Tyler has stated.

Chaba.5410:

morrolan.9608:

1st scenario is far more likely under a 2,1,1 system.

Until there is a better Skirmish UI, the generic player will have no clue about any of this.

The generic player doesn’t govern strategy.

Ben K.6238:

Won’t make a difference because the easiest way to get those two points is still focus the weakest server.

Nope easiest way is for 2 and 3 to 2v1 1.

1 and 2 won’t 2v1 3 because 1 and 2 will share the ppt therefore 2 won’t gain.

The minute 2 tries to focus 3 alone 1 will focus 2 to protect themselves.

1st scenario is far more likely under a 2,1,1 system.

The poll link is broken it takes me to account overview.

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

So from my sources, the sponsors were worried about the destruction of server communities if and when they chose to overhaul the system. Arena Net didn’t cancel it for their opinion. They canceled their plans, when they decided to poll the community to see if we wanted to keep server links. The community voted “yes”, for keeping server links in, But then Arena Net said right afterwards, that since Server links are now in, they would be scrapping the overhaul for server links.

So because we voted on server links, it scrapped their original idea without us even hearing it for what it could be. We replaced a well rounded near perfect system for Server links and no one even knows besides the select few.

That is mind boggling.

Ssssssshh we were hoping anet wouldn’t notice.

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

ArenaNet had it right before they decided to poll the community. Yet, they didn’t even tell the community their plans. They told these “sponsors”, fully detailed plans of a system called Battlegroups (Alliances). It was well thought out, and it would have allowed for the community to better balance itself. It would have allowed us to play where we want, and it would have led up to WvW tournaments. WvW, Needs a overall OVERHAUL. It needs a system flexible enough yet structured to allow the community to balance themselves happily. Instead of having Server loyalty, have loyalty for your alliance or Globe and the community you play with. Let that community be decided by the actual community and not outside forces.

I assume this is the system Tyler briefly referred to a while ago. It definitely seemed to resolve many of the issues that the game has even now. Shame to hear that it sounds like it was relatively advanced in terms of design. Were these ‘sponsors’ streamers? Did they decide not to proceed based on the reaction of the ‘sponsors’? It also adds weight to my perception that anet have moved the only devs with a clue about WvW off the mode and onto the xpac leaving other devs essentially in just maintenance mode on WvW making marginal changes but making the mode worse because they don’t understand the mode and the implications of what they are doing.

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

1 up 1 down, will do nothing but add to the attrition rate and give us even more of a reason, to do things like Hibernate, tank on purpose or manipulate the tiers through 2v1s. With this 1 up 1 down system, Tier 2 will never be balanced. Instead it will be a consistent blow out when 3rd place Tier 1 meets first place Tier 3 in T2.

Stop with the band aids and polls. Change the system fully, then make maps based off the new systems design. This guy I quoted wrote up large walls of text explaining a well put together system that’s actually very similar to what Arena Net’s Battlegroup system explained.

For once I fully agree with you on what anet need to do, and yes one up one down is probably not a solution any more and will just lead to further acrimony amongst the player base.

SteepledHat.1345:

Give mesmer a trait that lets it strip boons whenever an enemy walks through a glamour… like the old blinding/confusion builds. Fixed and mesmer isn’t damaged because of crying.

Love this idea

Jeknar.6184:

Dhemize.8649:

morrolan.9608:

Jeknar.6184:

When PPK is active, people say others don’t fight because they will give points to the enemy server. When PPK is innactive people say others don’t fight because it’s not worth it.

Please make up your minds.

There needs to be a balance, right now its too far one way, previously it was too far the other.

RyuDragnier.9476:

Jeknar.6184:

When PPK is active, people say others don’t fight because they will give points to the enemy server. When PPK is innactive people say others don’t fight because it’s not worth it.

Please make up your minds.

This. IMO people don’t fight nowadays not because of the PPK, but either because they’re bad or they’re afraid of dying in a game mode where YOU WILL DIE ALL THE TIME. It just gets ridiculous.

When JQ faced YB the previous match they clearly went out of their way to avoid fights so JQ wouldn’t build up a big score from PPK in the skirmish. It was crystal clear what they were doing.

I’m fairly certain that JQ wasn’t even considered a threat.

Besides, we waited at your spawn and people eventually stopped coming out to fight.

If it’s not SEA time, you don’t find JQ on the field. I don’t know why would anyone have to protect the score from PPK from JQ. Just look at the current YB matchup. You really think a server that is trying hard to protect the score from PPK would be sitting at 0.6?

I’m obviously talking about the timezone I play in (OCX) where you will find JQ in the BLs (not just in SEA time). And yes with the skirmish system guilds will try to protect their position in the current skirmish.