How long are you going to avoid server merges? That’s what was needed since a year ago. There are too many servers for the existing WvW population.
That’s been mentioned repeatedly. And lowest-pops didn’t want to lose their identities. So we got linkings. And now some of them are nothing but a + next to their higher tier links.
Thats the point linkages were done so badly that what we have is effective server merges, which just goes to show that server identity was never that important but anet couldn’t see it. We have quite a few people on JQ now who transferred from IOJ after our link and I know some from AR that want to transfer to JQ as well if we open up again.
I know other game developers have psychologists on staff to help the developers actually discern what is important to their players and how they play, as opposed to what the players say is important which is often not what they mean. I wouldn’t mind betting anet doesn’t have any such position or if they do certainly they aren’t looking at WvW players.
(edited by morrolan.9608)
I know many of you fundamentally disagree with the removal of build items – and that’s fine. I understand where you’re coming from, but I hope you understand why we use this as a tool for balancing PvP specifically.
Problem with that is its a hugely blunt instrument. TBH when you decided to balance more by using amulets you really should have completely revised the system, say with HOT.
In the interests of transparency how was this value decided?
And seeing as how you are forced to resort to this will the upcoming scoring changes feature a change to the way glicko works to provide more volatility in matchmaking?
Honestly, I think they just threw a dice and said “oh, I think that’s close enough”.
Now about the glicko stuff, I think they said somewhere in that CD thread that they intent to make a pool about reseting glicko ratings.
I don’t mean just a reset, anet’s variation of glicko does not work.
Hello everyone,
As Chris mentioned last week here, we are going to be manually adjusting Glicko ratings during tomorrows reset for the purpose of improving matchmaking. We will be temporarily adjusting Crystal Desert, Sorrow’s Furnace, and Darkhaven rating by +200,
In the interests of transparency how was this value decided?
And seeing as how you are forced to resort to this will the upcoming scoring changes feature a change to the way glicko works to provide more volatility in matchmaking?
I think the Cleric Amulet needed to go, they got rid of Soldier, Soldier made you yourself sustainable but with Cleric people could heal 5 door breakers faster than a trebuchet could damage them. Usually hitting them twice with it is enough, a healer could pretty much negate the trebuchet damage. Magi, well it has vitality instead of toughness and precision instead of power. I can imagine a lot of healers will pay the gold and unlock it. Would like to see it go as well as it has the same healing power as Cleric so could be used to keep enemy NPCs alive pretty much indefinitely. Either that or bring back cleric but nerf the Tempest and Druid healing abilities beyond recognition. Nothing wrong with making them able to heal so that door breakers can survive an extra hit or so from the treb but not much more than that.
If they deleted an entire amulet only because of stronghold, a failed pvp map, then I would be flabbergasted.
I still don’t understand, what is an enrichment slot? Why are amulets different from rings and accessories all of which had the same infusion slots prior to this?
Answering my own question. From what I gather the enrichment slot is for what used to be utility infusions only. Reading between the lines the reason for not having an infusion slot in amulets is that it would give players too much agony resistance when combined with rings and accessories. So a fractal only issue affects WvW and PvE apart from fractals.
Kind of a dumb waste of developer resources but the Engineer is largely unaffected besides one less option.
Are you still playing revenant in comps?
“limitation” = we’re too lazy to give a dime.
Thats what I gathered.
It’s got nothing to do with fractals or being lazy. The new system they have, in which there’s only one type of infusion, doesn’t allow for bonuses to MF, Karma, gold find, or XP gain. So they had to choose: turn all amulet slots into ordinary infusions and screw over all the owners of utility infusions or turn all amulet slots into enrichments and screw over … no one — it’s an inconvenience at worst: people have an extra infusion with no immediate use and those who don’t fractal lose +5 stat bonus.
WvWers still have access to all the other infusion slots and all the WvW infusions. And, in theory, there’s room to create a demotion/promotion path for those, too.
I still don’t understand, what is an enrichment slot? Why are amulets different from rings and accessories all of which had the same infusion slots prior to this?
And arguably WvW players are being screwed over by not getting a laurel refund. I have I think 14 amulets that I received WvW infusions back for most of my rings and accessories already have WvW infusions in them. Thats 70 laurels which is not insignificant.
“limitation” = we’re too lazy to give a dime.
Thats what I gathered.
Retal doesn’t reveal.
I’d wish they nerfed the passive proc on perplex runes, too, though. That gave me more trouble than the interrupts often did. Good to see the runes getting nerfed after years of blatant dominance. Still not fixing dire/TB, though.
I was hoping they’ve have also nerfed durability runes. Too bad, really.
I would rather they keep the 5 confusion on interrupt and nerf the passive proc on hit to 1 stack of confusion from 3. Or maybe nerf the confusion duration bonus and condi damage bonus. Any one of those is better than this garbage. This isn’t really a nerf, they just changed how the rune completely works so that it doesn’t work at all with some builds anymore but also makes the rune work with builds that it didn’t work with previously. In this case, condi interrupt builds got nerfed but other condi builds that stays in melee range and stealth-heavy condi builds gets buffed (like the perma stealth condi build I just posted). I’m not going to play that build though because it’s too boring for me. I posted it to show that they failed at nerfing perplex.
Yeah this would at least keep the playstyle more active as opposed to the completely passive playstyle of the change. One can only think they made this change cause of casual players.
From the OOS AMA by the devs:
Q: …is there a specific reason the amulet infusion slot has been replaced with the enrichment slot instead of just… well, having two slots? I have to get a bit more AR for 14 characters now, which is quite the hassle, just because the amulet slot is gone. Was it a technical limitation you didn’t get around reasonably or was it simply a choice?
Developer response:
A: It was a systemic limitation.
With the change to infusion slots which let players place any Infusion into any Slot, we couldn’t keep both kinds of amulets.
[it] actually takes fewer +1 Agony Infusions to get 150 AR post-patch. To get 150 AR now, you only need to make 12 +8s and 6 +9s. You don’t need +11s or +10s anymore.
If you currently have a set of +11s and +10s, you can take those to the new vendor in the Mistlock Observatory to break them down into +9s and +8s. Once you’re down breaking them down, you should have enough Infusions to get 150 AR and still have 2 +9s left over.
Sorry as someone who doesn’t do fractals this doesn’t make any sense to me. How can it be a systemic limitation?
No one in GW2 history has ever complained about these runes. Strength Runes were still stronger before the change and much stronger after the change. Why the nerf its a nonessential change?
Yet Durability runes remain unchanged? Do you understand the argument you nerf things that no one cares about, You buff things like venoms that people HATE. Etc etc etc….
Cmon pack runes are an easy target for nerfs, we all know it. Its not cause they do too much damage. Its not cause they give too much utility. Its cause they are a nice middle ground. And we can’t have middle grounds in this game, past patches have seen to that.
Also they gave a bunch of boooooooooooooooons. And instead of tackling the absurb boon durations on all classes, its easier to nerf the rune for all classes. That’s how anet does things, I don’t think anyone is surprised at this point.
IS ANYONE SURPRISED THEY DID THIS?
Yeah usually changes like this are at least a result of whinging. Like the OP said no-one has said anything unlike durability and perplexity tunes. So why the change? There should be an explanation.
Is it really a nerf to mesmers? Seems to me its still going to be powerful.
- No plans to refund WvW Infusions for laurels since they are still functional.
See this is what anet really think of WvW players.
A part of the glicko wall problem is the strength of victory calculation. I describe the problem here:
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Error-in-WvW-Glicko-Scoring/
The poor strength of victory modeling (for the actual score) results in a tier wall.
Thats a really fantastic description of the problem with their glicko. The problem is obvious so why can’t they change? Do they not have anyone with the appropriate expertise working on WvW? If so get someone in temporarily to revise it. They’re talking about temporarily adding to a servers rating, well how do they calculate that?
The PvP balances are fine, except as you say the medic gyro, the only reason to take medic gyro over healing turret was because of the insta-cast. Now that that is gone, it’s simply back to the turret we go.
Yep stupid change, we had something of an option other than healing turret and they nerf it so back to healing turret we go. AED won;t be taken. Its lunacy.
So infusions can’t be used in the new slot and we haven’t been refunded the significant amounts of laurels we spent on infusions. Another bigkittento WvW from anet.
Considering all the condi, siege, cc garbage they are buffing…things like durability and boonsharing are pretty much a necessity.
This, can’t nerf durability without nerfing condis and they’re making condis worse.
Clerics has been in since launch hasn’kitten Why is it suddenly too OP?
It doesn’t hurt anything as long as it is on public for tactivators.
But did their guild actually have to grind to raise the guild level to get those tactics and other guild buffs?
If they didn’t what’s the problem? You are mad that they didn’t had to go through the same gold sink? It’s not like they are the only max level guild in the game and are giving some kind of super advantage to the server they are on. There are several guilds with max level auras out there and Anet guild problably don’t give anything more than those other guilds do. You people are just flipping tables over some minor stuff.
I didn’t start the thread so I’m hardly flipping tables, just asking a question. I don’t really care that much but if their guild was just automatically given max buffs and tactics and is then actually using it in game on only certain servers then I think there’s at least the appearance of a conflict of interest.
It doesn’t hurt anything as long as it is on public for tactivators.
But did their guild actually have to grind to raise the guild level to get those tactics and other guild buffs?
Its clear that that the T4 links were poorly done. Glicko adjustment for matchmaking won’t help if the worlds are not linked properly.
Yep and there’s still nothing from anet on the process on how these links were arrived at.
They commented in the other thread about the adjustment they will make on the 29th. They also said they could look at modifying how matchups are determined but it is a significant enough change that it would take time out of the current issues they are addressing so it is automatically on the proverbial back burner.
Yes the burning issues of repair hammers and mobile cannons…..
They don’t get any super magical powers that any other guild claiming a keep would get.
So they’ve had to personally grind for months to get all the guild tactics and buffs?
I disagree entirely and am quite glad to see their presence , whether on my side or no.
He’s not referring to just having a presence though.
I believe it would require a commitment that MO isn’t prepared to make for the following reasons;
- He gave the WvW players an overflow map, regular WvWers hated it.
- He gave the WvW players a new map, many regular WvWers hated it.
You imply that WvWers will never be satisfied which is just wrong. The DBL was objectively a poor map for WvW. The reasons were pointed out to them with the beta and they ignored the feedback.
EOTM was never just an overflow map and took casual players away from WvW itself and was for a long while just a k train. Legitimate reasons for dislike.
(edited by morrolan.9608)
(they certainly won’t be as strong as stationary cannons…)
You got an inside Anet source on that? Because Anets history of sensible siege damage… well, it doesnt exist. And they still havent done any changes to ACs.
If you want to get into the magical fantasy land of delusional things that will never be, the only way I can see deployable cannons working is if they work as actual cannons. Solid projectile that can damage walls but wont do crap in terms of AoE damage. It would however be a real projectile so it could plow through and damage a zerg silly enough to stack in a line. Fire control would be an aimed line downrange, not AoE on point. 1/3 control direction (ie like a cata but with shallower arc and faster projectile with tiny ball size AoE on impact)
Will we see that?
No.
We will more than likely see kittening OP cannons with wide and stupid AoE explosions.
Prove me wrong Anet.
What I simply mean by that is that I have very very very high doubts that they deal that much damage, which I’ve already read as speculation here. Stationary cannons deal a kitten ton of damage against siege for example. If you only had one of the new ones right behind the gate you could forget placing any rams whatsoever there. That’s certainly not gonna happen. They simply can’t be that stupid. (right? I mean…really?….meep?)
Well its aoe that goes through gates so its logical that cannon aoe will go through gates.
Forgot about server chat yes yes yes
No more polls to do with siege
Well then, if you have a hundread eligible players and players 50 through 55 face 56 through 60, it shouldn’t be a blow out. Also it would turn out that roughly half the time someone would be facing the 5 players immediaely better than them and half the time roughly the immediate lower. Since the game only requires a less than 50% win ratio to progress, you should in this environment grind your way up.
Now you ask me how I explain ridiculous blow outs… well if you have low player population and it had to expand pip ranges to make matches then you could have a blow out. Did you play a lot when their were a low amount of players in your pip range? But I’m giving away what I wanted Josh to answer to. What the flaws to his algorithm were. So you can tell me though, what else can account for it?
We don’t know exactly how close the initial search range was. Given the experience of many people it was still wide enough that it resulted in many blowouts and unfair matchmaking for those no the lower end of the scale. And of course low population would exacerbate it.
These polls are verging on becoming a farce. There are many players on the salt forum boasting about voting yes purely to troll and destroy the mode.
I’m one of the people on the salty forums who “boasted” about voting yes and honestly, idc…. I actually voted No, but I guess I’ll change my vote now.
Why, just cause I brought it up?
Nah… I actually think we must give a reason for all this hate people are spitting here by seeing the cannons go live. People can cry about them when they are in game, then it will be acceptable cries. Until then, they are just guesses of how broken they can be and not actually conclusive complaints.
Fair enough, I can understand that. I would question whether anybody is actually going to learn anything though given the use of powerful siege before and how badly its turned out.
(edited by morrolan.9608)
These polls are verging on becoming a farce. There are many players on the salt forum boasting about voting yes purely to troll and destroy the mode.
I’m one of the people on the salty forums who “boasted” about voting yes and honestly, idc…. I actually voted No, but I guess I’ll change my vote now.
Why, just cause I brought it up?
These polls are verging on becoming a farce. There are many players on the salt forum boasting about voting yes purely to troll and destroy the mode.
I mostly play wvw in GW2, and I have absolutely no desire to try CU, after reading MJ’s comments about how it would be designed with the hard core grinder in mind. Thanks, but no thanks. Been there done that before with DaoC, and while it was fun at the time, MJ sounds like he wants to go even more hardcore and grindy with CU, and I have absolutely no desire to do that anymore. Makes the game too much like a job.
Thats pretty funny considering how grindy GW2 is, and there is no indication that CU will be hardcore in a grindy way AFAIK.
You have to be kidding. Did you ever play DaoC(or Everquest, LotRo, CoH, AoC, Aion, etc) in its original, exceptionally grindy form? And Mark Jacobs wants to make CU even more hardcore than that.
I think you’re misinterpreting what he means by hardcore. Its a RvRvR game only, no PvE questing, which means it will be playable from when you enter the game, it has to be, we won’t have to grind for realm ranks to be effective.
Yes those early mmos were grindy the world has moved on. What is an acceptable grind now is different.
And no-one is talking about getting rid of siege its just keeping it as support for taking objectives thats all.
I see lots of posts saying things along these lines: “this game need less siege and not more”. You better read other posts before posting things like this.
Wanting less siege does not equate to getting rid of siege. I want AC damage toned down that doesn’t mean I want all siege gone.
Read the post above this one… There are several posts like this one all over this forum.
This particular debate started with an assertion about players wanting ALL siege gone, that is what I’m objecting to not about wanting some siege gone.
I mostly play wvw in GW2, and I have absolutely no desire to try CU, after reading MJ’s comments about how it would be designed with the hard core grinder in mind. Thanks, but no thanks. Been there done that before with DaoC, and while it was fun at the time, MJ sounds like he wants to go even more hardcore and grindy with CU, and I have absolutely no desire to do that anymore. Makes the game too much like a job.
Thats pretty funny considering how grindy GW2 is, and there is no indication that CU will be hardcore in a grindy way AFAIK.
And no-one is talking about getting rid of siege its just keeping it as support for taking objectives thats all.
I see lots of posts saying things along these lines: “this game need less siege and not more”. You better read other posts before posting things like this.
Wanting less siege does not equate to getting rid of siege. I want AC damage toned down that doesn’t mean I want all siege gone.
And why so? You guys just deliver baseless claims. You don’t know how those things will work out. Try them. They are implemented for testing after all. If you can’t give good arguments I’m not sure why I or anyone else should give you credit.
And yes. People do hate Siege with a passion. I’ve heard that delete siege claim often enough. If you don’t want that, good. There are those people though. And having more options to choose from is usually never bad (Do I wan’t Golems? Trebs? Cannons? What are the Up and Downsides?) – As long as they are properly balanced of course.
I do know how it will turn out, it will be abused just like when they increased AC damage, just like during the golem event. Thats human nature.
As for siege see what I wrote above, and how are we meant to take objectives without siege?
How would you feel when you login in every day on EB, looking at the map… no markers. No blue commanders. None on the borders either. Because they dont exist. There could be a 20 man raid squad anywhere. No one except those in the raid would know. No guilds working together with pugs because no one know where they are. No guilds working together with other guilds. Not even scouts marking locations.
Now imagine the above on a kittening map 20x the size of a GW2 map.
I’ve played ESO up to max level, none of that happened (except for the guild part but it was never a heavily guild driven game in the beginning), there were always squads taking in pugs to take an objective, and when you were in a squad you could see where they were on the map
If you want it or not, Siege is a defining part of WvW. Without Siege, WvW would turn into a mindless, generic mass zerg PvP #1 spamfest which you can find in literally every asia grinder out there.
tl&dr: If you prefer that stuff, kindly move to another game.
Yet what will happen is that the game will turn into a #1 spamfest on siege exactly what you apparently don’t want.
And no-one is talking about getting rid of siege its just keeping it as support for taking objectives thats all.
I think its too late for that in this game. Perhaps in GW3, or a whole other side game in addition to their next MMORPG.
I don’t believe they will want to put a WvW game mode in GW3. Too much hassle and I suspect the original game designers responsible for the mode are not at anet any more.
ESO had potential to be great, but they blew it by not taking aspects from GW2. Commanders alone would have made it 10x better from the start.
What? They had squads from the start with leaders. It was always easy to find a squad and join. It took anet what 3 years to introduce sqauds. The problem with ESO was the lack of balance and an endgame grind that exacerbated that, both of why I understand they are improving on.
1. Build saver, badly needed across entire game
2. Option for commander tag to be visible only to squad
3. Showing linked server name for those players from the linked server.
Address the tough issues of scoring, population and profession balance. Take a stand and show your playerbase that you’re ready to accept WvW not for what it is, but what it can become.
Thank you for reading.
I agree with you but it won’t happen. Anet basically had their last chance after the HOT disaster when they had an idea for a complete overhaul of WvW. They chose not to go that way and instead made marginal changes with the linkages and the upcoming scoring changes, which won’t fix the fundamental issues, and the linkages aren’t working anyway. They are just fiddling around the edges now.
The problems with WvW go right back to launch when they put people in charge who clearly had no regard for WvW and upper management let them have their way.
OK so its official anet do not actually know how to develop for WvW and have lost the knowledge of what makes a good RvR game in general.
There is also the fact that the community basically voted to prioritize the most demanding stuff on the scoring changes list. They will take a while, so in the mean time they don’t have much to show for those… better this than dead air, no?
Actually no, dead air would be better.
You underestimate the bandwagon train onto ET. It was crazy. 4 map queues during weekdays during NA. 2 map queues for OCX. Since the unlink, I’ve just been seeing outnumbered buff for BG OCX unless me and KnM runs at the same time.
If thats the case it beggars belief that ET was put into the 4 server link. What the hell were they thinking?
However it does raise the question of why BG was the only server to remain closed after being unlinked if its population was no better than say TCs. Either people are bored on BG and not playing or anets population calculations are wrong.
(edited by morrolan.9608)
Thank you, Josh, for the response.
It’s great that you guys want to improve match quality and make divisions reflect player skill, BUT, the league system just makes all of that impossible. The way the leagues are designed and built just guarantees that these problems will always exist.
First off, pips. Pips system is not about skill, it’s about grind. This is pretty much a re-skin of the old point-based leaderboards but WORSE. Anyone can grind up pips to move up the ladder if they try hard enough. Sound familiar? It’s WORSE because the matchmaking system is mixed with the pip system. This brings me to matchmaking.
You can have a league system with PIPS or MMR for ranking, but you CANNOT have both. Thanks to the matchmaking, players get stuck on divisions and can’t grind their pips! Some players are more fortunate than others and have the MMR gods smile upon them. Others…not so.
I suggest an MMR-based ladder. I think we used to have that in the first couple years.
This! All of it!
Gave up during S3 so won’t be playing S4 at all.
If you have to manually adjust the rating system, that implies the rating system is not suitable!
Additionally what is the extent of manual interference involved. Is it going to be a case of subjective opinion
Good point, how is the adjusted glicko going to be calculated?
Currently some worlds, such as Crystal Desert, are stuck in what’s come to be referred to as “Glicko hell”. This is where a few worlds’ Glicko ratings drift off from the rest of the group, leaving a wide enough gap that those drifting away won’t be matched up against the rest.
To help prevent stale matchups, we’ll soon be able to artificially adjust Glicko ratings solely for the purpose of matchmaking.
Why not simply acknowledge a mistake was made in the linking and redo them?
Politics in T1 do not exist. Its pretty much BG’s call as to who will take the 3rd spot once they have a willing 2nd server who is satisfied with a 2nd place finish. Once that pecking order is established, BG zergs and #2 guild plays with them in parallel. See multiple posts above. Anet should add decreased supplies and rapid “siege” deterioration to compensate, like over extension of supply lines irl.
Before the Linking YB had first and BG was 3rd. Since BG have been unlinked they have not taken first
BG came first when all the improvements started to be made to WvW after the HOT disaster. That brought players back, now they are getting bored and going back into hibernation. ET may have had some effect but can hardly be the only explanation.
The YB of late is nowhere near what it was a year ago.
You can perhaps call my own personal experiences a lie, yet I question how much time you spent yourself playing both on and against YB.
The feedback was pretty conclusive from all who played against YB. YB now are not what they were in the days when T1 was BG/JQ/YB
Answering more questions:
1. Does the repair hammer work on all siege? Yes, it will work on all siege.
2. Can siege be manned while being repaired? In the current design, yes, one person can be using the siege while another person is repairing it.
3. Does it require supply? Yes, you can only use the repair hammer if you have supply.
4. How much supply will it cost to repair siege? In the current design, it costs the same amount of supply to repair siege as it does to create the siege. Example: it takes 40 supply to create an arrow cart it would also take about 40 supply to repair an arrow cart that is close to having 0 health.
5. Are there restrictions on repair hammers, for example only allowing 1 person to repair 1 siege for x period of time, etc.? In the current design there are no restrictions besides needing supply, however; if this does make it into the game on a trail basis and we receive a lot of feedback that repair hammers would be great if they only had x restrictions (and the restrictions are something we can feasibly do) restrictions could be added.Also when I say “current design” this means that those things could be subject to change.
Thank you McKenna.
On point 2 I think I can safely say that has to change, siege should be unoccupied to be repaired.
Not affiliated with ArenaNet or NCSOFT. No support is provided.
All assets, page layout, visual style belong to ArenaNet and are used solely to replicate the original design and preserve the original look and feel.
Contact /u/e-scrape-artist on reddit if you encounter a bug.