Guild Wars 2

SpellOfIniquity.1780:

Since Friday reset of last week, CD has had at least one zerg of 40+ all 24 hours of every day.

In SEA, OCX and EU times? I find that hard to believe unless its holdovers from the T1 linking still on the respective servers, in which case I again state why weren’t those numbers taken into account in determining the linkage?

IMO you’re not seeing the forest for the trees. If rotation gets up say goodbye to WvW for 3 months and in all likelihood it will be the definite death of the mode because every 3 months less and less will come back. Its that simple.

Josh Davis.6015:

The Lesh Prince recently developed some tech that makes skill-splitting more feasible than it was previously – you’ll see some PvP (and PvE) splits in the next balance update. It’s important to understand that changes will still need to be global, but we’ll definitely have a bit more flexibility moving forward.

I don’t understand this. The engine has always had the capability of balancing spvp and pve/wvw separately. Early on they were balanced separately.

Xillllix.3485:

OMG.

Can’t wait to hear them say… "ah well we said 75% but it’s 74.9% so we wont do anything you want, ?

They may well do that given these votes are advisory only.

dzeRnumbrd.6129:

Aitadis.8269:

A simple solution would be to reset glicko for a week, that way the servers that own will move up to T1, and the servers that struggle will go down to t3/t4. In a couple more weeks it will work itself out and put servers where they belong glicko wise. Please Anet.

I just think Glicko parameters needs to be modified so it adapts faster rather than slower.

I believe there is something called ‘RD’ in Glicko-1 that can be modified to do this and something called volatility in Glicko-2 that can be modified for the same purpose.

With these new linking systems the convergence needs to be faster.

In this initial period volatility has apparently been made more sensitive which is why we get match ups like the current T3 match up.

Jirayu.5834:

It’s actually JQ and SBI that do blobbing a lot. most of our time in SoS/NSP, we usually have only about 20 ppl in squad. And sometimes this squad gotta hold things from both JQ and SBI.

Oh please in OCX time you have the biggest blob across all 3 servers.

Josh XT.6053:

The glicko wall is awful.

Honestly the pairing for that match up should have been like this:

CD + BP + ET
DH + EB + K
SF + FC + GOM

Really was no reason to put 4 servers together. Glicko needs reset, I’ve been saying it since the first server pairings.

Why does Glicko need to be reset when its plain that the actual issue in this regard is putting the 4 servers together? As I’ve been saying it calls into question anets whole linking system and how they decide the linkages. It appears to be an absolutely abysmal decision. How was it made?

You don’t level up but you get experience scrolls like in spvp that you use to level up, you get tons of them, so many that you probably level quicker than before anyway.

Jayne.9251:

morrolan.9608:

Straegen.2938:

morrolan.9608:

The engine can’t handle it, GW2 is built on a modified GW1 engine. It looks pretty but is horribly inefficient. Anets technical expertise isn’t that good.

Actually for an MMO it is a pretty efficient server engine. To my knowledge no game out there has dynamic positional combat on this scale with this many AoE skills firing.

I still fundamentally believe their base problem was putting far too much AoE into the game.

ESO has lots of aoes and dropped the restriction a while ago.

Lol that’s because ESO lacks players.

The game actually seems to be doing quite well.

And its funny making that comment given the decline in WvW population.

Hexinx.1872:

Okay … what are all these loading screens people are complaining about taking minutes long?

I must be missing something because every time I log in , I load to LA and it takes like maybe 8-10 seconds (generally acceptable imho) and I’m in LA

Are you using a SSD?

Straegen.2938:

morrolan.9608:

The engine can’t handle it, GW2 is built on a modified GW1 engine. It looks pretty but is horribly inefficient. Anets technical expertise isn’t that good.

Actually for an MMO it is a pretty efficient server engine. To my knowledge no game out there has dynamic positional combat on this scale with this many AoE skills firing.

I still fundamentally believe their base problem was putting far too much AoE into the game.

ESO has lots of aoes and dropped the restriction a while ago.

Josh XT.6053:

75.8% now… Please close it lol…

Don’t worry once they get rid of the see results option the percentage increases. Someone upthread said simultaneous is actually at 79%

Tifa.6473:

Gg another thing taken away from wvw players that has been apart of wvw since the begining of guild wars 2. Thanks anet for listening to fools again by either deleting or nerfing things that are good or useful to vet players.

Most WvW players don’t want them there.

Nyta.4769:

Is this just a t1 problem? It’s so rare that I see my home bl queued, and I’m in t2. And even when it is, I never see more than 3 people at the stations, and usually it’s none, or it’s someone standing kinda near them, but not close enough to be crafting anything.

Its important because they need accurate population measures for the linking.

SkyShroud.2865:

morrolan.9608:

So what you expect JQ to force a sea guild to move off it then wait for at least a month and try to recruit more NA? Do you not see how unreasonable that is? We love our sea guilds on JQ.

You know what is really unreasonable? Trying to be greedy on having the largest SEA yet also want to have a NA numbers that can put JQ in T1.

Non sequitor and you’re avoiding the question.

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

There is nothing wrong with replacing those you’ve lost. But to think BG can only be handled by JQ and it needs to be in Tier 1 is something entirely different.

You’re projecting a bit there and besides there are plenty on JQ who don’t want to be in T1 any more.

MaLeVoLenT.8129:

A lot of drama with admins and tired of dealing with Yaks Bend so they gave up. Caused them to lose a large portion of their NA and EU to other servers willing to keep trying and over time they lost a lot of coverage.

Most of that drama happened after our NA had already shrunk. JQ always had a large militia population who simply gave the game away and never returned and we didn’t have the guild driven population and leadership of BG.

JediSange.1645:

Backround: I’m a developer and understand the answer to this might be technical in nature. I’m assuming the sheer amount of hit detection becomes too great for the servers to handle. ArenaNet has a world-class technical background and I’d love to hear insight on this topic. But for the sake of discussion, let’s assume that is not the reason.

The engine can’t handle it, GW2 is built on a modified GW1 engine. It looks pretty but is horribly inefficient. Anets technical expertise isn’t that good.

X T D.6458:

Lol I just have to laugh seeing these scores…Ironically the only tier with a somewhat close match up is Tier 1 rofl. Well you all asked for it now you have 3 unbalanced tiers with blowout scores because anet listened to the whiners and decided pairing 4 servers against 3 paired servers against 2 somehow equated to balance and would help spread the population.

Who asked for 4 servers to be linked?

As I said in another thread on this, this linkage brings into question anets population calculations because t looks absolutely ludicrous.

OriOri.8724:

I don’t like having 2 ABL and 1 DBL, and I also hate the thought of having 3 months of ABL at a time. The two options I listed are enough to know whether the community wants simultaneous borderlands or not. And then after that you should have held another poll to get the details.

If rotating won then you should have had a new poll with a timeline (rotate every 1, 2, 3 months). And if simultaneous had won you should have had a new poll with whether we wanted 1 DBL and 2 ABL, 2 DBL and 1 ABL or 1 of each and you guys start working on a third BL map. But as it is this was a bad poll. I don’t want 2 ABL as I hate those maps, but seeing as how that is likely to win at this point, it means that I will never get 2DBL and 1 ABL which is what I would prefer

In regard to simultaneous its as plain as the nose on your face that most would prefer 2ABL 1DBL no reason to have a extra poll for that. The polls are too granular as it is.

In regard to rotation they have already said its a resource intensive manual process to put a new build in so they want to keep it at 3 months.

Leaa.2943:

Both options are kitten. If one home border is the desert border it means that one server will have a very kittenty 3 months and their rank can even be effected by it.

If we have desert borders for 3 whole kitten months is just gonna make people stop playing during those 3 months and many might drop and not come back when alpine is back again.

I still can not for the love of god understand why it is not obvious that the alpine border is working as intended? Why do we have to be forced to go through this whole thing again where pop drops and why do you even think wvw will survive this? It have been tried already.

Desert border is not what the majority want. Your voting was so wrongly made, and you should just have put up vote either desert or alpine. Period.

Why 1 or the other? That would not be smart and simultaneous provides the options for both anyway. The previous poll was fine. As for population dropping, vote for the simultaneous option that was everyone gets what they want.

orenwolf.1953:

Instead, three-quarters of the population (a supermajority) need to agree that this is what they want. This is pretty standard practice for major decisions – For example, a 67% supermajority is required for changes to the US constitution. Also, congress can override a veto from the president by 67% vote.

67% super majority is justifiable, 75% is significantly higher and makes it far easier to abuse the poll as we have seen once in these polls.

DeWolfe.2174:

Oh, and don’t be mislead by BG in T1. They throttle to keep matches closer. They aren’t called Hibergate for nothing. Also, a certain couple of Guilds are OT’ing on TC to focus YB down.

Currently ticking at 40 in NA prime time.

Cindas.6149:

I do not want Simultaneous Borderlands, I do not want Rotating borderlands, I do not want Desert Borderlands with my eggs and ham.

We’ve had the vote on the DBL a significant number of the player base voted to keep it in. It does not help matters to keep harping on it.

SkyShroud.2865:

DeWolfe.2174:

SkyShroud.2865:

How about something crazier, lose some of your SEA so you won’t be full?

It’s always something negative with you isn’kitten Break this community, break that World, all you want to do is break everything other than your own. How very non awesome of you friend.

Negative? Nah, I’m being extremely objective. If you lose one map queue of casual SEA, you can fill up your NA with 1 additional map queue. It is completely logical.

So what you expect JQ to force a sea guild to move off it then wait for at least a month and try to recruit more NA? Do you not see how unreasonable that is? We love our sea guilds on JQ.

Although I’m not in this matchup it seems pretty clear that anet’s estimation of population is way off. Maybe they expected more people to transfer off ET and Kaineng after being delinked I dunno but something has gone completely awry and it could indicate that overall there is an issue with their population calculation.

Grant Gertz.7524:

A message from the WvW Team,
The next WvW Poll is up!
https://feedback.guildwars2.com
Please share your thoughts and feedback on the poll in this thread!

Why does simultaneous require 75%? Thinking about it logically there was never a vote for rotating borderlands in the first place. It is foolishness that will see WvW decline for 3 months if you keep it at rotating. The devs must try and understand the player base better.

DeWolfe.2174:

Teon.5168:

How would a mixed bls setup of 2 ABLS and 1 DBL affect the population?

Because to have a good competitive environment, all sides need to have an equal playing field, literally. Football fields are equal on both sides of the 50 yard line are they not? I can’t think of a single sport that has unequal courts, fields, or lanes. As such, people that play WvW as a competitive game mode will leave.

It’s funny to sad how much WvW is becoming EotM. In EotM there’s two types of play, K-Training or Bag Farming. Now in WvW it’s basically coming down to people wanting to full blown either K-Training or Bag Farming too. Long live EotM 2.0

Football fields aren’t equal say in the middle of winter when one is covered by snow and others aren’t. The mode is very unequal in other ways. If the DBL and a new future home BL conformed to norms established by the ABL, eg northern towers able to treb garri then having different BLs would be fine IMO.

DeWolfe.2174:

So wait…. JQ received the second to last place world prior to Beta. Now we’ve been paired with the actual last placed world prior to Beta. How exactly does that work out? That we have less players again after linking. Meanwhile, a couple minutes before midnight EST, and BG has 61 players in queue total across the 4 maps.

So the problem is, how is this a competitive game mode any longer? We can’t build our team up, to move up, because we’re locked. The dev’s take away numbers when they please. This is pretty much hitting “why bother” levels of care now.

Yep exactly why bother when we get hamstrung and our opposition gets a free leg up from the devs.

SkyShroud.2865:

Your eyes must have stamp, JQ was very high during last week, I also never once seen JQ drop to high.

Thats very high after they lowered the cap with the linkages. The week before the linkage JQ slipped to high.

Just move to a better game, you know the one I mean. Ranked mode on that game will be starting soon.

ImperialWL.7138:

Jak Leaf.7039:

Anet always had a carebear attitude towards the weak and underachieving, to the detriment of the WvW community. Remember how guard stacks got removed cos pve’ers cried about 250 ranks being unachievable? Most likely this change was made to keep pve’ers from feeling overwhelmed and intimidated by players who actually dedicated themselves and worked hard towards a goal.

Couldn’t have put it any better myself.

Yet you know the badge isn’t indicative of a players skill.

kraftie.4765:

morrolan.9608:

kraftie.4765:

morrolan.9608:

kraftie.4765:

McKenna Berdrow.2759:

This is intentional. We made the change to help with nameplate visual clutter in WvW.

Really? I, and many others, play pvp and wvw 90% of the time. Some have gone through and did the hard work for the sole cosmetic display of badges in wvw. It’s not hurting anyone so why change it?

You played to legendary solely to show the badge in WvW? I don’t believe it.

Believe it or not, some people do enjoy the player vs player aspect(s) of this game.

If you played ranked pvp solely for the pvp aspect then you wouldn’t care about a cosmetic item.

Pvp and wvw are both player vs player game modes, is it not?. Going by this logic, let’s disable mastery ranks in PVE as well to reduce clutter.

On your first point sort of, but does it matter. On your second point I think they also should be disabled.

ImperialWL.7138:

What is so hard to understand that as a WvW player I like to look good and for me the looking good part is to have a black badge next to my name?

What ever did you do before this year.

kraftie.4765:

morrolan.9608:

kraftie.4765:

McKenna Berdrow.2759:

This is intentional. We made the change to help with nameplate visual clutter in WvW.

Really? I, and many others, play pvp and wvw 90% of the time. Some have gone through and did the hard work for the sole cosmetic display of badges in wvw. It’s not hurting anyone so why change it?

You played to legendary solely to show the badge in WvW? I don’t believe it.

Believe it or not, some people do enjoy the player vs player aspect(s) of this game.

If you played ranked pvp solely for the pvp aspect then you wouldn’t care about a cosmetic item.

ImperialWL.7138:

At the end of the day it feels like all my hard work was for nothing, since I have nothing to show for it.

You can only display it to the beginning of the next season and if they change ranked pvp next year as I think they will then you may not show it at all.

kraftie.4765:

McKenna Berdrow.2759:

This is intentional. We made the change to help with nameplate visual clutter in WvW.

Really? I, and many others, play pvp and wvw 90% of the time. Some have gone through and did the hard work for the sole cosmetic display of badges in wvw. It’s not hurting anyone so why change it?

You played to legendary solely to show the badge in WvW? I don’t believe it.

Jayne.9251:

Or conversely your constant rant that ignores everyone not in T1.

Anet is trying to save the game mode and encourage destacking, so EVERY server can enjoy gameplay/challenge.

I’m not sure why you’re so against that.

There are guilds cut in half when transferring to other servers not just T1 servers, it happened to a guild I know of transferring to HOD.

If they were really committed to saving the mode on a long term basis they would have completely revamped the mode to be more flexible. Instead we are left with de facto server merges destroying server identities anyway and not even taking the steps to properly protect the mode from exploitation anyway. The decline has been slowed but will continue anyway.

Wolf Fivousix.4319:

Seems like it is our fault for playing the game and missing the small print in the biggest update log ever. Good communication job devs, well done! And I even watch Points of Interest every week, not like I am not following what you guys do…. Screw me anyway, I suppose. =/

Their communication remains shocking with items such as this. There should have been at least 2 days advance notice that this was going to happen.

The price to move to the linked server every 2 months if it even changes is not that high. From the sound of it you joined TW when TC was already locked so what do you expect?

I personally think anet needs to make fundamental changes to the mode to make it more flexible in this regard. Their ideas that they revealed about disbanding the servers every 3 months and reforming them would have achieved something like that depending on the detail. However with the current system the way they’ve set it up there have to be these sort of restrictions. Its arguable that the system still makes it too easy to stack by moving cheaply to linked servers.

JavaChips.5629:

They moved prior to this even coming into beta. I had to be away from the game for about 6 months.

Just FYI, TW are part of an alliance that got advance word on changes to WvW and tried to game the system and the changes to their advantage when they moved to TC en masse. Anet by their statements since and some actions (locking BG and TC last week) are clearly unsympathetic to the alliance and their actions.

Straegen.2938:

Seems reasonable that they locked top tier servers while they try and figure out the balance for relinking. If the populations start moving around anticipating the link, it could screw up their balance.

This issue happened last time when several T1 guilds moved around just before the link happened.

Why unlock them for 1 week then?

ImperialWL.7138:

So I sincerely hope this is a bug: go into WvW press alt and you will see that you can no longer see your league badge next to your name, nor anyone else’s, but you can see them fine in PvP and PvE.

This is a good change IMO.

DeWolfe.2174:

BTW, there’s NO FRAK’N WAY those other 10 Worlds are equal to BG’s population. Zero, none, nada, and that makes this “population balance” and the mode itself utter bunk.

Devs are bad, just bad.

Not only that, but as has been pointed out on reddit it looks strange, if it was the T2 servers going full maybe it could be believed but NSP, SOS, HOD and SBI? Nope, something has happened, either anet have intervened (possibly last week opening the servers) or maybe there’s a bug in the population calculation mechanism. If anet intervened last week then they really should have stated it and said they’ll remain open until the next population recalculation.

Yes I definitely think there needs to be better communication and transparency on this issue.

No, there were always blobs however making squads smaller can only help and it has been suggested in the past that squads be smaller numbers.

Yes I feel the same although I’m not going to sit them out.

Ben K.6238:

morrolan.9608:

This was stated to be a simple majority poll, the majority voted for 1 month

Simple majority means >50%, which the 1-month option didn’t reach. That kind of renders the rest of your post meaningless

Simple majority: “a majority in which the highest number of votes cast for any one candidate, issue, or item exceeds the second-highest number, while not constituting an absolute majority.”

As I said if the terms were to reach 50% then say so in plain english. But then I don’t think they made the poll initially with those terms in mind. Its an excuse after the fact. Also if these polls are merely meant to be broad guidelines and may not necessarily be implemented exactly as the poll states then again state it plainly.

Straegen.2938:

McKenna Berdrow.2759:

In the next release, a 6th pip is being added to the provision master ability line that allows you to buy HoT recipes, sigils, and runes from the heroics notary vendor.

Durability is going to be even more of a scourge along with Mussel Soup. Even the interrupt sigils may become more than a nuisance.

So use them yourself. If everyone has access to them there can be no complaints.

Diku.2546:

Does Overwatch allow for a Serious Long Term Community player base & Ecosystem like how WvW used to be…if not…I’m not interested…this was the single unique thing about WvW that kept it out of the same genre of other MMORGPs.

Overwatch is more like spvp.

McKenna Berdrow.2759:

The poll has ended! After removing all votes for “Don’t Count My Vote” the final results are:

38.1% Reevaluate match-ups monthly.
28.9% Reevaluate match-ups quarterly.
15.9% Reevaluate match-ups every other month.
11.6% Reevaluate match-ups every 6 months.
5.5% Reevaluate match-ups every 4 months.

After analyzing the results we have decided to go with a 2 month world linking evaluation schedule because the majority of players voted for evaluations to be more frequent than quarterly but less frequent than monthly. Since we have decided to reevaluate every 2 months we will be reevaluating the current world links and making adjustments on the very last Friday of every even month starting this month on the 24th. Thank you to everyone who voted!

So these polls are worthless, you’ll do whatever you want anyway. This was stated to be a simple majority poll, the majority voted for 1 month yet you disingenuously set this aside because you clearly don’t want to have do it that frequently and make up an excuse not to. Its quite evident from Tyler’s posts that you don’t want to do it monthly. Be honest you should have made the minimum term in the poll 2 months if you weren’t prepared to do it monthly.

From what i can tell however ultimately this isn’t a democracy. They use this to gauge what the players want in general and rework their plans to fit that. But we can’t be surprised if they use them as “guidelines” for their actions. Also the last poll was specifically designated as needing a super majority due to how massive a change it would made to the gameplay.

This is not how they’ve presented these polls. I don’t think they should be running these polls for low level details like they are but the fact is they are doing them and developing in accordance with the results up until this one. As I said above if they really didn’t want to do it monthly because of the workload then don’t include that option in the poll and state that monthly isn’t an option because of the workload. This is just verging on dishonest. They would have been better just saying we can’t do it monthly but it is clear that quarterly is too long therefore we will do it every 2 months without running a poll that makes them look bad.

Straegen.2938:

If 38% of the people want 1 month and 46% of the people want three or more months… be glad the compromise was at 2 months. Two months or less only got 54% which is hardly a decisive “majority” vote.

1 month or more than 1 month wasn’t the poll. Majority voted for 1 month therefore it should be implemented according to how they are doing the polls. If they wanted an option to get 50% before implementing it then say so up front so we know they are the terms. This doesn’t bode well for future polls.

The league is a reward track pure and simple.

forumbugwhenisanetgoing tofixitmaybewhenguildwars3isreleased

Malediktus.9250:

If you think it takes a lot of work to get the desired stats in GW2, you probably havent played other MMOs. I never played a MMO before, where getting the best stuff was this easy. (and no GW1 was not a MMO, it was a CORPG)

I have, getting best in slot stats in GW2 is harder than in games like SWTOR.