Guild Wars 2

My understanding of swiss style is that winner goes up, loser goes down and second stays. That didn’t happen last week in “Tier 1 matchup”. BG was first and JQ was second, but JQ got relegated to the “Tier 2 matchup”. Unless I am wrong, it wasn’t swiss style at all.

ANET Please. ,

^
I used to find Necro and Mesmer most difficult classes to fight. But now it’s ranger. I always test a Necro or Mesmer before I fully commit. If they have a decent dualing build and I can’t finish them quickly then I will run away. But rangers aren’t worth testing because their damage output is so high I cannot run away. There are still alot of bad rangers getting around though. Its just you don’t know until its too late.

What I do find gamebreaking about them is when they pick you out of a zerg and lock onto you. It seems to happen to me too often, im guessing because Im mithril rank and they are looking to kill the higher ranks in the group. And once they lock on your pretty much taking fast 2.5k+ autos from 2000 range on your heavy and your burning all your cooldowns just dealing with that damage. Pretty much a death sentence.

Blackgate:

(GoF) Finality (NA Prime time)
(DAWN) Vortex Blade (Oceanic)
(xsoe) Sepiroth (SEA)

Jade Quarry:
(SF) Jed (NA Prime time)
(SG) Mance (NA Prime time)

I miss the days when MERC was on BG and Wahaa still played and they would collide each night. And when FOO and ND came out in numbers every night.

insanemaniac.2456:

it doesnt take time to refresh it, it takes user activity…

rather annoying that they got rid of the refresh button because now the only way to ping for an update is to navigate away from your desired market and replicate your search criteria.

So if I closed and re-opened the BLTC and what looks like the same 50 sell orders it wasn’t an refresh/update issue? Some of those sell orders look like they are still there. IE there was a gap of about 4silver between a bunch of them.

Svarty.8019:

Swamurabi.7890:

The weather is always fair in EotM, something that is rarely seen in WvW.

John,

Seems this thread isn’t doing much to generate anything new. Can we move on to a scoring thread? I think you are more likely to change WvW participation by a change in scoring than anything else.

I want to see some opinion from the developers, but it appears that this problem is FAR from being solved. I am concerned that this will mean no change.

I think we need input from developers so that we have some idea of what path we would take and then we could talk more in-depth. Right now the discussion is all over the place with various topics.

If the BLTP is taking several minutes to update, even after refresh, that is really bad. I hope thats not the reason. I thought it was almost instant.

I lost to a bad ranger from a bad guild the other day. I took it pretty hard and decided to never fight a ranger 1v1 ever again.

I fully expected with the nerf to key farming and with how bad the drops were for me from the first 10+ chests after the patch that there would be a significant drop in price for chests as people not only stopped farming keys, but a reduction in keys being purchased. But it seems to have had no effect. Have I missed something here?

And it was immediately undercut in price. Fair enough. Then I watched as it slowly got undercut and undercut, until there were about 40-50 listings of sellers below mine. And I just happened to be watching it when my guild catapult sold… whilst the listings below mine were not. How has someone purchased my guild catapult instead of the cheaper ones?

I am pretty much in this routine each night:

- AC P1,P2, P3
- COF P1,P2
- SE P1, P3
- TA Up and Forward
- HoTW P1

By that stage Im usually tired of dungeons. If not I’ll do CM P1,P2,P3. Id rather do CoE compared to CM tbh as CM can be a pug killer, but its hard to find a CoE party. Otherwise I go farm boss events until bedtime I usually get around 3 rares from the each boss event which sell for around 40-50silver each so your looking at 1.5 gold at least per boss event and they are on ~12 minute timer. Pretty sure boss events are very slightly better rewards atm but they are mostly boring.

azizul.8469:

remove EotM, or at least make it available ONLY IF all the WvW maps for a server are queued. 4 maps queued —> EotM open.

if those people want to karma train in WvW let them be. PPT=karma train. no difference. at least those karma trainer help the competing servers in terms of PPT.

can’t get to real WvW because of queue ? de-stack.

This should have been implemented straight away. Among other things it was supposed to be a solution to the queue problems that existed in the past and haven’t existed now for a long time. When they didn’t impose it initially, I thought it was just to let everyone experience it. Then they kept it. Not sure why…

Berk.8561:

PabbyGaul.9682:

Dynamic objective scoring based on number-defending/attacking could also work but on the other-hand completely does not give experience for feinting, one of the most valuable tactics in a commander’s tool box. So…just because someone isn’t defending an objective shouldn’t determine its value…But how many people COULD defend it does. Why should you not get the points if you tricked the enemy commander into leaving t3 SMC undefended because you attacked their Garri about 30s earlier for the sole purpose of getting him to move? Good tactics deserve good rewards. BUT in this case the Population is still their…just on a different map.

This is the big challenge for implementing any sort of population-based handicapping. Another problem is that the enemy, upon anticipating that they’ll be unable to stop you from flipping their SMC, will abandon the map completely to reduce the reward for flipping the objective. If it’s beneficial for an overpowered server to sandbag and leave WvW, players will do that as a tactic to deny their opponent points, and that could create exactly the sort of hostility that ANet wants to avoid — players abusing other players for playing WvW when doing so might help the enemy’s score.

To be viable, any population-based handicapping:

1. Must react quickly to upward population shifts but slowly to downward population shifts to reduce the benefit of quickly abandoning a map or WvW or rapidly surging into a map on WvW. In the past, I’ve recommended calculating a server’s WvW strength as a 1 hour rolling average (average population for the last hour) or current population, whichever is greater across all of WvW.
2. Must never make it more beneficial to for players to leave WvW and let opponents rampage less impeded instead of staying in WvW and fighting to slow them down. This likely means a handicap that provides a partial benefit to the weaker opponent but does not entirely erase the disadvantage. This likely also means retaining some benefit to PvDoor so that an abandoned map remains beneficial to control.
3. Must be gradual rather than having sharp tipping points, so that the presence or absence of one player never makes a huge difference and changes the game significantly.
4. Will likely need to include incentives to make the players on the underdog server(s) show up and play even when they are outnumbered and have trouble winning.

It’s possible that part of the answer to getting the population to spread out and to get people into WvW on low population servers is it base the in game rewards, the loot and chances for ascended gear and precursors, on effort such that one gets noticeably better drops for a desperate fight against a more numerous opponent than one gets being on a more populated server getting an easy win.

Interesting points. One thing it does overlook is float teams, which are a common organization within T1 servers in every timezone. This would skew some of the figures and add an element of random luck to PPT.

Also, it would remove a tactical approach to WvW in terms of objective prioritization by making it less beneficial to defend some of them due to population constraints IE may not be worth holding natural keep on an enemy BL.

I probably wouldn’t use them and would just buy siege and sell them on the trading post like I currently do.

The fact 5 hours of me playing WvW on a given night is only worth half what 5 hours of an American player is worth just doesn’t go so well with me. I am an Oceanic, which I assume you figured. The timezone died a good 6 months ago when guilds and players started to switch over to new MMO’s and/or lost interest in this game. Most of the guilds that have this timezone as a regular raid are usually only scraping together ~15 players and maybe some pugs.

But the majority of players in this timezone are American players staying up till 4am or SEA players logging in early. They do it to fill the coverage gap that everyone now has. This is why if they were going to nerf the timezone in anyway, Id much rather see them reduce the map cap. This way it allows NA players to go to bed early, SEA players to take a shower and eat some dinner when they get home from work and my contribution to WvW isn’t halved despite fighting similar numbers on any given night.

There is certainly a specific issue with this timezone that requires specific adjustments. But if it came down to my contribution being worth half another players contribution just because of the timezone I am in, Id definitely stop playing WvW.

And I understand the “yeah, but if your fighting equal numbers your points will be the same”. But it doesn’t take into consideration that they may just purposely not login. Any new system in place should promote actively playing WvW to win, not promote playing something else to minimise your losses.

Latency.3907:

As of right now, off-time effort is more valuable.

BS. Points system is exactly the same during YOUR off hours as it is during MY off hours. I am starting to see why people hate americans.

Jerus.4350:

nirvana.8245:

Jerus.4350:

Personally I only said do nothing in the idea that we’re purely talking population fixes. I’m very much in favor of scaling PPT and changing scoring, and IMO we need to move on to that discussion and leave the population alone. We won’t settle on an agreed correct size, some pretty vehemently like the smaller side, where others like the larger side, forcing everyone into one is a good way to push away a lot of people.

Personally I like the idea of scaling PPT duration by population %. I believe it was explained as something like if all maps are capped out it’s 8minute ticks, if they’re all at the lowest increment it’s 24 minute ticks. I think that’s a solid idea and simplistic enough situation. I’d also like to see points for kills, smaller force doing well will yield less deaths and therefor less points, while taking in more kills therefor more points. Overall I think those two things could be solid scaling rewarding quality play over pure population and coverage.

Scaling PPT by map population is not only easily exploitable, but it goes against Anets design philosophy in regards to disuading players from participation.

Scaling PPT by server population would make matters worse. Just look at NA. You would have servers like Maguuma and FA pushed into kitten be matched against the likes of JQ and BG on a regular basis.

Get off my map so I can generate more points.

I’ve seen a lot of suggestions on scaling PPT and a lot fo them I’d agree with your thoughts on it. This one though I think is solid. You’re looking at the overall population, not just an individual world. A few people won’t throw the scoring off too much so the idea of yelling at an individual to leave because he’s a poor player would be silly. You’d be better off yelling at them for being rally bait.

As far as manipulating it, each world would only have power over 1/3 of the system, and that’s over 4 maps. So trying to get a bunch of people to drop might drop the tick timer by one bracket but in doing so you’d lose people and be at a disadvantage most likely.

I think it’s a pretty solid idea, pretty much just rewarding prime time with bonus points and scaling back the impact that off hours have and being on such a large scale makes the manipulation not as impactful or even really reasonable to try.

So unless you play during Americas prime time, your efforts are not worth as much. How can this make sense to you? You know the world is round right? How about they reduce the points from Americas prime time so that it reduces the incentive to blobbing that goes on. And that makes more sense because you are achieving more with less. Why are Americans so self centred.

Lurock Turoth.9085:

The only reason people are advocating do nothing, is forcing population normalization will ruin wvw for large groups of players.

Either you force everyone into T1 population levels, which players who prefer more chill wvw will understandably hate.

Or you cut population so all wvw is more T2/3 level which any one in T1 will hate.

I have yet to hear a solution (to population imballence) that fits all players better than doing nothing. Now altering point gain based off of the out manned buff or other changes to the point system are a totally different subject.

Pretty much this. This is why I tried to push the discussion earlier in the thread towards looking for “a solution” which had an impact on the least amount of players. The way I see it, no matter what is done, there are going to be players that will be disgruntled by the changes.

Jerus.4350:

Personally I only said do nothing in the idea that we’re purely talking population fixes. I’m very much in favor of scaling PPT and changing scoring, and IMO we need to move on to that discussion and leave the population alone. We won’t settle on an agreed correct size, some pretty vehemently like the smaller side, where others like the larger side, forcing everyone into one is a good way to push away a lot of people.

Personally I like the idea of scaling PPT duration by population %. I believe it was explained as something like if all maps are capped out it’s 8minute ticks, if they’re all at the lowest increment it’s 24 minute ticks. I think that’s a solid idea and simplistic enough situation. I’d also like to see points for kills, smaller force doing well will yield less deaths and therefor less points, while taking in more kills therefor more points. Overall I think those two things could be solid scaling rewarding quality play over pure population and coverage.

Scaling PPT by map population is not only easily exploitable, but it goes against Anets design philosophy in regards to disuading players from participation.

Scaling PPT by server population would make matters worse. Just look at NA. You would have servers like Maguuma and FA pushed into kitten be matched against the likes of JQ and BG on a regular basis.

Get off my map so I can generate more points.

Yeah that and/or more efficient self cleansing options through utility and weapon skills.

Dayra.7405:

Jerus.4350:

Dusty Moon.4382:

Jerus.4350:

What I see here is a bunch of suggestions to merge servers without calling it merged servers.

@Dusty Moon, no, being able to float and defend an objective is IMO a pretty important part of the game. BGBL is boring enough as is, if the TC/SoS forces couldn’t float there in an attempt to catch us off guard or get us off other maps then it’d just be completely dead, and I’d be stuck there twiddling my thumbs hating WvW.

Not really – basically your server is your Alliance. If you cannot plan an Alliance general defense and plan (like what guilds go to what server and not just blob together) then the balance should or could be there. If your server doesn’t have a cohesive plan or is just so big it only cares about numbers in a blob COUGH BG COUGH then maybe it is time you have one.

You’re misunderstanding the issue. My guild is assigned to BGBL, thing is we’re stuck there twiddling our thumbs hoping TC/SOS will attack the majority of the time. The only time we get action is when TC/SoS floats to our BL to make an attempt, then they’ll bounce back off. TC will show up in massive number (full blob) hit something, do pretty well, eventually get pushed out, and then we’re back to twiddling our thumbs hoping they’ll do it again. If it wasn’t for their ability to float we’d probably not see any action all night.

The solution to this pseudo-problem is fully in your hand: transfer to TC or SOS and get as many action as you like by attacking BGBL. Problem solved.

That’s exactly the reason why I would recommend anyone in heavy one-side match to stay home or ignore score and concentrate on one map: bore the superior side to dead.

Accept you can’t transfer to TC or SOS because they are both at FULL status…

How do you intend on playing them? If in small scale I would opt for mesmer. But if in large scale (guild or zerg) I would opt for elementalist.

Farm dredge in EB for black lion keys then open black lion chests for transmutation charges. INB4 all the personal story BLK farmers fill up the queues in EB.

- Why does AC give more gold than others? Every path is extremely easy, even in a PUG.
- I can rarely get a party for COF path 3 and when I do I still usually don’t end up finishing it and even when I do it is extremely time consuming, but still worth the same amount.
- Same goes with SE path 2. This path is a PUG destroyer and extremely time consuming, yet its the worth the same as other paths that are extremely easy.
- TA P1 and P2 are much easier (quicker) than P3 but its worth the same amount?
- COE is quite time consuming although easy, yet worth the same.

CM is a wierd dungeon. Its either a completely nightmare is a walk in the park. I probably get alot more rage quits in there than anywhere else.

Arah is probably worth because its a nightmare PUG destroyer.

Berk.8561:

Dayra.7405:

Isn’t that a bit to emotional reaction?

If anything, it probably understates how strongly I feel about it. I play Guild Wars 2 for recreational enjoyment, and the megaservers sucked most of the enjoyment out of PvE for me and other people I know who played on Eredon Terrace. Everywhere I go, zergs.

I know a lot of people here apparently love the massive play but I don’t. I get a taste of that even on ET and I personally don’t think the game plays well at that scale for a variety of reasons (poor graphics performance, lag, inability to distinguish opponents, random rallying, etc.).

Dayra.7405:

Mega-server still mean you may or may not meet your people, while in a community preserving merge, you are guaranteed to meet all ET people, just some others as well.

And how, exactly, do you envision a T8 server being absorbed into a T1 server? As equals?

But that’s beside the point. If I wanted T1 massive battle play, I’d transfer to a T1 server. I’m quite happy with the play I get on ET. The only thing I’m not really happy about is that we have overnight coverage, so any point lead we might achieve or upgrades we might complete while we have people on will inevitably be erased by one or both of our opponents that have better coverage than we do. The time slice solution would solve that problem. But the play I see during primetime, even when we aren’t leading in points, is great as far as I’m concerned.

Dayra.7405:

It like a merge of two schools where classes remain the same (WvW merge) vs a merge of two schools where classes are mixed on order of entrance (mega-server and EotM).

That solution is like merging a small local college with a bottom ranked sports team with a massive state university with a top ranked sports team. What do you think would happen to the athletes and community of the small local college during such a merge?

If they were to merge servers, I presume they would leave the top 3-4 servers alone that are currently at FULL status and merge the mid-low servers to consilidate the lower populations. Not sure that the discussion on that is really something we need to go into though as Anet has indicated something entirely different from merging servers, but rather breaking up ALL servers and forming alliances. And since we haven’t had any input since this the thread is just all over the place with an ambiguous topic.

Putting more emphasis on a GvG would only hurt WvW these days. If they had of put an emphasis on it and backed it from the beginning then it would have helped it by generating interest in the game from players who are interested in this sort of thing. But these days the player base isn’t changing much and going to the steps of adding an extra game mode is just going to dilute down the WvW population. I’m not opposed to GvG getting the attention it deserved from the beginning. But I in no way see it as a solution to population imbalances.

Thought this might happen. Thats why I collected and spent mine last week.

GreyWraith.8394:

nirvana.8245:

Sube Dai.8496:

GreyWraith.8394:

John Corpening.9847:

After last week’s positive discussion on siege trolls I wanted to bring up the topic of population imbalance and ideas that you have on it.
…
Thanks,
John

Given the severe imbalance in population & coverage between servers a mega-server style solution is the only thing with a chance of working. My (rough) suggestion:

1. Discard the concept of servers entirely (for WvW).
2. Every week (or whatever period you choose) assign accounts to a temporary battlegroup (or whatever you name it). The assignment only lasts for the period’s duration. Next period everybody gets re-assigned. If the assignments are done right both population and coverage could be roughly balanced between battlegroups.

How to do this and keep communities together? The same way the megaserver system does it now – by grouping friends and guildmates together in the same battlegroups as much as possible. Maybe include a guarantee that you will be assigned to the same battlegroup as your most represented guild – that way WvW guilds could be sure they would play together. Guild population limits would ensure this stays balanced despite the guarantee.

Not a perfect system certainly, but it would produce games worth playing while keeping most people grouped as they prefer most of the time.

P.S. I know you said no coverage issues, but population and coverage are two sides of the same problem. Any solution will have to address both simultaneously or it won’t be a solution.

The system has to stop people from stacking though, or we have the same problems as now.

At some point it has to say “this battlegroup is full, join one of the other two”

So my battlegroup is only a temporary (weekly) assignment. I have no reason to fight for my battlegroups pride this week, because next week I will have another battlegroup. I might as well just go play in EoTM and karma train because I won’t be doing any of the duties you need to do in a competitive WvW.

1. As stated the period is subject to change
2. Just because the next period is ‘another battlegroup’ doesn’t mean you won’t be playing with the same friends & guildmates etc. Pride in overall group performance doesn’t go away.
3. Your current server has (some) different people on it this week than it did last week; people transfer. Do you take less pride in it because the group of people has changed a bit?

I haven’t seen a single player this week that I haven’t seen before. Even though Ive only played around 25-30 hours this week. I don’t think you understand. Why would I want to build on something that is temporary. I have spent the last two years building on something that is permanent. If I knew it wasn’t going to permanent, I wouldn’t bother. I might as well be in EoTM.

munkiman.3068:

eithinan.9841:

Conner.4702:

How to say this politely. Nothing in this thread is an actual solution to the population imbalance. Nothing adresses the 24/7 nature of WvW. There are only 2 solutions and neither will be implemented. Removing the aoe cap to make the difference in population moot or redoing the entire server architecture to make a true global wvw system and not this US and EU server crap.

Anything else will do nothing, but create more queues during primetime and still not enough people during off hours or create wins by some sort of point algorithm eventhough you got trampled all week anyway.

All this talk about alliances and grouping does not take into account that people are still going to play at teh time they always do and thus it will never be a solution. The population needs to be spread over timezones not just servers to truly fix an imbalance. removing the aoe cap would be second best, as it would give people a chance, though most liekly still lose in the end.

THIS is what ive been saying.

You mine as well just offer up a suggestion of turning WvW into a game of duck duck goose. I guess if you want to alienate all of EU for things like language barriers, higher latency and rather large social differences, then this is a stellar idea. Not to mention what it would cost to just scrap the whole thing.

It might be money better spent if ANet did a huge marketing campaign in oceanics and brought more players in from there

It was called internally a while back that Oceanic has been dead for a good six months now. In T1 the playerbase during Oceanic timezone on an average weeknight is like 10% Oceanic, 45% NA doing overtime staying up till 4am and 45% SEA logging in early. I can vouch that it is the opinion of the bulk of players in T1 that the timezone isn’t going to come back to life and its slowly going to dwindle. TBH I wouldn’t be opposed to a map cap reduction during this timezone and its one of the few changes that I don’t think many, if any, would be impacted negatively by and there certainly would be some who would be positively impacted by it. It would certainly alleviate the pressure on T1 NA to stay up late to fill that coverage gap and would reduce the impact of “PvD”. But you could really only have that cap between Monday and Thursday as there is significantly larger numbers who play on Friday/Saturday/Sunday nights.

TLDR I don’t think many Oceanics will come to GW2 now, they are all playing CS:GO :p

Sube Dai.8496:

GreyWraith.8394:

John Corpening.9847:

After last week’s positive discussion on siege trolls I wanted to bring up the topic of population imbalance and ideas that you have on it.
…
Thanks,
John

Given the severe imbalance in population & coverage between servers a mega-server style solution is the only thing with a chance of working. My (rough) suggestion:

1. Discard the concept of servers entirely (for WvW).
2. Every week (or whatever period you choose) assign accounts to a temporary battlegroup (or whatever you name it). The assignment only lasts for the period’s duration. Next period everybody gets re-assigned. If the assignments are done right both population and coverage could be roughly balanced between battlegroups.

How to do this and keep communities together? The same way the megaserver system does it now – by grouping friends and guildmates together in the same battlegroups as much as possible. Maybe include a guarantee that you will be assigned to the same battlegroup as your most represented guild – that way WvW guilds could be sure they would play together. Guild population limits would ensure this stays balanced despite the guarantee.

Not a perfect system certainly, but it would produce games worth playing while keeping most people grouped as they prefer most of the time.

P.S. I know you said no coverage issues, but population and coverage are two sides of the same problem. Any solution will have to address both simultaneously or it won’t be a solution.

The system has to stop people from stacking though, or we have the same problems as now.

At some point it has to say “this battlegroup is full, join one of the other two”

So my battlegroup is only a temporary (weekly) assignment. I have no reason to fight for my battlegroups pride this week, because next week I will have another battlegroup. I might as well just go play in EoTM and karma train because I won’t be doing any of the duties you need to do in a competitive WvW.

Berk.8561:

John Corpening.9847:

One note though, I really feel that scoring is a separate issue that needs to be addressed on it’s own. We will discuss that one after we wrap this one up. Even if we were to overhaul the scoring system population imbalance will still be an issue.

Honestly, I think that if you can fix the scoring and rewards so that a scrappy underdog server can win by playing and fighting well when they have people on and get well rewarded for their efforts while playing, the population imbalance becomes much less of an issue to me. And as I’ve said in an earlier reply, I don’t want WvW play homogenized around the idea that everyone is looking for a stacked T1 experience because I’m not, nor are the players who have transferred to lower tiers out of T1.

That said, if my suggestion for addressing the server population imbalance is to not only make transfers down free but actually pay (in gems) a limited number of players each week to transfer down, and charge them more to transfer back up. If a player transfers down 1 league (at least 4 ranks down) into an open slot, they get 200 gems. If they transfer down 2 leagues into an open slot, they get 400 gems (the reward for 10,000 achievement points or about $5). If there are no open slots, the transfer is free but they don’t get gems in return, so a larger guild could transfer but only some of the players might get gems if there aren’t enough open slots. If they transfer up 1 league, it costs 800 gems. If they transfer 2 leagues, it costs 1600 gems. The number of slots available increases the lower a sever is in its league. So for NA, you might have something like:

Rank League   Slots
01        Gold       N/A
02        Gold       N/A
03        Gold       N/A
04        Gold       N/A
05        Gold       N/A
06        Gold       N/A
07        Silver      0
08        Silver      2  
09        Silver      4  
10        Silver      6
11        Silver      8 
12        Silver      10 
13        Silver      12 
14        Silver      14 
15        Silver      16 
16        Bronze    0  
17        Bronze    2  
18        Bronze    4  
19        Bronze    5  
20        Bronze    8 
21        Bronze    10 
22        Bronze    12 
23        Bronze    14
24        Bronze    16 

Don’t forget what happened with Kaineng, where everyone stacked on a low tier server and ROFL stomped for months on end with superior numbers until they hit T2 and then couldn’t compete and then alot of people left the server.

Jim Hunter.6821:

nirvana.8245:

munkiman.3068:

nirvana.8245:

Virtute.8251:

Reverence.6915:

We already experience every single play style possible in T1 due to a diverse population.

I’m glad you think so.

To quote a former guildie who came from a lower tier server, “I always thought BG won because of numbers and coverage, then when I came over I realised how wrong I was and the reason they win so often is because of how they operate”. Given a scenario where lower tier servers where merged or placed in an alliance and otherwise placed in a scenario where they were matched against T1 servers you would be forced to play the same way as everyone else, follow the meta, or get rolled.

We’ve had several come from T1 and T2, to them it’s a far different story. Sure T1 probably has more skilled players, but it’s still a numbers game. If you lost 1/2 you’re pop you’d sink like a rock. Well a rock with a deflated life raft tied to it, since it would probably take 6 months for you to drop, given the current scoring system

We experience huge fluctuations in attendence. On any given night we could have 4 maps queued, or we could have a float team of 30 covering 4 maps. We would need to lose alot more than 50% to sink like a rock as you say, as we experience fluctuations substantially greater than that every week. I don’t think you have a clue what T1 is like tbh and your just rubbing your kitten.

With a more balanced server population you could put your money where your mouth is.

Id be more than happy to “put my money where my mouth is”. But going by the current trend of discussion, I won’t be able to do that because there won’t be a blackgate or servers for that matter, but alliances which won’t have the consistency that BG has right now. If it were a case that the lowest tier servers were merged with mid tier servers to redistribute the population whilst T1 servers where untouched then maybe I could “put my money where my mouth is”.

munkiman.3068:

nirvana.8245:

Virtute.8251:

Reverence.6915:

We already experience every single play style possible in T1 due to a diverse population.

I’m glad you think so.

To quote a former guildie who came from a lower tier server, “I always thought BG won because of numbers and coverage, then when I came over I realised how wrong I was and the reason they win so often is because of how they operate”. Given a scenario where lower tier servers where merged or placed in an alliance and otherwise placed in a scenario where they were matched against T1 servers you would be forced to play the same way as everyone else, follow the meta, or get rolled.

We’ve had several come from T1 and T2, to them it’s a far different story. Sure T1 probably has more skilled players, but it’s still a numbers game. If you lost 1/2 you’re pop you’d sink like a rock. Well a rock with a deflated life raft tied to it, since it would probably take 6 months for you to drop, given the current scoring system

We experience huge fluctuations in attendence. On any given night we could have 4 maps queued, or we could have a float team of 30 covering 4 maps. We would need to lose alot more than 50% to sink like a rock as you say, as we experience fluctuations substantially greater than that every week. I don’t think you have a clue what T1 is like tbh and your just rubbing your kitten.

Wanderer.3248:

JaredKincade.9761:

Yak’s Terrace, Dragon Rock, Crystal Crossing, Stormbluff Furnace, Devona’s Kaineng, Isle of Emery, Northern Rall, Henge of Darkhaven, and Borlis Madness. (examples)

Dear sweet Jesus please do not choose these abominations of names.

What about Tarnished Black Coast of Sorrows?

Vayne.8563:

Goose.5196:

Just make a Warrior. There are many portions of the game where players will not accept you unless you are a Warrior.

Man those days are over. That’s like living in the past. The only people today who won’t except you if you’re not a warrior are people who can’t adjust to a new meta.

I still come across dungeons parties where people will only accept zerker warriors.

Virtute.8251:

Reverence.6915:

We already experience every single play style possible in T1 due to a diverse population.

I’m glad you think so.

To quote a former guildie who came from a lower tier server, “I always thought BG won because of numbers and coverage, then when I came over I realised how wrong I was and the reason they win so often is because of how they operate”. Given a scenario where lower tier servers where merged or placed in an alliance and otherwise placed in a scenario where they were matched against T1 servers you would be forced to play the same way as everyone else, follow the meta, or get rolled.

Sube Dai.8496:

Maybe I am missing something but wouldn’t people be free to just stack alliances like they have servers?

For alliances to balance the population the distribution of players would have to be automated…

Which I have absolutely no problem with.

Yeah it will not change anything. The thing that no one has pointed out that is clearly obvious is there is no solution that will not negatively impact a portion of players in WvW. What people need to get there head around is the fact that if we are insistent upon balancing the populations then we need to find the solution which negatively impacts the least amount of players. An alliance is not that solution, if a solution at all.

So which alliance are we all going to stack guys? I’m just sorting out my options now so I am ready to stack when the time comes. Did someone come up with a solution to population imbalance yet?

Tman.6349:

ozmaniandevil.6805:

Tman.6349:

You can’t combine weapons and armor in the forge. A Mystic Stone at best.

Yes, you can. I did it and got the Lover. Total truth.

My bad. I’ve always just salvaged them or sold immediately and didn’t think it worked from experience of only trying with exotics. GZ on the hecka lucky gamble then. Those odds are astronomically low considering the amount of rares or exotics you could possibly recieve.

Your both wrong :p You used to be able to use armor items with a chance to get a precursor. But that was changed.

munkiman.3068:

I feel bad for devs that need to catch up but i like where the convo is going…

You probably like where the convo is going, because you are being rude and arrogant and completely ignoring other peoples concerns and input whilst trying to take over complete control of the discussion.

Question 1: Does throwing in mixed exotics (IE 1xShield, 1xWarhorn, 1xGreatsword, 1xSword) have an effect on the possibility/probability of a Precursor?

*I understand it randomizes what you get rather than throwing in 4 of the same weapon. But will it reduce the chance of getting one. I ask this because of the way people are saying if you throw in say, 4 Greatswords, you get a GS from one of the available ones. But because there is a greater pool of weapons when its “random”, would it effect drop rate?

Question 2: Does it make a difference to drop rate if the weapons I put in the forge has a sigil or not?

Bad luck id say. I got high 30s a few times last night and the night before.

Zygomaticus.7469:

Sube Dai.8496:

I f you are trying to benchmark whether or not you are slow, I have been playing them from launch and discovered them about 6 months in I think

And I probably only knew how to use them properly about 12 months in.

did you get any advantage when you knew how to use them properly?

Check out the link the guy above provided regarding combos as they show you what you can get from them.

yerok.5469:

nirvana.8245:

yerok.5469:

they seem like more of a passing thought than a core part of the game. never really elaborated on or even emphasized to use. 2 years in and I never see anyone try to combo

Combos are a core part of the game and what sets GW2 apart from alot of other games in its genre.

No Sir. the combo system idea is definitely not a new concept i can name a ton of MMOs with a combo system and dozens that implemented it much better.

FFXI for instance released in 02 and had a combo system where each party member had to skill at cretin times and places(IE: monk stands in front and skills, thief gets behind mob and sneak attacks while a black mages has had the appropriate spell casting and timed it perfectly at end of combo for a massive damage increasing magic burst.)

You never actually disagreed with anything I said, yet delivered it as though you were correcting me. Did you understand what I said correctly?

yerok.5469:

they seem like more of a passing thought than a core part of the game. never really elaborated on or even emphasized to use. 2 years in and I never see anyone try to combo

Combos are a core part of the game and what sets GW2 apart from alot of other games in its genre.

Ive noticed a number of trolls going to the event claiming they need to complete it. Two days back someone claimed they needed it so we went through and completed the event for them. The following afternoon I return and the same guy is saying he needs to complete the event. Ive completed the event maybe a dozen times now. Not sure how people are having problems getting it done.

Mystic.5934:

to convert 339SP worth of refined T1 -> T2 mats would require 1,695 stacks of T1 refined. 423,750 bronze ingots. there are 53,075 supplied right now. This would take you at least a year to buy order, by which time you will likely need another 1,695 stacks. Then you would have about 590 stacks of T2 refined mats to sell, which would also take a year to offload.

If twilight doesn’t give you the profits you want, make a different legendary. this is why all the legendaries vary in price – one goes down, people stop making it and make another instead, until the other goes down and the first is made again. If they all are down, people stop making them and their price goes back up.
Currently the highest profit legendary is: The Flameseeker Prophecies. “why?”, you may ask? well, it has no sell listings, so someone could list it at 5000g and make a 2300g profit [when it sold] if they wanted The next-highest is is currently Brifrost at a 821g profit.

Yeah I thought it was a bit wierd as I was under the impression that the Greatswords where the most wanted of legendarys, with bitfrost and the dreamer behind that. I recently got dusk from the forge. I hadn’t touched the forge for anything other than material promotion for about a year and a half (always hated the gambling), but had some spare tokens and thought why not. One attempt. One Dusk ^^. Don’t think I will craft it tbh. Not enough profit. Might be better to sell it and buy two smaller precursors and craft two legendaries. Or just sell it and forget about crafting legendarys and invest the gold in something else.

Kill them whenever you see them. Make them work hard for their achievement so that they feel as though they have acheived something.

So many terrible ideas that would screw over WvW dedicated players and guilds that have spent the last 2 years building upon their servers and communities. How can yall throw out such rediculous ideas to Anet? Are you trying to destroy this game mode and its dedicated players?

Ayrilana.1396:

You’re likely going off sell order prices.

Im going off lowest listing for everything, including the twilight.