Guild Wars 2

Okay so I’m going to start this off with covering two perceived “major issues” I see with WvW. The first one, which has at least in theory, been a (potential) problem since day one. Population balance also known as “server stacking”. The second one being recruitment. Recruitment of new players wasn’t a problem prior to MegaServers for PvE since all and only players from your server saw the map chat. Now that PvE is one huge cluster-**** of players from all servers, I have found recruiting new WvW players much more difficult if not impossible. I have a “rough draft” idea that, if developed and implemented properly could resolve both of these issues, as follows. Bear in mind this is a “rough draft”, so all concepts and names could of course be changed to something to possibly better suit the actual production version of the game.

First, players would have to chose between one of three “factions” or “orders” (specifically) for WvW. For sake of conversation we’ll say either “Durmand Priory”, “Order of Whispers”, or “Vigil”. This would be a permanent decision and the only way to join one other than the one you initially picked would be to re-roll or roll a new character.

This would basically eliminate “servers” as we know them. For example, now, instead of being on Anvil Rock, Jade Quarry, BlackGate, or any one of the fifty-one servers; you would simply be either “Durmand Priory”, “Order of Whispers”, or “Vigil”. This is also how you would “identify” now, so this part would resolve the recruiting issue. Now when recruiting for WvW your message could look something like this “GuildA recruiting Vigil for WvW”, so everyone on the PvE megaserver would be one of the three factions/orders, much better than potentially trying to recruit for one out of twenty-four/twenty-seven servers. This is also what would determine a teams “color” for the week. For example: this week “Durmand Priory” is Red, “Order of Whispers” is Green, and “Vigil” is Blue. The same system currently in place used to determine “color” could be used for this.

Second would be the bulk of the (new improved) WvW system. Players would have to pick which “campaign”, “mission”, or “server” (whichever you’d rather call it) that they would play on for the week. This would be a choice the player can make/change once per week, and players would not be able to change once they’ve chosen for that weeks battle.

This is where I also think there would be the most room for creativity. This portion of the system should be developed and implemented so that it was truly dynamic based upon how many people are actually playing the WvW game mode that week. For example, there would be “base” campaigns/missions/servers and they would all have hard caps for that week that could not under any circumstance be exceeded, but if more players show up to play in WvW, more campaigns/missions/servers would dynamically be created so that nobody is left out. The creativity part comes in where I believe even different maps could be used for different campaigns. So if a player feels like playing a certain map that week, they could join the appropriate campaign. With this whole new system, EoTM would no longer be needed, as we know it (a WvW “MegaServer”), but, the EoTM map itself could be one of the possible campaigns/missions/servers to pick for the week. I’ll even throw one more in the mix for my big example. I often see people talking a lot about “fights”, so you could even design a map specifically tailored to this play style. Maybe even absent “objectives”. So under this example there would be six base campaigns/missions/servers. Two for the WvW maps as we currently know WvW, one “high pop” one “low pop”. Two for the EoTM maps, again one “high pop” one “low pop”. Then two for the “fight” maps, one “high pop” one “low pop”. This would be akin to two of the current WvW “tiers”, or six of the current WvW “servers”, so they should be easily filled (we do have more than enough people that play WvW to fill six servers/two tiers). As they hit their “hard cap” duplicate versions of any maxed out campaigns/missions/servers would be created for people to join. Although absent a third set of WvW related maps and the “base” campaigns/missions/servers would be just four, two for the WvW maps we know (one high one low), and two for EoTM (one high one low). So for example we’ll say that the limit for low pop campaigns/missions/servers is fifty, and the limit for high pop is one-hundred. These would be hard limits, based on how many people chose that campaign/mission/server for that week and not how many are online at that given moment, as we don’t want a massive problem with queues again! For example: we wouldn’t want fifty people to sign up for a low pop campaign/mission/server, then have twenty-five log out, and while those twenty-five are logged out, permit another twenty-five to join up, then if they all try to play at the same time later on; we’ll have a massive queue problem (again) because there will be seventy-five people signed up for that campaign/mission/server despite an intended limit of fifty! Instead the campaign/mission/server capacity will be based upon how many people sign up for a given campaign/mission/server for that week. Where again, more will be added dynamically as needed. I believe that this would solve the population balance AKA server stacking problem because it would impose hard limits of capacity that would basically reset every week. Which would accommodate for people coming and going (which is always going to happen). If people abandon WvW (or GW2 all together), that’s okay because next week it resets to “base”. If more and more people start playing WvW (or GW2 & WvW), that’s okay too because subsequent campaigns/missions/servers will dynamically be added as needed.

So I’ll attempt to summarize all this with some text based “flowcharts”:

The current WvW system:
PLAYER => SERVER (1 of 51)

Players choose one of fifty-one servers. No real effective way to recruit “new blood” from PvE any longer since PvE no longer uses the “server system” but WvW does. Some servers have/wind up with too many people while some don’t have enough. Static system, with no forced player dispersal, allowing the continued “too many” and “not enough” per server.

My proposed “new and improved” WvW system:
PLAYER => FACTION/ORDER (1 of 3) => CAMPAIGN/MISSION/SERVER (1 of 4 – ?¤)
?¤ = as many as needed – dynamically added

Players would chose one of three factions/orders (which would be permanent). Recruiting or finding a guild that focuses one of the three factions/orders in the PvE MegaServer system would be decently easier as players would be from one of three factions/orders opposed to being from one of fifty-one servers! Players would then chose a campaign/mission/server (weekly), choosing exactly what they want to play (IE: WVW maps HIGH pop, WVW maps LOW pop, EOTM maps HIGH pop, EOTM maps LOW pop, FIGHT maps HIGH pop, FIGHT maps LOW pop). Having some servers/missions/campaigns being overpopulated while some are underpopulated would be a thing of the past because this would be a weekly player choice that dynamically adjusts when and as campaigns/missions/servers reach their hard limit capacity.

To my fellow WvW’ers, please feel free to provide input on this matter. I would also like feedback, whether positive or negative, from someone @ ANet on this. Thank you everyone!

I just hope this IS only a TEMPORARY “fix” to revitalize WvW – and that they’re actually working on a LONG TERM fix in the background!

AmarisLynn.6173:

YES I want the old maps back. I can not navigate these new maps. I used to command on the old maps and am completely lost on these. They look like a hot mess and will be confusing for newer players to wvw.

Take a while to learn them – you’ll come to like them!

And to be personally subjective and brutally honest:

I HATE this change because again, it’s a BANDAID; NOT stitches.

I did NOT ask to be merged with T1, I actually liked playing on lil old AR (low population). It is because of your “BANDAID” that I’m STUCK on T1 now? I don’t WANT to play that/there (therefore now I’m not playing). If you guys had came up with a REAL FIX, I would be able to, and would have, chosen a LOW POPULATION “campaign/mission/server”. I don’t want to be on server/tier #1, I also don’t want my server to be “dead” (I don’t want to be the only one in WvW). YOU (anet) need to figure out how to balance this out!

So again, please stop with these “bandaids”; and start looking into something that will be a long term permanently sustainable fix! Something that will dynamically work around people coming and going (from WVW)!

I think your “merge” or “linking” or whatever you’re calling it or going to call it is just another way of adding nails to the WvW coffin. I say that because it’s NOT a permanent sustainable FIX to the core issue of the “population balance” or “server stacking” issues at hand!

People are going to come and go from WVW no matter what. You need to develop and implement something truly dynamic that will “adapt on the fly” to how many people are playing this game mode. Otherwise, what are you going to do next time you have a huge wave of people quit this game/game mode? Go from 8 > 4 > 2 tiers? Keep “merging” or “linking” until we’re down to 3 servers or 1 tier?

Now maybe you can see why I say we NEED a permanent sustainable FIX to the “population” issue. I cannot proclaim to know the answer for sure – but I did start a thread trying to seek out possible answers; sadly I think I’m still the only one that put even a “thought” of an “answer”…

Here’s what I have posted previously on this very subject matter:

sparc.3649:

Okay, so I guess I’ll be the first to start >.>

Angel Heart.6739:

Maybe there should be different map-instances for GVG apart WVW (from the ppl that like playing all aspects of the WvW game)? That way they do not interfere with eachother and do not diss on eachother. Is that an option?

I think this is actually may be not an entirely bad idea! And in direct relation to my post about “problems” I think there’s a perfect possible “resolution” that COULD work for all of this!

I would have normally likely been against such thing, but I have a vision that would permit ANet to always change stuff like this up if they/we wanted to!

ANet would have to get pretty creative, BUT, they would first need to create three factions. Lore or none, doesn’t bother me. For sake of conversation we’ll call them FACTION1, FACTION2, FACTION3. Players would then have to chose to be in ONE of these three factions. This would be 100% PERMANENT! If you wanted to change your ‘alignment’ or ‘alliance’ you’d have to delete the toon and rebuild it (or just make a new one w/o deleting if you have enough slots) to chose a new faction for said toon!

Then the “servers” themselves could become “campaigns”. Or, if you rather think of it this way – eliminate “servers” and make “campaigns” in THEIR place. Or you could of course call them whatever you want, but they’d still serve the same purpose, the “mission/campaign/server” would be the “battle/war” and each one could and would be different. Or, for example, be different maps even (as in different campaigns can carry different maps). Which would be PERFECT for all the people “fighting” about ABL vs. DBL. Some of the “mission/campaign/server” could be ABL, some could be DBL, or as this other guy asked for – more specifically – GvG type maps, or even more! They could keep all 24 “servers/campaigns/missions”. They should keep these so that they can be added/removed/changed “on the fly” however. They could add or remove as they see fit, or maybe even dynamically. They could do whatever they wanted w/ this part (think, ‘the sky is the limit’). They could have all 24 campaigns/mission/server be the same maps and whatnot like it already is right now. Or they could make 1/3 of them be WvW w/ ABL maps for BLs, 1/3 of them WvW w/ DBL maps for BLs, and 1/3 of them be more GvG oriented/focused. etc.etc.etc… Maybe even better to develop a dynamic system that would start out with just 3 server/mission/campaigns and dynamically create/remove more as needed.

So, the new system would work as follows. PLAYERA would pick a faction say, FACTION2. This would be a decision this player could NEVER “go back on”, the ONLY way to participate on a different faction would be to roll an additional toon or re-roll. This would/should make WvW recruiting MUCH more effective since people will be from one of three factions, rather than one of twenty four servers! Then, you could pick your “mission/campaign/server” based on whatever criteria you see fit, whether it be population, certain maps that it’s running, etc… Right now our “war” lasts a week, they could keep it that, or up it IMHO to 30 days. Every week (or 30days), at the end of a “match” you can chose a new “mission/campaign/server” (NO CHARGE) if your hearts desires have changed (say, you want a new map, or higher or lower pop play style). Switching before a match is over, NOT ALLOWED – PERIOD. So for a few possible examples of my system as visioned:

PLAYERA joins FACTION2. This week PLAYERA decides they want maps so they join the campaign “Darkhaven” for the maps it’s running. The enjoy the week, but figure they want population (higher/lower), so at the end of the match they chose the campaign “Jade Quarry” for the higher/lower population. The next week they join " Borlis Pass" for the maps and population! And so on and so forth. So no matter what, PLAYERA can NEVER chose anything OTHER than FACTION2, if he/she wants to that badly they can roll another toon, or re-roll. Otherwise, they’ll ALWAYS be FACTION2; and able to chose new campaigns every time one (match) ends.

Now as far as GW2/WVW and how we have RED, GREEN, and BLUE (At least in terms of how Eternal Battlegrounds is not synchronous) – the faction itself would NOT represent a color, because then you would ALWAYS “be one color”. Rather, keep the current type system or implement a random system to chose “color” for a “faction” for the “battle/war” (whether it remain a week, or be increased).

Additionally, FACTION and / or CAMPAIGN would need HARD caps (unlike the current server system). They need to find a way to keep things in balance so they don’t just stay like they are right now with people stacking to one side of the bus! Any “HARD CAP” for FACTION (difference) numbers would have to be planned and implemented VERY carefully to accommodate for people inactive, or that leave permanently. So I could live without any such FACTION “caps”. However, even “campaign/mission/servers” need HARD caps! And I strictly insist, based on how many people chose it, not how many happen to be on at that exact moment. Especially with them lasting only ONE WEEK, even an “abandonment” wouldn’t mean much as you’ll just be picking a new “campaign/mission/server” the next week again anyways! So have HARD caps that CANNOT be worked around, based on how many people chose that campaign for that week, even if they’ve been offline SIX POINT FIVE days, “sorry for ya”, once that hard cap is reached – wait until the match is over, then everyone re-chooses anyway! This would also be the perfect place to have a dynamic system designed and implemented. Once a “cap” is reached, GW2 can create additional campaigns as an option to join…

I don’t know, but it sounds like a very plausible solution to me! Better than what we have right now where everyone is sitting on one side of the bus, so it’s leaning like all crazy about to tip over. Not to mention the side it’s leaning over is about to experience a blowout because that’s the side that has the tire that has already gotten several nails in it, but all anet keeps doing is “patching” it, and not actually taking the time to pull over to change the tire out for a NEW one! So pretty soon we’ll get a blow out and fall right over the edge of the cliff when that happens! UNLESS ANet; STOPS, takes a minute, and CHANGES THE kitten TIRE!

But seriously ANET, I implore you to pursue an actual FIX to this problem, not another bandaid that is only going to wind up another nail in the WvW coffin in the long run!

Gee, wonder why I don’t notice anything any more; oh maybe because I don’t play any more. Oh wait, why don’t I play any more? Oh yea, MAYBE cuz they keep putting kittening bandaids on their game instead of actually addressing it’s CORE issues.

Have fun with your “NEW SHINY REVITALIZED WvW” – while it lasts, for the next couple weeks/months whatever. Simply put the whole “merge” thing was even more stupid than just leaving things the way they were. Now people, LIKE YOU, have this misconception things will get fixed (yea right).

This current model WILL NOT SUSTAIN ITSELF. People will come and go, ALWAYS. So what happens when a mass of people leave again; and maybe MORE this next time around? They just gonna do MORE merges? What’s the plan for sustainability? Merge from 8 to 4 to 2 tiers?

No, They NEED to develop and implement a truly DYNAMIC system that will be able so sustain itself as the population changes (which it’s going to do no matter what)…

THEN and ONLY then will the “population issue” or “server stacking” be addressed.

Until then, have fun playing with your box of bandaids. I’m leveling a toon in ESO right now so I can check out AvA !!! I hear it’s MUCH better than WvW, and what WvW COULD have been.

No, borderlands is NOT and should NOT be the highest PRIORITY.

POPULATION BALANCE aka SERVER STACKING should be the #1 priority. Sad that it just got another bandaid – instead of an actual sustainable resolution!

I surely did NOT ask to be merged with kittening T1

Who the kitten’s genius idea was this?

Meanwhile I’m going to go check out AvA >.>

Yea and this whole “merge” thing I logged in to see today – PURE CRAP

I did NOT ask to be merged with kittening T1, who the kitten’s genius idea was this?

I’m telling you, ANET, you NEED to design and implement a truly dynamic system that will adjust to people “coming and going”! I’m still thinking the best way to do this is align 3 different “guilds/factions/teams/whatever you wanna call em” and allowing every player to chose a different “campaign/mission/server/whatever you wanna call it” based upon “population”. Players CANNOT change what “faction” they chose (make a new toon or reroll!), and everyone can chose a new “campaign/mission/server” every week!

That way people who WANT to be in high pop, can chose one that has high pop. And people who want low pop, like myself, can chose low pop.

DEAR ANET,

PLEASE STOP WITH THE BANDAIDS! I hope you do realize that all these bandaids aren’t going to sustain WVW, and it will one day bleed out completely; unless you address the actual issue at hand directly. PLEASE stop with these INDIRECT “bandaid fixes”. Attack this head on!

Sheesh .

It is kinda funny that you can tell who really reads my wall(s) of text and who doesn’t! Here I’ll try to do a “summary” for you all who are unwilling to read (and when’s the last time you read a BOOK :O they have MUCH more words than this thread!)…

Ok so I started out QQ’ing about ABL coming back. This was in part serious and in part not. What I meant by that is yes – I AM disappointed that they’re coming back, but at the same time I was putting on an illustration for all those who did nothing but QQ about DBL! So, call it trolling if you will :P My main point is, if you don’t like it WTF is the point in QQ on forums about it – just leave the fuggin game! So yes, I am a hypocrite / troll (get over it).

Furthermore, the proof is really in the pudding, because this thread is actually meant to be MUCH more serious than just some bickering about the different boderlands maps! So, for those who really don’t (know how to?) read, look in the first post (OP) under the three lines (like this)
———
———
———
There’s the topic that there’s no “trolling” in, no trying to get a “reaction” out of people from – not being a sarcastic ***hole, etc etc etc. Those are some of the VERY serious problems with the current state of WvW. As I pointed out, the REAL problem with the “state” of WvW actually has nothing to do with maps. Then I went on to explain one possible avenue of addressing / fixing this problem! And how if ANet continues to do nothing but put on band-aids, WvW WILL eventually BLEED OUT (die completely)… So, the “call” for the thread is actually for THAT discussion to take place. Not about maps! Here, I’ll ask again; if you worked @ANet or were otherwise in charge; what would YOU do to “FIX” the MAIN WvW problem(s) (of: population balance AKA “server stacking”, and recruitment issues?

THAT, is what this thread is actually about, going forward… Thank you!

Didn’t read this thread in its entirety (eyes starting to hurt from writin’ two walls myself recently) but, I agree (actually one of my “walls” covers this).

EoTM is a DETRIMENT to WvW and needs to be completely REMOVED in my honest opinion!

Although, they could keep EoTM “maps” under one of my proposed “fixes” (also another wall in my thread)… … … That would make the EoTM map an actual part of actual WvW :O

Okay, so I guess I’ll be the first to start >.>

Angel Heart.6739:

Maybe there should be different map-instances for GVG apart WVW (from the ppl that like playing all aspects of the WvW game)? That way they do not interfere with eachother and do not diss on eachother. Is that an option?

I think this is actually may be not an entirely bad idea! And in direct relation to my post about “problems” I think there’s a perfect possible “resolution” that COULD work for all of this!

I would have normally likely been against such thing, but I have a vision that would permit ANet to always change stuff like this up if they/we wanted to!

ANet would have to get pretty creative, BUT, they would first need to create three factions. Lore or none, doesn’t bother me. For sake of conversation we’ll call them FACTION1, FACTION2, FACTION3. Players would then have to chose to be in ONE of these three factions. This would be 100% PERMANENT! If you wanted to change your ‘alignment’ or ‘alliance’ you’d have to delete the toon and rebuild it (or just make a new one w/o deleting if you have enough slots) to chose a new faction for said toon!

Then the “servers” themselves could become “campaigns”. Or, if you rather think of it this way – eliminate “servers” and make “campaigns” in THEIR place. Or you could of course call them whatever you want, but they’d still serve the same purpose, the “mission/campaign/server” would be the “battle/war” and each one could and would be different. Or, for example, be different maps even (as in different campaigns can carry different maps). Which would be PERFECT for all the people “fighting” about ABL vs. DBL. Some of the “mission/campaign/server” could be ABL, some could be DBL, or as this other guy asked for – more specifically – GvG type maps, or even more! They could keep all 24 “servers/campaigns/missions”. They should keep these so that they can be added/removed/changed “on the fly” however. They could add or remove as they see fit, or maybe even dynamically. They could do whatever they wanted w/ this part (think, ‘the sky is the limit’). They could have all 24 campaigns/mission/server be the same maps and whatnot like it already is right now. Or they could make 1/3 of them be WvW w/ ABL maps for BLs, 1/3 of them WvW w/ DBL maps for BLs, and 1/3 of them be more GvG oriented/focused. etc.etc.etc… Maybe even better to develop a dynamic system that would start out with just 3 server/mission/campaigns and dynamically create/remove more as needed.

So, the new system would work as follows. PLAYERA would pick a faction say, FACTION2. This would be a decision this player could NEVER “go back on”, the ONLY way to participate on a different faction would be to roll an additional toon or re-roll. This would/should make WvW recruiting MUCH more effective since people will be from one of three factions, rather than one of twenty four servers! Then, you could pick your “mission/campaign/server” based on whatever criteria you see fit, whether it be population, certain maps that it’s running, etc… Right now our “war” lasts a week, they could keep it that, or up it IMHO to 30 days. Every week (or 30days), at the end of a “match” you can chose a new “mission/campaign/server” (NO CHARGE) if your hearts desires have changed (say, you want a new map, or higher or lower pop play style). Switching before a match is over, NOT ALLOWED – PERIOD. So for a few possible examples of my system as visioned:

PLAYERA joins FACTION2. This week PLAYERA decides they want maps so they join the campaign “Darkhaven” for the maps it’s running. The enjoy the week, but figure they want population (higher/lower), so at the end of the match they chose the campaign “Jade Quarry” for the higher/lower population. The next week they join " Borlis Pass" for the maps and population! And so on and so forth. So no matter what, PLAYERA can NEVER chose anything OTHER than FACTION2, if he/she wants to that badly they can roll another toon, or re-roll. Otherwise, they’ll ALWAYS be FACTION2; and able to chose new campaigns every time one (match) ends.

Now as far as GW2/WVW and how we have RED, GREEN, and BLUE (At least in terms of how Eternal Battlegrounds is not synchronous) – the faction itself would NOT represent a color, because then you would ALWAYS “be one color”. Rather, keep the current type system or implement a random system to chose “color” for a “faction” for the “battle/war” (whether it remain a week, or be increased).

Additionally, FACTION and / or CAMPAIGN would need HARD caps (unlike the current server system). They need to find a way to keep things in balance so they don’t just stay like they are right now with people stacking to one side of the bus! Any “HARD CAP” for FACTION (difference) numbers would have to be planned and implemented VERY carefully to accommodate for people inactive, or that leave permanently. So I could live without any such FACTION “caps”. However, even “campaign/mission/servers” need HARD caps! And I strictly insist, based on how many people chose it, not how many happen to be on at that exact moment. Especially with them lasting only ONE WEEK, even an “abandonment” wouldn’t mean much as you’ll just be picking a new “campaign/mission/server” the next week again anyways! So have HARD caps that CANNOT be worked around, based on how many people chose that campaign for that week, even if they’ve been offline SIX POINT FIVE days, “sorry for ya”, once that hard cap is reached – wait until the match is over, then everyone re-chooses anyway! This would also be the perfect place to have a dynamic system designed and implemented. Once a “cap” is reached, GW2 can create additional campaigns as an option to join…

I don’t know, but it sounds like a very plausible solution to me! Better than what we have right now where everyone is sitting on one side of the bus, so it’s leaning like all crazy about to tip over. Not to mention the side it’s leaning over is about to experience a blowout because that’s the side that has the tire that has already gotten several nails in it, but all anet keeps doing is “patching” it, and not actually taking the time to pull over to change the tire out for a NEW one! So pretty soon we’ll get a blow out and fall right over the edge of the cliff when that happens! UNLESS ANet; STOPS, takes a minute, and CHANGES THE kitten TIRE!

I’m neutral on the removal of barricades.

I knew my way around them any way

:P

they’re really bringing back those BORING old maps

Q.Q

looks like I’ll be the one leaving now! :p

Okay so this thread is most likely NOT what you’re thinking it’s going to be. No it’s not me talking about whether they’re here already after today’s update, quite the opposite actually…

So I hear they’re bringing back the old A-BL’s? Well then, now it’s MY turn to Q.Q

I can’t believe they (anet) would cave in to all the WHINY babies. So, now it’s my time to be the whiny baby! Like I said, I can’t believe they’re going to cave in to you Q.Qers!

I don’t even know (nor do I care) if they actually plan to scrap the DBL’s all together or not (I doubt it, they worked very hard on them) – but the mere fact that they’re going to “cave in” to all the Q.Q – is a HUGE sign of weakness first off. Second off, I do know (luckily) I am NOT literally the ONLY person with this viewpoint, that, once they bring back your maps (due to all the Q.Q) you guys will be happy for a couple more months (somehow) and then people are still going to quit anyway. Especially after having nice new shiny’s (DBLs) people will play back on the old maps for, I personally give it 3 months (1Q), until the WvW just KEEPS going DOWNWARD. I give it three months until people are like “kitten these boring old dried up stale plain Jane looking maps (what were we thinkin LOL)”.

So here’s my Q.Q about that: Q.Q Q.Q Q.Q Q.Q Q.Q Q.Q Q.Q Q.Q Q.Q Q.Q Q.Q Q.Q Q.Q Q.Q Q.Q Q.Q Q.Q – ok enough, I’m done. I’ll keep Q.Qing in private now. I can’t believe the ABL’s are coming back, I can’t believe anet is making yet ANOTHER move that is just going to be the final NAILS in the coffin of WvW! I will now likely be leaving the game. I don’t wanna play a game made by a spineless company (if I was in charge I’d have told you all to suck it up). Well I’m taking my advice, I’m gonna suck it up, IN A NEW GAME. One that isn’t ran by a bunch of spineless employees who will cave in at the whim of some twelve year olds! Not to mention I don’t really desire to play with all you WHINERS who actually want those boring old dried up stale maps back either anyways. I hope you all have fun with your old maps, anet SHOULD have put them where they really belong after the release of DBL’s – IN THE CIRCULAR FILE!

But enough about that, first you Q.Q, now I Q.Q – awesome, a huge ******* Q.Q fest goin’ on over here! It was fun but I’m going to have to point out the obvious for anyone who doesn’t even realize it (even anet mayhaps?)…

The WHY. WHY is WvW “broke”. Some of you may still think this is subjective, let me be the first to tell you, it is not. Some of you may think it’s things like “OMGZ new BL’s suck” – let me tell you, IT’S NOT. THIS is why WvW is “broke”. There’s actually not a SINGLE reason, it’s all compounded – but adds up to the how/what/when/where/why WvW is on the degrade (and will continue to be – UNLESS this/these issue(s) are DIRECTLY addressed). Sadly I am not going to give a TL;DR version – so you’re just going to have to read this (what I believe is about to be a) wall of text! Here goes:

It does actually all begin with server population imbalance AKA “server stacking”. Since this has essentially been an issue (or potential one) since launch, it is one of if not THE biggest problems/reasons for the death of WvW. I wont even get into the speculation of the WHY people do it, nonetheless, PEOPLE DO IT. So, the top tier servers, due to server stacking, had what? REALLY LONG QUEUE TIMES. So, rather than fix the issue at hand (anet cough) by dealing with server population balance, they slap a band-aid on it. That bandaid was called EOTM. Now if you have a really long queue but you want to WvW, you can go to this place, EoTM, that will be LIKE WvW. Notice this surely does NOT fix “server stacking” one bit, because now rather than letting them suffer with long queues (mayhaps making them want to transfer to a lower tier), they have “EoTM” – GG anet, GG! This is one of the reasons I still insist that they SHOULD just completely REMOVE “EoTM”! After all, any of us “real WvWers” know that EoTM IS NOT WvW! What is EoTM? It is a “WvW-LIKE” Mega Server! Which brings us onto the other major player in what has/is ruined/ruining WvW. Mega-servers! Don’t get me wrong, I think they were/are a GREAT idea, for PvE – NOT WvW (or “EoTM”). Prior to mega-server, recruiting for WvW was VERY straight forward, and actually pretty easy to do, at least for me. I was even usually pretty good at convincing people to come just to “try it” even if they didn’t really want to. Funny, of course those are usually the people that wound up liking it the most LOL! Anyway, Mega-servers, have/are TRASHING WvW. How the heck am I supposed to recruit, and even more so, possibly bring NEW BLOOD to WvW when PvE is a HUGE cluster**** of ALL “servers”. Sure, you “can” – but NOT EFFECTIVELY. Reflecting upon it, Mega-servers is EXACTLY when my recruiting dropped probably by about 75%! I don’t care what other people THINK about that, or what other methods people may have/use – IN GAME recruiting is simply put, the BEST way of recruiting. I’ve tried external methods, including (this very) forum(s), etc! And while there may be a good number of people that check out this and other (“fan”) forums/websites; they STILL pale in comparison to the number of people who JUST PLAY THE GAME. So NO, I should NOT have to rely on external recruitment. Apparently I either suck at it, or it’s really just about as ineffective as I’ve just described anyways with the fact that “most people JUST PLAY THE GAME”! So here we have it, “server stacking” has always been an (THE?) issue. So rather than DIRECTLY address it, ANet gives us – EOTM. So now people that are already in WVW (w/ really long queues) just stay stacked, or re-stack, or whatever. And PvE receives “Mega-servers” too, so now we can’t really effectively bring in NEW BLOOD; at least NOTHING compared to before these “mega servers”!

So, is getting rid of “mega server” the best solution, no, at least not at this point. Like I said, Mega server was/is actually a good thing, for PvE… Which makes the whole “server” concept “outdated” for WvW then. Because now there’s an issue with balance surrounding ALL of GW2, because PART of the game doesn’t use “servers”, while WvW DOES. So the scale is tipped toward “mega server”- or, MOST of the game being ONE “huge” “server”. While WvW is still broken up into many many “servers”. Heck, the ONLY reason for “servers” now IS WvW – EVERYTHING else can be done, WITH your friends, REGARDLESS of what “server” you pick. So if “servers” aren’t the way of the land for PvE, they shouldn’t be for WvW either. While I can’t profess to hold the key (answer) to all or any of what actually does need to be done to “fix” WvW, I CAN say what I know it’s not. And it’s not leaving all these individual “servers” on a game that otherwise doesn’t have ANY other reason for those “servers”. Remember, we HAVE to have an effective way to recruit people to our “war” (WvW)! Not one, and this literally actually recently happened to me, where, you’re recruiting in PvE (of course, recruiting IN WvW is just as pointless, those people are ALREADY IN THE GAME MODE) and you get some guy/gal who is like “yea I’ll join your guild”, you get to talking about WvW and they’re not really into it but then you convince them to try it – CRAP, can’t (at least not with us) they’re on a different “server”!

So I also don’t think some of the very things I also hear they’re GOING to be doing, are really going to help EITHER! I heard they’re going to do some kind of “server merge” crap. That’s not going to do anything either; may make things “fun” for some people again, for a while – but it’s still IMHO ultimately just another BANDAID. That’s going to fall off eventually, and the wound will still eventually bleed out!

So, I know my ADD kind of took this thread all over, now to declare an official PURPOSE to this thread. Lets get some constructive ideas going (for anet >.>) as to, what they can do to, not just “fix wvw”, but specifically, fix wvw population (server stacking) and recruitment issues!

monk.4561:

I am doing the ley line run adventure and got the 45 second (GOLD). but the game failed to give me my gold reward. included is a screen shot of my 45 second run.

I had that problem once, apparently that’s the time you actually have to beat! Matching it will not give you credit, you must get :44 to actually get it…

I think that’s actually intentional too – unless ofc a GM steps in and says otherwise… =\

I know

We still have our up and down days though too. Like, two days ago things really seemed to be bangin’ – yet yesterday, was pretty dead (when I first logged there was only TWO peeps in EB {and I was one of em} >)

Then I was reminded of one of the likely reasons WvW is beginning to “die”. As I went to go “recruit”. Obviously recruiting IN WvW is pointless, because they’re people that are already in the game mode! Recruiting in PVE has become a joke, thanks to megaservers. Recruiting on forums sucks because I’d hate to imagine how LITTLE people actually use the forums (most are actually JUST playing the game, not wasting their time on a forum for/about the game)! If I had to guess I’d definitely say < 25% of players actually even LOOK at the forums (let alone use them). And I would have been willing to give LFG tool a chance, but nah, who the heck looks in there for WVW related recruiting!? Anyways it’d also be the same as recruiting in PVE since players from ALL servers see that!

So, as people eventually quit, start playing other games, etc, yes – population is likely to drop, and continue to drop. The only new players will be those either coming in on their own initiative, or those stopping in by word of mouth. And if population continues to dwindle, they sure wont stay for long! (just repeating the cycle of death)

Megaservers really screwed it for us for WvW recruiting I don’t care how much they say that these new shiny “megaservers” “attempt” to place people from the same server on the same instances of maps, BS. While recruiting yesterday I got two people to respond to me, and they were all gung ho to come join my guild and WvW with us; until we found out they weren’t on AR! They were also unwilling / unable to transfer. There goes two more peeps =\

THANKS ANET

ps> not to mention of course they do need to fix the ‘population balance’ AKA “server stacking” issue – they NEED to find a way to FORCE us the players to NOT stack servers!

Despite any other problems WvW has, I really think these are the TOP two things that should take priority! If we cannot efficiently recruit, and if people can still stack servers – this game mode WILL die… … … And not just for T8, but the entire WvW as we know it!

Best of luck in your endeavors Rek!

DeWolfe.2174:

sparc.3649:

DeWolfe.2174:

Please DO scrap the DBL. People who like the DBL just want to PvE in a PvP zone. We need Alpine back for a better PvP experience.

And that’s where “people” went wrong. It is neither PvE -OR- PvP, it is supposed to be WvW. Like a “war”, containing elements of BOTH, NOT * just * PvP.

If you want a better “PvP experience” then go to PvP, or Obsidian Sanctum… WvW is supposed to be PvE, PvP, and siege wars… ALL of the above! Hell, go EoTM, they seem to like “BAGZ” in there – I’m always seeing people wanting nothing more than “FIGHTZ” in there! You may have fun there too, huge BLOB fests of “LETZ FIGHTZ AND GET DEM BAGGZ”!

So no, do NOT scrap the new maps. They were exactly what many WvWers asked for, new maps that wouldn’t induce this crappy ZERG/BLOB mentality. You want your silly blob/zerg “FIGHTZZ” then go OS/EOTM/PVP/EB!

Frankly, even if we lost ALL of those people that misunderstood WvW to mean “zerg fights”, I’d be 100% fine with that – because that’s NOT what WvW is all about. Otherwise objectives and NPC mobs wouldn’t exist in the first place!

Speaks the person whom has said they PVDoors all night long. Take the Desert map and turn it into a PvE zone then! WvW is about PvP over environments/territory. Not fighting the environment itself.

I know I’ve said this elsewhere, but I’ll even repeat it here and now:

I enjoy WvW for what it IS, no matter what. Obviously, otherwise I wouldn’t play it. For the longest time WvW is the ONLY reason I logged in (for ~3.5 years or so). I do enjoy the new BL’s regardless of whether the [censored] who “q.q” about them come there or not. I’m enjoying learning them, and quite frankly yes, I’m enjoying ganking peoples kitten while they don’t even defend, because that to me just clearly illustrates how [censored] people are. They’re so [censored] that they don’t even want to come to their own BL to defend their own objectives. So while they all q.q, I’m learning the maps, inside and out. I wont refute that I’d be having MORE fun if people would actually show up to defend their stuff and try to stop me/my group from taking it; since that IS what WvW is about; but again – it plainly appears most people are too [censored] to learn the new maps, they’d rather just q.q that “we want our old maps back” LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLZ

I’m a, “the glass is half full” kind of person, and I will make some [censored] lemonade if given lemons. Maybe everyone else should do the same! Why keep q.q’ing and being so negative? Either make the best of it one way or another, or just move on already; such negativity with all this q.q “new maps sux q.q q.q q.q q.q”

My point is, people need to get out there and LEARN them; and if you already know them, well then good – but still, get out there and PLAY on them then. The more people that play in them the more fun they’ll be, that is THE point after all is it not? And like I said, I wouldn’t refute it would be MORE fun, if MORE people were on them. So everyone needs to quit the Q.Q and just go PLAY! Make the best out of what we have!

FogLeg.9354:

sparc.3649:

I was actually disappointed to see it removed; it was a sure-fire way to get everyone to have to at least “stop in” WvW. Perfect time to “hook line and sinker”!

Yes but until WvW map completion was in the game whole forum was filled with PvE players complaining about it. And if Anet is to listen complains in the forum (reset time, BL maps), they can not possibly put it back.

I am not denying I got into WvW because of map completion. I had no interest and no knowledge about WvW and was just trying to get my 100% map. I was hooked. But I still think forcing PvE players into WvW is bad idea, same way like forcing WvW guilds grind guild upgrades in HoT maps is terible idea.

I can understand your post, but, they don’t have to “stay” in WvW; just “come check it out”

Maybe they could lighten it up a little bit and just make it EB (since BL’s, even the old ones, could be too daunting for a new player, even more so when you consider each server is supposed to own their own BL – so just make it so that they do have to go to the BL, like N camp POI only).

If at the end you don’t like it, they don’t have to stay

CrimeMaker.8612:

I mean if you wanna wvw then I will recommend you to.transfer to any server from t4 and above because t5 and below are dead

That’s highly subjective! I for one say, AR is the BEST server you will find!

I am also not the only one – https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/community/lookingfor/Anvil-Rock-LF-WvW-guild-pug-commanders-1/first#content

Either way I definitely hope you get into WvW. I used to live in WvW, and have now pretty much returned to “PvX”, and it does seem at best we have an inconsistency in our WvW population (some days we’re still ‘bangin’ some days it’s still empty)… So no matter what guild you chose I do hope you at least check out WvW with us!

That being said, LPC is a small “social” (“PvX”) guild. We don’t really have any requirements, our only real requirement is to have fun! We tend to sometimes shift our focus too. Like when HoT first dropped we focused a lot of efforts into PvE. Now that we see WvW is inconsistent, we’re focusing WvW. So, we’re “casual” when it comes to HOW we play, but yet we’re “hardcore” when it comes to how many hours we play/log!

Bump!

/15characters

JCKinz.2305:

2) Reintroduce Map Completion (Gifts of Exploration) this is a necessary pipeline to bring new players to WVW experience.

^this^

I was actually disappointed to see it removed; it was a sure-fire way to get everyone to have to at least “stop in” WvW. Perfect time to “hook line and sinker”!

So this wasn’t even fixed in today’s patch :O

Just when I was happy to see my client updating a few moments ago. Oh well, guess I wont even bother trying now.

This is such a kitten shame anet – (as in) shame on you guys – HOW DARE YOU prioritize gem store items (new “shinys”) over FIXING something in your CORE GAME…

There appears to be no light at the end of my tunnel, the end grows nearer.

Excellent news!

Just look at this “kills per server chart”, you’ll see how DEAD t8 really is, in terms of “kills” and especially when compared to ANY other tier. So, unless you wish to also help with (the hard part) recruiting people TO a T8 server; you’re going to want to avoid T8: AR, ET, DR, IOJ, and probably SOR, and KAIN (T7) too!

Silverstone.4539:

CD would rather just have more keen WvW players than a TS commander. I would say over half don’t even use TS. and in down time time zones we are lucky to have 4-6 people on. A commander is nothing without people to follow him/her TS or not. But there is a voice com for CD, and always welcomes more players.

Highlighted in quote. This! On AR we just don’t even have the people to command right now. Bearing in mind each individual guild may (and probably does) have their own VOIP (mumble, discord, teamspeak, gamevox, vent, walkie talkies, smoke signals, CB, ham radio, etc), we do have a server wide VOIP (ts3), the problem is; you’d be talking to/commanding yourself at this particular moment because we need not just a commander, but people TO command! So the “help” AR needs at the moment isn’t for someone to jump in, pop a tag and say “follow me” as it echoes off of StoneMist! We need recruiting, to HAVE people to follow a ’mander!

TorquedSoul.8097:

Dusty Moon.4382:

This is just ridiculous. Now whole guild, from JQ, have left that server and gone to TC to push TC to T1 and let JQ drop. This is just fair weather type of WvW but the usual for these people who like to manipulate glicko. This basically says, to me, that glicko needs to be scrapped.

Any ranking system could be manipulated by redistributing population. Glicko isn’t the problem, population balance is the problem.

For example, you could have a simple ladder ranking system and it to could be manipulated by moving population around.

So … you know Glicko …
“You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”
~Inigo Montoya

^this^, the problem is “population balance” or “server stacking”. It’s funny that ANYONE thinks that by moving servers they’ll have fun again. I’ve been on AR since 3-day-head-start, therefore been with the server during it’s ups AND downs. AR once got up to what, T3/T4, now we sit at the very bottom of the barrel again T8/24th! Funny thing is, we’ve had many people leave that ended up just eventually disbanding anyways! I tried to warn people, “you think moving will make things any better”, they didn’t listen, and now they probably don’t even play the game any longer – because if you have any “issues” on one server (say for example internal guild issues), you’re going to have them on ANY server you play on. Sure things being different may keep you enticed for a LITTLE bit longer, but you’re ultimately doomed to quit, just depends how many times you’re willing to rinse lather and repeat before you do.

With that being said, and population balance being the issue; THAT is what NEEDS to be fixed by anet! It wouldn’t matter if everyone from T1 dropped all the way to T8 just to raise up the T8 servers, eventually things will wind up in the same exact place they are now; just with different server names in different “places”!

So why keep rinsing, lathering, and repeating? ANet really NEEDS to stop putting BANDAIDS on this situation too (EoTM, and all these “gimmicks”), they NEED to PROPERLY address population balance before everyone quits!

Although, at the same time – we technically don’t “need” anet to fix this for us, IF we as a community did it for ourselves. Although I think the realistic odds of this happening is about 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% Instead of “server stacking” why don’t all of you “peeps” from T1 – T4 split up and redistribute yourselves to T5-T8? Unless there’s something I’m not aware of, there’s not even any real reason to “PPT” or “win”, it’s a game for crap’s sake, PLAY to have FUN! If you’re not having fun on your outnumbered server, don’t just go add to the stack in a high pop server, start trying to get people to come join yours! if you’re not having fun on your stacked server, don’t just go re-stack another one, disperse yourselves! Although, that as I said is pretty much a dream, I don’t envision us “the community” ever actually doing that on our own, there’s likely a 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% chance of that happening. So I guess in the meantime we’ll have to wait to see if/what ANET comes up with that will FORCE us to disperse and more evenly distribute ourselves among all of the servers…

[GW2][NA] the Legion of Prestigious Conquerors [LPC] is now recruiting from all time zones for [Anvil Rock][AR] WvW & PvX [server/TS3][guild/Discord]!

Right now we * especially need * people for WvW! As you may know AR is T8/24th place (the absolute bottom of the barrel)! So, we need people who are ready, willing, and able to transfer to Anvil Rock/AR! LPC has been on Anvil Rock since 3-day-head-start! Never played in WvW before? No problem, we’ll be happy to teach you! Didn’t like WvW on your old server? Didn’t enjoy WvW with another guild? Don’t worry, we make WvW FUN! Come join LPC and switch to AR today!

LPC is currently level 17, and preparing further guild hall upgrades! LPC is a casual PVX guild. We do it all and not by a strict calendar: PVE, PVP, WVW/EOTM, Dungeons, Fractals, World Bosses, World Map Completion, Gathering, Crafting, Jumping Puzzles, Guild Missions, Living World, Personal Story, Achievements, Raids, You name it, we do it, and not by a strict schedule. We do what we want, when we want! Our main requirement is to have fun. We accept anywhere from: brand new players -to- veterans, young -to- old (maturity means more than age), and so on. But we all GAME to HAVE FUN! That being said, We do require that you have the LPC chat on at all times and, at a minimum, represent LPC during “events”. Also, your home world will need to be (AR) Anvil Rock if you desire to participate in WVW. LPC has a Discord server for voice communications. Using this is not required, and is purely optional.

To join, just send an in game message (mail or /w) to, sparc.3649 for your invitation!

I’ve had something I believe to be similar. Although my main difference is that when this happens (“really long load times”) it never finishes, the client just hangs indefinitely. Usually after 4/5 minutes I’d force close and just restart, but the one day I left it as I went to go take care of some household crap I had to do, came back later to see that it had (at some point) actually crashed out and had the error report box up.

So yea, something is definitely astray here!

DeWolfe.2174:

Please DO scrap the DBL. People who like the DBL just want to PvE in a PvP zone. We need Alpine back for a better PvP experience.

And that’s where “people” went wrong. It is neither PvE -OR- PvP, it is supposed to be WvW. Like a “war”, containing elements of BOTH, NOT * just * PvP.

If you want a better “PvP experience” then go to PvP, or Obsidian Sanctum… WvW is supposed to be PvE, PvP, and siege wars… ALL of the above! Hell, go EoTM, they seem to like “BAGZ” in there – I’m always seeing people wanting nothing more than “FIGHTZ” in there! You may have fun there too, huge BLOB fests of “LETZ FIGHTZ AND GET DEM BAGGZ”!

So no, do NOT scrap the new maps. They were exactly what many WvWers asked for, new maps that wouldn’t induce this crappy ZERG/BLOB mentality. You want your silly blob/zerg “FIGHTZZ” then go OS/EOTM/PVP/EB!

Frankly, even if we lost ALL of those people that misunderstood WvW to mean “zerg fights”, I’d be 100% fine with that – because that’s NOT what WvW is all about. Otherwise objectives and NPC mobs wouldn’t exist in the first place!

MadVisions.4529:

nn desert stuff. gimme my old bay back or riot

Go ahead and start your “riot”, you aint gettin those crappy old maps back!

Orpheal.8263:

Personally I absolutely disagree with following statements here:

1) Remove EotM – everyone who suggest this should seriously get slapped into the face to propose to ANet to remove CONTENT from the game, only because YOU DONT LIKE IT /facepalm

2) Bring the old Maps back – hell no, we have had them for over 2 and a half years. They are boring as hell and only because Anet didn’t do with the Desert borderlands everythign right and perfect on first try, they should remove instantly everything again? god kitten it, give them a break!!! WvW has completely different problems, than what kind of BL Maps we have.
Yes, the current Map is far away from being perfect (too big, too complex, non roamer friendly, too much annoying effects, but that all is nothing that can’t be solved by Anet by making fitting adjustsments!! The only thing that should get removed is the Laser Event as part of making the map around 25-33% smaler and easier to navigate)
This part was good meant, but just failed.

3) Fixing the Server Population is hard – No, it is not, people just have only to give up finally on their pointless “Server Pride” that was mostly non existant fo the major part of the WvW anywyas as people bunny hop from server to server on demand, just to “win” the moment on, when there is something they want like rewards, then people instantly suddenly totally forget what Server Pride is the moment they realize that they won’t be on the winning side with the servr they are currently on!!
The easiest solution for the WvW Population Problems is to completely scrap this pointless Word v World v World System and to redesign WvW into a Faction Wars between 3 clear Factions which share players from among ALL SERVERS of a territory.

So all American Servers mixed up evenly among 3 Factions and all European Servers mixed up evenly among 3 Factions. This and only this change will solve also at the same time the Nightcapping Problems especially for European Servers where you have servers with many different time zones, what is a problem that you Americans DON’T HAVE, because you live all in the same time zone on the same continent.
Correct me if I’m not right with this :P

This change would make Tournaments for WvW in the future also alot ALOT EASIER.

4) Stability needs fixing – No, it does not, what this game needs on the other hand of Stability is currently FINALLY some concrete HARD CC BALANCE. the game is full with HARD CC Power Creep, simply too much HARD CC in the game without any real balanced protection from all this HARD CC SPAM.
What GW2 needs to get better balanced from this is some kind of HARD CC PROTECTION that works similar like the mechanic that prevents you from spamming Stealth – Reveal.
Somthign like this needs to exist finalyl for HARD CCs, that when you get stunned, knockeddowned, launched and so on, that your CHaracter then becomes for a short while like 4-say max 10s immune to any instantly following up next HARD CC’s, so that you simply can’t get perma stunlocked to death anymore!!!
HARD CC skills are very important SITUATIONAL skills that should be used at clever moments to turn the tide of a battle towards your favor, not to spam with it enemies to death to get cheap braindead kills ,because your enemy was unable to move for a freaking second and fight back at all!
THATS THE DUMB WHOLE PROBLEM that needs to get fixed finally and nothing else Stability is fine as it is, it’s HARD CC SPAM that is totally out of control and that makes fighting in WvW NO FUN, or do you find it fun to get killed, without that you could do anything at all!! Obviously NO, or? Buffign Stability creates only more Power Creep, the solution is NERF HARD CC SPAM TO HELL!! At least for WvW by making appropiate WvW centric Skill/trait changes by splitting off WvW Class balance complete from the rest of the game, giving WvW its complete own balanced skills and trait effects, that are specificly balanced for WvW Only.
This is somethng that should have been done already from RELEASE DAY ON.
Then we wouldn’t have all the problems that we have now…

I’ll admit I didn’t read your long kitten post (TL DR), but I do disagree about EOTM. (and I’d LOVE to see you even TRY to slap me >.>).

EOTM was a HUGE mistake in the first place and should have never existed – in the first place. EoTM is one of the things ruining REAL WvW. You see, we’ve had a problem with “population balance” almost since day 1. At least in terms of “server stacking”. People have always just thrown themselves around xferring as they felt the urge. So, you have too many people on T1, and maybe even a few under it, and they have REALLY long queue times (at least on the weekend) right? So what does ANET do about it? No, they don’t fix the actual problem, “population balance” (find a way to FORCE those players to a lower Tier server with no queues) – they throw the situation a BANDAID. That bandaid was EOTM, basically a kitten WvW megaserver. So rather than fix the core problem, they toss it a band-aid; and now look where WvW is!

If you put a BANDAID on a GSW it may (somewhat) slow the bleeding, at least for a little while. But point is, if you don’t seek REAL medical attention soon, you’re still going to bleed out!

Now, I suppose you could say, let it stay since it’s already here – and I may even be able to cope with that; IF – IF – IF (BIG IF) ANet were to actually FIX the actual problem at hand, POPULATION / BALANCE issues for WvW…

But if all they’re going to do is continue to throw us BANDAIDS for our gaping wounds, WvW WILL completely and fatally bleed out! It’s only a matter of time!

EoTM is just a part of the contribution to the bleed out! So for that reason, I could 100% support the complete removal of EoTM! Fix the issue at hand, AND remove EoTM – could only HELP REAL WvW!

Or, they could even leave EOTM alone (leave it in the game). Because, just maybe, once REAL WvW is fixed – EOTM will die anyway (or die as it’s known right now) because just maybe more people will want to participate in REAL WvW again rather than play in a pointless WvW megaserver! If we get the WvW wound stitched up, that bandaid might just dry up and fall off, on it’s own even, as it should!

my $0.02

IDK why people keep saying the maps are too big!? They’re actually WAY too small! Having maps so small only encourages the blob/zerg mentality since the entire ‘group’ can get to any destination rather quickly.

I think they need to make ALL maps BIGGER! Our WvW “world” should be about 2 or 3 times as much “real estate” as it currently is!

Also, I really wish people would stop talking about “scrap DBL PLZ” and how “terrible they are”, that is VERY insulting to ANET. Think about all the time and effort that went into them and their design! Instead, if there are specific things you don’t like about them, why not ask for specific “tweaks” instead of slapping ANET in the face like that!?

I for one LIKE the new maps! I wont argue there may be some things that could be “tweaked” here and there, but there’s NO reason to stoop to the level of insulting anet and slapping them in the face telling them how “crappy” they are and to “just scrap them”! HOW RUDE . (Lucky I don’t work for ANET or I’d perma ban all your rude kittens!)

I think yall made some typo’s

PLEASE DO NOT SCRAP new BLs !!!

That’s how it’s supposed to look!

Please do NOT scrap DBL!

Icethorn.6570:

Jon Olson.8439:

NiSHAN.4385:

Jon Olson.8439:

sparc.3649:

Yet still no word from ANET on this

.

It’s been listed on the Known Issue Tracker for at least a day.

after 8 days you finally notice !

Just because it’s not on the tracker doesn’t mean we haven’t noticed. We’ve been investigating for longer than it’s been on the tracker.

As a fellow programmer I would as a quick fix simply modify the UI.
Change the action buttons to make 1 have a function that knocks out the guard. Since you have a different bar while in stealth mode. Instead of trying to find out which script is halting the event from triggering.

If you’re a programmer mayhaps you should apply to go work for ANet!

They are hiring programmers after all

https://www.glassdoor.com/Jobs/ArenaNet-Jobs-E255820.htm

https://www.arena.net/

Aeolus.3615:

Sich.7103:

sparc.3649:

If people would get off their lazy kittens and go LEARN them (like I’ve been saying from the start) – they too would like them!

yes, we are hundred players who are completly dumb, unable to learn a map, and unable to learn new game mechanics…
Or maybe the map and all the new hot stuff are really a piece of kitten…

The reasons ic players wanting old bl is:
Easy and faster karma/ppt train or because new map has less places to hide when taking castle fails and start trerb wars, since no tower is near to hide or run away, this map is fine, but needs a few fixes in design tho.

The new map can be easilly improved, but since players need more effort well… most gw2 players hate effort.

And sorry by being so obtuse, people should give feedback on ideas how to improve the new map, asking for a better castle layout if possible, add more 2 or 3 towers, change how waypoints work etc, not just say new map out and want the old easy BL.
I fear when Anet launches the “new” wvw stuf will not be what players want either…i dont see much feedback in both ways.

You got that right, all they wanna do is run in a massive blob/zerg, not have to “think” at ALL, and mash their “1” key… I win 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111

PierPiero.9142:

At start i did not like them becouse i found them too big and difficult to run. Now that i know them a little better i like new Desert borders really much . I hope they will not restore those ugly alpin borders .

^ THIS ^ OMG THIS!

If people would get off their lazy kittens and go LEARN them (like I’ve been saying from the start) – they too would like them!

I agree, don’t restore those crappy old boring BL maps or that will be the final nail in the coffin of WvW!

gennyt.3428:

sparc.3649:

Alpine, why would anyone want that dusty old boring dried up map back!?

You just described the desert BLs….>.>

Na, I did mean alpine BLs. They’ve been sitting in some closet for ~5 months collecting dust, where they belong

Too bad anet didn’t just chuck them where they really belong, in the circular file!

Chaba.5410:

sparc.3649:

RodOfDeath.5247:

Ricky.4706:

Maybe as a community we can have understandings to keep the fights fun until anet comes up with tech in game solutions as well.

So I propose…

when in a match where 1 server is obviously larger than the 2 opponents combined –
the smaller servers become an alliance and the fight becomes 1v1

when in a match, where 2 servers obviously outsize 1 small server, the smaller server can choose to have an alliance with their server of choice OR the smaller of the 2 larger servers ( when obvious) – and the fight becomes 1v1

the score then becomes understood as the 2 allied servers totaled vs the larger server.

You’re the red color I kill you, end of story.

What are you 12?

He’s highlighting the fact that such agreements are extremely difficult to make. WvW is a sandbox environment and people play how they want, including players who don’t read this forum. Unless the game is designed for it, it will not happen. That isn’t to say that players can’t try, just to say “don’t get your hopes up”.

I was just asking if he/she was 12. I know everyone enjoys the game for different reasons and in different ways. Even the same “game mode” (such as WVW) can be enjoyed in different ways by different people, but the whole “OMG you’re red name I HAVE to kill you” just seems so, twelve years of age mentality.

Despite varying “playstyles” I’ve had plenty of “dance parties” with “red names”. And that, is my point. Seems so immature to me to be like “ZOMG you’re red, you MUST die” when – we all play the same game. Like you couldn’t even be friends with someone if they’re on a different server (immature)? I have a few (even “RL friends”) that play on different servers. Sure if matched against them it’s not a “oh I wont kill you cuz you’re my friend”, but still – it sure seems WvW brings out A] the kids! B] the immaturity of people!

Again, we all play the same game – enjoy it a lil!

“lighten up francis”!!! Is something I would definitely say if they feel the need to ALWAYS kill ANYONE that’s a “red name”! You haven’t lived until you’ve had a dual zerg dance party at OW tower in EB >.>

And I didn’t even mean it insultingly, it was a serious inquiry because I have to wonder if A] they’re serious and B] why they feel the need to take a GAME so seriously LOL!

RodOfDeath.5247:

Ricky.4706:

Maybe as a community we can have understandings to keep the fights fun until anet comes up with tech in game solutions as well.

So I propose…

when in a match where 1 server is obviously larger than the 2 opponents combined –
the smaller servers become an alliance and the fight becomes 1v1

when in a match, where 2 servers obviously outsize 1 small server, the smaller server can choose to have an alliance with their server of choice OR the smaller of the 2 larger servers ( when obvious) – and the fight becomes 1v1

the score then becomes understood as the 2 allied servers totaled vs the larger server.

You’re the red color I kill you, end of story.

What are you 12?

Alpine, why would anyone want that dusty old boring dried up map back!?

nativity.3057:

Anet should update Obsidian Sanctum.
It’s the perfect place for GvG (pre-arranged), and could be reorganized to make it a good battlefield for fight guilds.

^this^

If you want to have PvP w/ more people than are allowed in PvP (“large scale PvP”), then go into O/S; there’s a pretty little arena in there just for you all!

TorquedSoul.8097:

Link.1049:

The people who don’t want any sort of ppt basically just want PvP.

They want sGvG … structured Guild vs Guild.

And Anet should give it to them.

No, no they shouldn’t – it’s called WVW and not GVG for a reason…

If players want PVP, go to, what’s that game mode called again, oh yea, PVP .

Puck.9612:

Dusty Moon.4382:

gennyt.3428:

People have legitimate reasons for avoiding the new maps. The design itself is anti PvP because it forces players to play hide and go seek just by traversing it. With the added CC compounding the stability issues, there are many points on the map that are not conducive to fights due to ledges and chokes. The overload of elevation variation often means pathing and los obstacles as well. The constant falling to get from point A to B, the air turrets, pop up rock walls, barricades and the many narrow winding paths where people have no reason to hang out means players aren’t going to be interacting. The terrain interferes too often to be a good competitive map. It would need massive changes.

The map design is also anti strategy since the objectives are so isolated. The new waypoint rules don’t help either. On alpine BL, some of the most consistent activity came from efforts to break/protect a building waypoint or a northern tower. Being on one map and seeing a Bay or Hills waypoint get contested in another allowed players to scout and mobilize if necessary. Both of those were good rally points for invaders as well. On the new map, they offer little support as one is largely tucked away underground and the other is perched on a cliff surrounded by narrow ledges that offer dicey engagements. They don’t really allow invaders to be a menace so defenders don’t care and for obvious reasons, scouting the map is largely pointless.

And poof, just like that, dead map.

I’m fine if they rotate the maps but the desert BL still needs major work.

Actually, the maps are PRO-STATEGY if you really look at it. Pinch points, to kill incoming forces, Land Height differences, that allow better siege placement (by that I mean trebs and catas), etc. I mean real war is based on land that HAS 3 dimensions, not just a flat plain with potholes for altitude changes. I mean if altitude didn’t matter in RL wars and battles, then the Golan Heights would not be held by Israel, it is that simple.

The problem with the Alpine BL’s is they didn’t have any of these and just allowed for blob on blob mentality. This is why people do not like the new BL’s they have to think on HOW to do things. The old BL’s promoted blob on blob mentality and that was probably the first mistake done in WvW. The new maps while not perfect (I agree with Air Keep being too big), they at least prevent this incessant use of the blob.

Alpine is about a thousand times better for small groups than the deserted bl.

-It wasn’t full of random barriers that prevented you from criss-crossing the map.
-You could capture and upgrade/siege towers and use them to launch your assault on keeps (because they were close enough to threaten them.)
-It wasn’t full of PvE gimmicks that discourage fighting (stealth sandstorms, cripple spam, no falling damage, etc.)

The map might be fun as a dungeon or even as a replacement for eotm but it fails hard as a WvW map.

I don’t see any ‘argument’ on the ‘barricades’. If you’re in a large enough group they’re nothing to stand in your way. If you’re a small group or even a solo roamer sure they may take a while to get through, but if you actually took some time to LEARN the new maps you’d also know there are ways around them (and by NO means are they random >.<). So, granted you may be taking “the scenic route”, there are ways around the map WITHOUT having to bust down those dreadful “barricades”.

Take some time to actually learn the maps, unless you’re afraid that you’d actually wind up liking them!

I for one have to say, these new maps are WONDERFUL!

Nightshade.2570:

Somehow, people are really convinced that the ABL were full prior to the expansion. Like… they somehow missed the idea that it was in a steady decline.

The issue is that the HOT expansion took a large chunk of those that normally WvW and redirected them away for a time. This gave the impression that the DBL was empty, especially due to its size. This spiraled out of control in perception. Perception is everything. It was perceived that the DBL was the reason that WvW was dying because people forget that WvW was dying, prior. So people huddled up on EB, because it was safe and comfortable.

Even though the DBL was literally built by the groups that now didn’t support it. Thats right, When the WvW team did the Adopt-a-dev program, people asked for more choke points, more items for smaller groups to take. To break up zergs, something to draw in new players, more tactical maps… The new BL has all that.

Its biggest flaw, and something we didn’t ask for was size and verticality. Part of me feels like, the original intent was also to condense servers (more people per square inch) and leave open the ability to glide at a future date on the new Bl’s. The problem is that didn’t get addressed in time as all of HoT’s resources seemed to go into mainly PvE. I also have to question why, like so many others I know, I really felt like HoT was pushed out the door super fast.

To be honest I really expected to wait till the end of the year and would of gladly waited if some of the things we wanted in WvW had gotten addressed.

You all don’t realize what a huge undertaking building new WvW maps are and my biggest fear is that reverting these maps means very little new things in WvW in the future. Which is scary. I am thinking of the long term here, not the short term gratification of oh the old maps are back look how easy it is again for me.

Fast forward 1 month. The old maps are so boring, I am going to go play some other game.

^this^

Bringing back those BORING old dried up maps would just “finish off” WVW after a few short months!

Dusty Moon.4382:

gennyt.3428:

People have legitimate reasons for avoiding the new maps. The design itself is anti PvP because it forces players to play hide and go seek just by traversing it. With the added CC compounding the stability issues, there are many points on the map that are not conducive to fights due to ledges and chokes. The overload of elevation variation often means pathing and los obstacles as well. The constant falling to get from point A to B, the air turrets, pop up rock walls, barricades and the many narrow winding paths where people have no reason to hang out means players aren’t going to be interacting. The terrain interferes too often to be a good competitive map. It would need massive changes.

The map design is also anti strategy since the objectives are so isolated. The new waypoint rules don’t help either. On alpine BL, some of the most consistent activity came from efforts to break/protect a building waypoint or a northern tower. Being on one map and seeing a Bay or Hills waypoint get contested in another allowed players to scout and mobilize if necessary. Both of those were good rally points for invaders as well. On the new map, they offer little support as one is largely tucked away underground and the other is perched on a cliff surrounded by narrow ledges that offer dicey engagements. They don’t really allow invaders to be a menace so defenders don’t care and for obvious reasons, scouting the map is largely pointless.

And poof, just like that, dead map.

I’m fine if they rotate the maps but the desert BL still needs major work.

Actually, the maps are PRO-STATEGY if you really look at it. Pinch points, to kill incoming forces, Land Height differences, that allow better siege placement (by that I mean trebs and catas), etc. I mean real war is based on land that HAS 3 dimensions, not just a flat plain with potholes for altitude changes. I mean if altitude didn’t matter in RL wars and battles, then the Golan Heights would not be held by Israel, it is that simple.

The problem with the Alpine BL’s is they didn’t have any of these and just allowed for blob on blob mentality. This is why people do not like the new BL’s they have to think on HOW to do things. The old BL’s promoted blob on blob mentality and that was probably the first mistake done in WvW. The new maps while not perfect (I agree with Air Keep being too big), they at least prevent this incessant use of the blob.

^this^

The Alpine BL maps were the mistake! These maps are SO nice!