Showing Posts For ukyo.5639:
Summary/Thesis: Guild halls would see INCREASED useage if the following changes were applied.
1) Change PvE retal to WvW Retal
PvE retal is excessive and puts ranged classes at a huge disadvantage vs classes that can use retaliation. When a class that can hit multiple targets hits 5 targets with PvE retal, it leads to much shorter fights and unrealistic conditions that would otherwise be experienced in WvW.
2) Bigger Arena
There should be an option to make the arena the size of OS and the original size. Larger arena can better accommodate larger squads and will add better variety to the fights.
3) Option to allow XX players to bypass new GH instance
Its really annoying to have to wait for 20-30 players to move 3x-4x into new GH instances. Sometimes a server split occurs and some of your guildies / guests have to completely exit the guild hall and come back to the correct instance. A complete ferry sometimes can take 10 minutes just to get all players in. An option to just set the current instance to allow XX players to skip the unnecessary loading screens would allow guilds to QUICKLY do what they need to do in their GHs.
Conclusion: GHs allow different tier guilds and same server guilds to have fun scrims with little outside interference. The current settings in GHs are good for small scale fights but become more challenging when the numbers increase. GHs could see increased usage by the WvW community if these changes were made.
Thanks for reading and for doing what you do ANet!
^^^ Yes, thank you for saying it! The players can figure this out! Each guild will find the tier that best suits their interests in WvW.
Better for them to put in a framework for the players to follow and the players find their own solutions to “balance”.
This is the path Anet chose to implement from the beginning… not sure I’d trust any of you as far as I can throw you to take care of the ‘problem’… it seems rather it was put in place as a hands off approach and when it failed … not their problem.
I’d rather try something new, because trying the same thing over and over expecting different results is … well you get where I’m going.
Yes ANet was very naive to assume that with unlimited transfers that the players would figure it out. Framework has to be robust, takes into account attempts to game the system, but is still flexible enough to allow people to move around, just not at the pace that is happening now.
Actually, when T1 and T2 were very distinct and there were weeks where a T2 server had almost no chance of coming to T1 was when the game was very fun. T2 had the skilled players organizing their own fights and respecting their own set of rules which lead to heightened interest in the game. That’s why I say the players can organize it when everyone accepts some rules and is interested in creating an environment for the sake of both competition and fun.
I believe until they look at the balancing of guilds versus servers, they will never balance the game. I believe looking at battlegroups and the play time and what not is the same as looking at the play time of the servers. In fact, I think its easier to determine the play style of a battlegroup than it is of a server.
Sounds great in theory, much harder in reality. Good luck though if they do Battlegroups. I know many players that will leave and I’m not so sure it will inspire others to come back.
Can you explain to me why its much harder when they can have an automated system that looks at the populace. (They already do.)
For people leaving the game before a system is even designed or tried begs to question of, why they would leave without first trying on a system that has very little discussion or publication. Furthermore, Server-links are making people quit the game as it is.
Automated system cannot predict future activity. Drops/Surges that will come from retiring/more active players will swing the “balance”. Sure you can program all that neat data analysis in and when you have 3 battlegroups that account for the rest of the wvw population, you’re going to have more volatility not less. At least with the 4 tier system, the volatility is spread out amongst the servers.
All Battlegroups would do is preserve what WvW already is. Structurally WvW needs a massive overhall in terms of game mechanics, ranking, server/battlegroup ranking etc etc. Its not server-links that are making people quit the game, its the lack of meaningful change in WvW as a game mode.
I fully agree to your second paragraph but not the first. I dont think it requires any extra monitoring and even if it did I think the monitoring of WvW is something thats greatly needed. Your second paragraph is ideally why I back what I’m backing because I believe the what you said and thats structurally WvW needs a massive overhaul but server-links are indeed whats making people quit the game. I know a lot of people who have given up since. I know people who are forced to move and play for a server they do not wish to play for. All these things are caused by server-links.
Meaningful change is what WvW needs. I believe any extra effort to bring meaningful change is better than making something easy with less effort.
Server links did not cause players to jump to different servers every two months to follow where they believe the next top server / where the fights will be. That is the player’s fault but who can blame them for wanting to improve their “experience”. It is only natural that they want to go to the server that will win or will provide the most fights. The ones that suffer the most are the ones who stick to one server and just watch the tide ebb and flow. Hence, why I support restricting the amount of transfers a player can do within a time span so that server population can stabilize and people will think about when and where they move.
Well if you said that ANet already has an automated population system in place, then it is not doing a great job. Already they had to change the amount of time between links, and inflate glicko ratings to account for shifts in population for certain servers. I’d rather they spend less on automated population systems and more on meaningful changes even if it means moving on to the next iteration of this game.
I believe until they look at the balancing of guilds versus servers, they will never balance the game. I believe looking at battlegroups and the play time and what not is the same as looking at the play time of the servers. In fact, I think its easier to determine the play style of a battlegroup than it is of a server.
Sounds great in theory, much harder in reality. Good luck though if they do Battlegroups. I know many players that will leave and I’m not so sure it will inspire others to come back.
Can you explain to me why its much harder when they can have an automated system that looks at the populace. (They already do.)
For people leaving the game before a system is even designed or tried begs to question of, why they would leave without first trying on a system that has very little discussion or publication. Furthermore, Server-links are making people quit the game as it is.
Automated system cannot predict future activity. Drops/Surges that will come from retiring/more active players will swing the “balance”. Sure you can program all that neat data analysis in and when you have 3 battlegroups that account for the rest of the wvw population, you’re going to have more volatility not less. At least with the 4 tier system, the volatility is spread out amongst the servers.
All Battlegroups would do is preserve what WvW already is. Structurally WvW needs a massive overhall in terms of game mechanics, ranking, server/battlegroup ranking etc etc. Its not server-links that are making people quit the game, its the lack of meaningful change in WvW as a game mode.
I believe until they look at the balancing of guilds versus servers, they will never balance the game. I believe looking at battlegroups and the play time and what not is the same as looking at the play time of the servers. In fact, I think its easier to determine the play style of a battlegroup than it is of a server.
Sounds great in theory, much harder in reality. Good luck though if they do Battlegroups. I know many players that will leave and I’m not so sure it will inspire others to come back.
Are they not already monitoring WvW population enough to make adjustments even.
Keyword “active” – It sounds like ANet are just looking at number of players and the hours played and then matching those servers up with links to fill in for those servers that come in short. Looks great on paper for when links are done and then poof, in one week, all of the balance goes out of the window when the majority of players move to the server that they think will be the next best place.
To do true balancing they would have to kitten guilds, their playtime, commanders, timezones, etc etc. Sorry, but with how often this information changes it is too expensive and costly for them to do it “right” and thus not worth their time and effort to invest heavily.
Better for them to put in a framework for the players to follow and the players find their own solutions to “balance”.
Jesus, this thread is still talking about alliances, or whatever.
Simple solution: limit the amount of transfers you can do in a year, like 2 or 4.
+1 to this – This will limit the volatility of servers and force guilds to really think about the community / server they will transfer to.
Also, no to Battlegroups. ANet has enough on its plate already. Can’t expect them to actively monitor WvW population.
Was Ballista damage adjusted to account for the increase of health in siege? Felt like it was taking twice as long to take siege down with superior ballistas.
I do not think “medium” is an accurate desciption of empty servers either. Still, are you saying there are NOT more players from host server in WvW now?
Last tier servers had so few players left, even whole server is not worth one single tier 1 guild. That is why I have difficulty believe the linking is main cause of servers going into Full status.
I don’t think it is either, but I am using the event as a time reference. I just want to know if ANet plans on opening up the FULL servers so that players that wanted to transfer can make the move. Many people were caught by surprise by the move and did not have fair warning beforehand.
Well I will give an example. Jade Quarry in NA is listed as “FULL” after the server link. Prior to this, many NA guilds moved off the server. Before links were implemented, the server fell to “High” from “Very High” almost a week after the guilds finished moving off. I do not think “FULL” is an accurate description of their server.
I was directed to post this inquiry from Gaile Gray. I was wondering if the FULL status of servers was going to be updated to the previous status prior to the server link. I’m sure some guilds would like to transfer to these servers rather than move to the linked server and have to move again in three months.
Please change it back to Friday resets <3
There is a particular commander on a server that we play against that we highly suspect, but cannot prove, is tag watching against our server. He conveniently seems to know when to take towers and defend SMC. There was a hilarious occasion where we had a single player tag up and try to take a tower solo and the suspected commander was waiting with 80 players without that player even hitting the tower to cause white swords and was not scouted by the other server’s scouts.
The advantage given to commanders who have this ability is quite considerable.
What’s Anet’s stance on this? Is there a detection system to remove dual accounts (checking IPs)
These are some great ideas! Would make the engineer a more appreciated class in WvW!
As a person who plays WvW a lot, I think this is a great idea. This will give parity to those servers that do not have great coverage. Having WvW a three day affair would make the battles much more intense, and give guilds more time to rest and enjoy the other content of gw2.