Guild Wars 2

When you’re power you deal no damage what so ever when you take that 1-3 seconds to cleanse the condies off. When you’re condy you still do massive amount of damage as you withdraw for 1-3 seconds to recover. Nice game ARC. This is literally what’s wrong with the condy meta because DOT should have never been made into a main source of damage. The ability to spam these condies even after cleansing is ridiculous.

Then you have Thieves asking for more mobility while with the insane abilities to stealth and deal massive amount of damage in an instant. Dead-eye is supposed to make people sacrifice something for that damage. This was literally what Thieves did during the initiatives regen debate. They screamed and shout for faster regen and less skill costs for more survivability but what you end up seeing it they just use it to get an extra backstab in and still have enough to quickly exit danger.

OnizukaBR.8537:

xTiMeBoMBx.2863:

We’re once again experiencing the negative effect of an across the board change. There’s a reason why so many people are frustrated about cliffside. The classes in this game were meant to be capable of doing anything on their own and there are videos of different classes soloing dungeons/bosses. The notion of needing certain classes to survive is what “trinity” type games are for and gw2 isn’t a trinity base game. Forcing the public to have certain classes to be able to complete objectives is how the raid dungeons in this game are empty most of the time. Make things challenging to a point where you don’t force people to be a certain class to be able to join. What this is going to do is alienate certain classes from doing the higher tier fractals in the future if it hasn’t already. Forcing people to spend more time leveling and regear when they already have a geared out character is just poor judgement.

But any class can do anything in GW2, you dont need X class, if you think you need any class to do any fractal, well i wont discuss it, lets just say that you are wrong.
Just because T4 fractal are not face roll, and just like swamp, now cliffside T4 isnt too, it doesnt mean is poor judgment, actually is great judgment, as players are getting quality 5-man endgame content, instead of boring.

What are you even smoking? have you seen the lfg lately? it’s mainly necros, druid, dh, and heal focus ele in tier 4. players are forced to play a certain class to succeed. “quality end game” as in players forced to play a certain class right? there’s a difference between a challenge and mobs with toxic trails constantly spawning and leaping on you. the trails also cover the whole platform. i’m already level 100 fractal but what about new people or people barely making it to tier 4? casual players won’t even bother because they don’t want to spend 30mins-1hr on something that used to be 10 minutes. As of now people are already rejecting certain class that they deem not fitting a specific fractal. people already reject classes for new raid dungeon and now we have the same thing for fractal. great job on “quality end game.”

We’re once again experiencing the negative effect of an across the board change. There’s a reason why so many people are frustrated about cliffside. The classes in this game were meant to be capable of doing anything on their own and there are videos of different classes soloing dungeons/bosses. The notion of needing certain classes to survive is what “trinity” type games are for and gw2 isn’t a trinity base game. Forcing the public to have certain classes to be able to complete objectives is how the raid dungeons in this game are empty most of the time. Make things challenging to a point where you don’t force people to be a certain class to be able to join. What this is going to do is alienate certain classes from doing the higher tier fractals in the future if it hasn’t already. Forcing people to spend more time leveling and regear when they already have a geared out character is just poor judgement.

Here’s RET’s anniversary ranger zerg. Happy birthday RET! It was so fun! Hope you guys enjoy the video as much as us playing our rangers.

ekleenex.1654:

selan.8354:

Swamurabi.7890:

I’m hoping Servers E and F join up and decide to do something other than WvW for 7 weeks. That will leave the gold league with 6 1v1 matchups and 4 1v0 matchups.

yeah seriously we just leave when its like that, no point in even trying to cap something. it wil get swarmed by 70 people shortly or even 35 people portalbomb 5 people and a cata…o.0
oi we must be sooo scarry…
so we will just deny u the karma train during downtime, lets see how u get your achievements for the leagues.
plus can u stop buying our guilds? its getting ridiculous, unless u just wanna destroy servers so your overstacked servers dont have to work hard to win.

There is a big difference between buying guilds, and assisting guilds interested in the server with gold.

lol you sound like a US politician. Are you a congressman? You should look into becoming one. You seem to have the mouth for it.

@ Mirsa

Um… no. RET had like 30 people or less lol. You guys had about 15 random pugs running with you so your 20-ish should be more like 30-ish. From that screenshot I can see at least 25 running with you. Anyway, you didn’t kill a single one of RET. Sure you got them down simply because they got gagged but who wouldn’t go down in that situation. They just didn’t die fully and your pug miraculously rallied them all when we killed them. However I do agree with you that we didn’t kill a lot of you guys each time you passed the bridge. How can we when every encounter is just you guys popping invulnerability and stability just to run through? The water “maneuver” was pointless for that fact that you inevitably wiped while none of us died. I mean the first pass you made on the bridge where you dropped all your bombs but failed to kill any of us should signal that we don’t have a mob mentality or else we would have wiped right there. But later on we started losing players to sleep and you guys had 2 blobs of at least 30 attacking bay Don’t cry blob if you do the same. (not implying that RET did blob)

P.S Try running tag-less if you don’t want random pugs to follow you and rallying your down enemies

Wait, ANet gave us new maps? Non of the changes to the BLs are something new that took them months to come up. All of them were simply copy and paste. The new area a few of you love so much is exactly the game mode of SPvP, which isn’t what WvW players wanted. What about the roamers? Well didn’t they roam in WvW because the SPvP meta got boring and the lack of equipment/build became unbearable? (even though SPvP was meant to be the bear mininum)

This “orb” buff is something new? If it was something totally new wouldn’t it at least have a different icon? It’s the same freaking icon as the original orb buff when the game launched. No, the orbs wasn’t removed only because of the constant fly hacking, which people can still do and w/o a fix in sight. The original orb provided a huge increase in power. Such increase wouldn’t be an issue when you have fair matches where each sides had equal man power but that simply isn’t the case in WvW since day one. We had a lot of bandwagon guilds and self centered players who refuse to put in work for server pride.

If some of you are new then let a beta tester like myself direct you to pages 300-400 of this entire forum and read up on history before you defend such a ridiculous addition to what was once an attraction to players across all game genres.

I think what the OP meant was ALT F4 will deny the 3 points on stomp if the person stomping has 3 buffs. He or she will still get credit for the kill but not the the 3 points for the server.

However I think the server will still get the 3 points in that scenario.

NO to the buff.

This is the same buff as the orb just a little more work to get. Trust me it’s not hard to get if you have a zerg doing it. That’s how a majority of servers have gotten their 3 buffs atm. They zerged and then leave a few scouts behind to alert them when others try to take so that they can zerg back. The map is so small they have no problem covering the distance even in a zerg. I’ve been here since beta and it’s ridiculous to me when people defend this buff/orb. Yes they were removed because of fly hacks but that wasn’t the only problem with it. We’re experiencing the same problem we had back then which was stacked server got even stronger and they would always store the orbs in a keep with a waypoint which made it near impossible to take back.

The only problem here is population imbalances. It is the root of all the mess. Anything they add that are aimed to benefit everyone will always end up benefiting the stronger server more drastically. I’ve said this over and over all along from the start of this game and even in beta. This game needed a dead cap per map in WvW. This will force guilds to actually move to lower tier if they wanted to participate. ANet being worried that people will quit the game due to the cap is just simply not trusting their own product. This is a great game and it is the only one of it’s kind in the market currently, they’re not going to quit. However, money is out weighing quality at this point of the game, which is simply too soon since it’s been only a little over a year. ANet has created a snowball effect of guilds moving to higher tier. No matter what their reasons are, the point remains. The majority are moving or did move.

selan.8354:

here is my prediction sor wins…omg wow i must be psichic.o.0
so boring. i aint gonna log in. 1 week in t1 as a t2 server is enough! 60 man zergs everywhere and 1 sever capping the entire map within 10-15minutes. even with a million of siege in garri u cant hold it vs 60 people if u only have 15-25 on atm.

I know how you feel. We already can’t take a whole week of being outnummered and under-coverage so idk how I’m gonna take a 7 week long fight.

Jackie.1829:

xTiMeBoMBx.2863:

I watched the Pax stream and it was so boring. People avoided each other the majority of the time to capture points to win. What happened to player vs. player? I thought pvp was about one person/team trying to beat the crap out of another through combat/skills.

Yea and when I watch LoL all I see is people losing the lane hugging their turrets avoiding the opposing laner. And then top lane just wards so that he doesnt get ganked, but I thought he wants to pvp?! And then the enemy jungler runs around to gank but thats very unfair cause its like 1v2!! And sometimes they kill these neutral creeps, omg pve in pvp waaatttt!!

Look can the whole lot of you stop talking about what is “pvp”. If you want anybody except yourselves to take you seriously stop trying to deflect onto the spvp game format or community. It is quite blatant a vast majority of you dont understand anything about pvp or what makes games competitive, the extent of your pvp experience is exactly what you describe, just running around with your character hitting skills to kill the enemy.

Guess what? No competitive game format has ever emerged from this concept. “PvP” involves not just out skilling with micro, but also out thinking the opponent, which needs map wide macro. The PAX tourney was not just people running around not fighting, thats just what you interpreted through inexperience and ignorance.

Now will spvp be esports? No, not a chance. But not for the reasons you say and furthermore is completely unrelated to anything about WvW.

What are you talking about? rofl. LoL is about killing your opponents so that you can advance to the next turret. You have to do it smartly so that you don’t get ganked in a 1vX situtation. There are hard hitting classes that will 1-3 hit you. People in LoL fought each other more than people in SPvP. Don’t make me laugh dude. Did you happen to get a peek at the leaked SPvP modes? Guess what? They’re king of the hill and deathmatch! Both modes have always had big emphasis on player actually fighting players.

Anyway, how are changes in SPvP unrelated to WvW? Are you dead in the head? Every changes they made to classes were made for SPvP but since they have only one structure in a game with 3 modes, everyone was affected. As for Pax it was a pathetic scene with less than 1k streamers and that’s even much lower than tournaments in GW1, but yeh, GW2 SPvP is very popular. LMFAO! Go measure your kitten somewhere else little kid.

@Freeelancer.2860

Yeh, if you had followed this WvW forum from the start of the game, even further, in beta, you would know that suggestions were made in regards to population imbalances. How they have no tools to measure the amount of WvW population specifically. We suggested ideas such as splitting the time zones, 2 different battles where scores were separated, adjusting the scores off hours of servers, and buffs that actually benefit outmanned server while in battle. We suggested hard cap per map at around 30-ish for each sides so they wouldn’t even need a queue system or stress out the server to the point where you can’t use skills. We wanted zergs to end! It’s been more than a year and the zerg has only gotten bigger.

You seem to be part of the smallest population in this game, SPvP. How can i make that claim? Well I saw the viewer count during Pax, which was recent, and it was not impressive. It was less than 500 during the stream. An event at Pax must have cost at least 100k! However, everything they change to classes that people play in WvW or PvE were made around you, SPvP! How would you like it if they did the reverse?

The WvW community know ANet poured the majority of their resources into SPvP. Every “State of the Game” had only SPvP people on there to dictate how all classes should be. “Why don’t you ask to appear on up coming State of the Game?” No WvW players will make it on simply because they pick and choose who they will allow on. Judging by the Pax experience, where they dodged all questions, aka red herring, related to WvW, it would still be pointless if a brave WvW soul made it on. Speaking of Pax, their stream had even less viewers than AGG’s, RG’s, and BT’s (was a big guild but majority quit) streams. Their videos have even more viewers also. If the people who wanted to SPvP in an eSport sense, they would go DOTA or LoL because they structure there is better and more fun.

I watched the Pax stream and it was so boring. People avoided each other the majority of the time to capture points to win. What happened to player vs. player? I thought pvp was about one person/team trying to beat the crap out of another through combat/skills.

We all agree that PvE population is much bigger than WvW or SPvP. The question here is, how did it get that big? I can guarantee at least 40% of the current PvE population came from WvW. They all left the WvW scene due to lack of developments and balance. Big scale fight was what drew players from all sort of game to GW2 because it was the only game that offered it. That was WvW. If people wanted to SPvP they would go LoL or DOTA, I know I would. If they wanted PvE they would go play Hello Kitty Online (hehe).

The whole point of the OP was stop catering to SPvP because that’s not where the majority of your active players are. We also don’t want our classes’ traits and skills in WvW or PvE to be dictated by what the SPvP minority wants. There are three game modes to this game so it’s very ignorant and ridiculous to have a single structure.

Niim.9260:

DevonCarver.5370:

You mention in this post why nothing is changing here. We can’t merge servers based on what percentage of players on a server play WvW. We make determinations about servers based on their overall population. Your best bet is to use the influx of rewards from the season to convince people on your server to start paying attention to WvW. Or convince people to transfer to your server to boost your WvW ranks.

Influx of rewards… what a kitten joke.

It doesn’t matter anyways, the overall problem with WvW is that there is only so many off hour players, which means only a few servers can be competitive, which is why the vast majority of the player base find PPT to be an utter joke.

Unless they condense servers to so few that everyone has a chunk of the off hour population, mergers wont change anything.

exactly this! But hey let’s just increase the map cap and allow more transfers. It will totally help WvW. Who cares about all those hardcore WvW guilds/indivuals that have left the game already. The issues with WvW those guilds notice magically disappeared when they quit the game a long time ago. Everything is all fine in WvW now guys. Ignoring the WvW population imbalance is the answer to everything. We are in safe hands.

/end sarcasm.

No WvW guilds will stay behind to carry a dead server simply because their players will get burnt out and soon leave. The problem is WvW population imbalances. The fact that ANet is betting, aka “hoping,” for the fights to be balance just shows the lack of foresight and reasoning. Why would anyone move to a dead server lacking in WvW presence for rewards when they can get the same rewards or even better if they move to a server that is well known to be stacked in WvW population. Wouldn’t it make more sense that a winning server will receive the better rewards so why would any guilds or individuals move to a dead server? Unless ANet makes the rewards of a tier 1 league much crappier than the rewards of a tier 4 league. But then that wouldn’t make sense or be fair to a tier 1 league. Just implement a freaking dead cap per server, for each map, already. Allow only equal amount of players, for example 50, in a map per server. At least this way it will make those that really want to fight and contribute, and not get carried or band wagon, move to a lower tier to establish themselves. Increasing the map cap is just gonna make people move to a higher tier, already stacked servers.

Wow more nerfs for mesmer. This is ridiculous and shameful! Chaos armor only lasts 5 seconds so in practice the user only gets 3 random boons because of the internal recharge. This change also mean people can spam attacks on mesmers with chaos armor because they will now receive less punishments due to the stupid internal recharge on applied conditions. Sigh… Chaos Armor only lasts for 5 seconds, WTF!!!!! Thieves and warriors are gonna start spamming without any worries now. Thanks ANet… what a bunch of impotent and ignorant team.

SleepingDragon.1596:

Let’s get straight to the point. I’m sure a lot of us are upset about the lag. The real fix to the lag is to cut the population allowed on each maps by 25-50%. Let’s do this at least for now until the servers are capable of handling bigger zergs, we at least have a temporary fix. Who knows, it might become a permanent fix as potentially some guilds may move out to help balance out the WvW population on other servers…

Population control is the only fix but people will start calling foul. I don’t get it. I don’t think people realize that you can’t have balance when you allow any one server to vastly outman the other two. You can’t have a smooth system w/o lag when you allow so many players on the same map, especially when you KNOW! your servers can’t handle it. It amazes me the arrogance, or maybe just ignorance, ANet has shown so far. Maybe they’re so understaffed or just extremely slow to respond to issues.

I would gladly ask them questions myself but I won’t. If you’ve ever heard of TheAngryJoeShow on youtube, well, I am like him but only 10x worse/intense. He is willing to tone himself down for the sake of the interview even though bulls*** are thrown at him, I won’t. I will heat up and start calling bulls*** for what it is. This is exactly why I don’t bother. The host’s job is to be up to date with everything about the game. It is why it’s called SotG, not just SPvP. Having just SPvP players on the interview doesn’t mean the conversion need to focus just on SPvP and the one person who should realize that is the host. I wouldn’t be making this thread if the conversation of every single SotG weren’t exactly the same and the only difference is they’re on different dates.

I’ve watched all of your previous “interview” with the developers of GW2. Firstly, you and your guests are terrible at asking questions addressing problems within the game. State of the Game usually meant the whole game but all I’ve ever notice from all of the interviews were SPvP related. From my perspective, every single guests, who were asking questions, only focused on asking questions that satisfied their own needs. It’s time to start asking tough questions on all aspects of the game, not just SPvP. What about the broken stealth system where professions lacked traits or skill to reveal stealth players? Aren’t thieves supposed to be deadly assassins who finished fights once they picked one? The current system made them into running/restarting wussies What about the broken match-up systems? What about the broken queues? What about the lack of caps? What about the staled PvE? Especially world bosses being way too easy. We all know balance can’t be achieved through any measure of systems, i.e. ranking tweaking, when you have outmanned situations. How about addressing the issue where the developers weren’t ready to answer any questions when asked. They stumble to look through pages of changes just to find a 5 words answer. This shows me, as a gamer, the developers were rushing to implement random changes that none of the developers are in agreement with, or everyone on the team didn’t know about. How about on the next State of the Game we actually have players from all aspect of the game on the interview? We need player from PvE, WvW, and SPvP because everyone, or a majority of players, knew by now that GW2 wasn’t, and isn’t, just about SPvP. Get your head on straight GW2 and host of State of the Game.

ANet’s servers are incapable of handling the clashes of big groups in an area at one time. This is why we need a WvW population balance, i.e. a flexible cap, and create more maps for us to battle on. Anyone crying about “a cap is gonna limit contents from players” is all crap and you deserve to play in a laggy, smashing #1, and fail WvW system, which we’re currently in. All skills worked just fine before culling was fixed, so guess what, ANet only fixed culling by shifting processes, not recoding. Hence the skill lag problems began. There were no threads, at all, complaining about skill lags before culling was fixed. The ONLY problem right now, and has always been the problem, is the inability to take a stand on implementing a cap due to fear of outcries over it. Whether it’s skill lag or rendering, they’re symptoms of over crowding on servers that clearly can’t handle the mass gathering of people on top of skills usage. This is why we need a population cap on each maps, per server, along with plenty more maps to battle on rather than just 4. Stop defending the notion of “cap prevents game play” because a true and balance system would have a cap for each competing servers. How enjoyable is WvW, your game play, right now with all the issues caused by overcrowding of servers? How enjoyable is your class when you can only use #1 or how #6 fail to activate when you need it to? Address the freaking unbalance WvW population already and stop beating around the bush. Implement a cap and expand more maps so people can enjoy WvW w/o queues or long ones. It’s been nearly 1 year and the philosophy of “we don’t believe in a cap” is failing miserably. Culling was the first sign, warning, of a failing philosophy.

Vena.8436:

xTiMeBoMBx.2863:

I hate to be frank about it but I was at E3 and let me tell you ESO is just around the corner, 2014. A single tower fight had 200 people and no skill lag.

No, 2014 (and it isn’t planned to launch early in 2014) is not right around the corner. People have this strange illusion about TESO as if it had launched and demonstrated anything at all in a real environment. Ever wonder why they hyped their game with a cinematic and then deferred the release by over a year?

That is because now they need to make a console version where as before it was to be just for pc. This usually mean you can use your controller to play on pc as well. At least that was what they said at E3.

AndrewSX.3794:

Gamadorn.2659:

I agree there is an easy EASY fix for population. Open free transfers for two weeks. Lower the queue limit on each map to say 60. Done. Watch all the guilds with large groups 1.) Break into smaller 30 man groups to accommodate. 2.) Transfer to servers with a lower population.

LolgodpleaseNO.

Destroying communities is not what i call “Even out population”.

Yeah no more free xfer because more people will flood top tiers for easy loots from zerg balling.

styx.7294:

… your problem is that winning servers can gain points or lose points and losing servers can gain points or lose points? If the problem is that you think no one will play in a situation where they keep dying, then I guess no one will ever play ‘cause someone has to die if someone else is to kill someone. Also I think saying things like “who would want to play” is cute when the game comes out but when the game is almost a year old and we’re still playing it, I think the answer is “me”. The population balance between servers close in ranking isn’t big and unless the matches are really out of whack, every player that week will find times when they outnumber someone or are outnumbered by someone. Heck, probably every minute, there’s someone on every server in a situation where they outnumber and someone who is outnumbered.

Why should winning servers suffer losing points and why should losing server gain points? You lost all credibility when you acknowledge such system is acceptable. If you haven’t noticed a lot of people have left the game or left the WvW scene altogether then you aren’t really looking. I had 45 people on my friend’s list that I have played with ever since closed beta+ the 3 day early access beta. They all quit and now has been gone for 4 months. Right there that’s 45 people that “would not play” this game and I’m 100% sure I’m not the only one with a bunch of friends who quit. The current system is creating much more blowout matches than the last system. It’s matching servers with much more WvW population with low ones. And I’m talking about WvW population so I hope you don’t blend in total server population because they’re 2 different things. The queue system is all out of whack since it is based on total server population because ANet is incapable of measuring just the WvW population of each servers. That’s our problem but maybe you’re too much of a fan too see it. Why don’t you ask yourself "why haven’t all of the “fixes” ANet made to the WvW game worked?" It’s because none of those “fixes” addressed the population balance. Any buffs would only tip the scale to one side rather than balance as seen in the destructive power of AC buff. Stop beating around the bush with all of these band aids and start striking at the core which is a path to WvW population balance.

The problem is the unbalance in numbers so suggesting new score systems or buffs would just make things worse. The fact the orbs were such a big negative aside from it’s exploits is proof enough. Any suggestions addressing issues other than the WvW population has and will never work, period. People need to drop the notion of players having limited access if a “cap” is implemented because that’s just a stupid philosophy to defend. There are ways to make a cap work such as having many more maps with their own smart cap so that servers can get ready with designated groups per map each week. There’s a reason why every tournaments either in real life or in games has set numbers because only then skills and tactics would become a factor. The lack of number balance has destroyed the quality of WvW because the only tactic that is being use is zerg-balling. If you visit every single matches from T1 all the way to the lowest tier, you will always find a zerg fest and nothing more.

The main problem in WvW has been the WvW population of each server, not total population. That is the #1 issue here so tossing around ideas such as match up systems or buffs, which has no direct effect upon population, will not work. Current match systems are showing winning server losing points, losing servers gaining points, winning server winning points over weak servers, and losing servers losing a lot of points for being outmanned. Everything will start clicking in place when we can start a serious conversation about the unbalance in WvW population of each servers. No more talk about restriction of play for players because that’s all hogwash. The true restriction is from not addressing being outmanned because who would want to play in an environment where you’d die over and over or lose everything you own to a blob 3x yours. I hate to be frank about it but I was at E3 and let me tell you ESO is just around the corner, 2014. A single tower fight had 200 people and no skill lag. However it does seem like it’s going to be a subscription game so I wouldn’t mind GW2 going subscription based. I will gladly pay but please just make things better through serious fixes. I got GW2 for it’s WvW and community in the first place.

Let’s face it, ANet will never be able to balance out matches. There are too many variables in effect. One of the issue is the reluctant on implementing smart caps. The longer they resist in putting a smart cap on battlegrounds, the further they are from balance. People, including ANet, have to understand that you can’t have it both ways, balance and accessibility. WvW is a numbers game ever since the game went live. The server with the most WvW players, not total server population, always come out on top. While no restriction of access is ideally great but is it also exactly the cause of giant zergs, loss of tactical plays, and depopulation of servers. All of which resulted in unbalance matches. Everything that has been added/fixed for WvW to boost small groups only increased the power of the zerg, e.i AC. Any “nerf” to WvW would then hurt the small groups.
Another issue is the lack of methods to gain points. Right now it is but a push for a tower and quickly move onto the next in a giant zerg ball. Not to mention a paper tower takes at most 1 minutes to capture. Almost all grand scale fights in many other MMOs, such as WoW, have many objectives each competing sides can do to achieve meaningful points. Hunting down yaks is pointless when matches are grossly unbalanced. Something, as suggested in the below link, needs to be done. This will force servers to work together on setting up their best players fit for each map while the main force fight normally on the original battlegrounds. Victory will no longer be based on the server’s WvW population but rather skills. It will no longer be based on the zerg but rather the effort of the zerg and it’s nominated teams. It would also address any possible smart cap because people then have somewhere to go to contribute for their server’s victory. Just like Spirit Watch, there should be a variety of ways to win.

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/New-maps-specifically-for-small-team-tactics/first#post2166430

@Atherakhia yes some like that but I want it to not be guild specific only so there’s flexibility for those aren’t in any guilds to contribute if they wanted. Again I stress that this method needs multiple new maps so accommodate all of the guilds and lone rangers. It also can’t be just about stealing flag because that will get stale quick. A variety of maps with different ways to attain points per map so that the fights are different for everyone each week. Also the communication part where guilds nominate the most fit players for each of the maps sounds awesome. It’s just like football’s special team.
I also forgot to mention that it take the concept of spirit watch into consideration too. This means there are ways to win the war eventhough you are outnumbered.The orb possession in spirit watch in this case would be parallel to the borderland fights and capturing all of the points is a counter for when your team is failing at the orbs. This will add intensities to every week’s match when the weight is put on the shoulders of the nominated individuals where they can turn the tide and carry their server to victory.

Lymain.6723:

If you want to play sPvP, then play sPvP imo.

It’s not about SPvP. I think you’re failing to see my suggestion/picture.

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/New-maps-specifically-for-small-team-tactics/first#post2166292

so is this possible ANet?

Oh no, small groups are effective but what I meant is they can’t be their full potential in the current battlegrounds. Zergs can response w/i minutes to any disturbances across the map. Plus w/e positive small groups did now can be undone in seconds and then overshadowed to overwhelmed by night capping. Well I don’t know. I just thought something new injected into the system is better than another seige upgrades, buffs/debuffs, WXP, etc… None of those interested me nor kept me interested. I just want a good strategic fight where brain wins with a small help from the brawn.

Small teams of 5-8 aren’t relatively effective on any of the current maps due to the zerg’s quick ability to response across such small maps. It has became just a bit harder to ninja cap supply camps when all servers are utilizing the effectiveness of scouts. I was thinking ANet should introduce new special maps that people could sign up to get in. The map would be some what like SPvP fights where the first team to “500” points wins and the accumulated score gets added to the respected server with a bonus that the winning server gets a x2 score or something like that. You can do a variety of objectives to score points in these maps from killing players, capturing points, capturing flag, king of the hill, etc… Any combination of those would be great and fun for small tactical fights. Better yet, make each map dedicated for one specific objective of gaining points on top of points from killing players. These type of maps should also limit to 5-8 player per server and ANet should be the judge of what that number would be. The maps become available every 4 hours with a 1 hour early notice (24/6) but also only accessible when all 3 servers fill the open spots. The notice, in gold texts, should appear across WvW player’s screen. This method will actually get the guilds on each servers to talk to each other to nominate their best players for the map, again there should be many maps of such. I know the problem of random players registering for the maps but then that falls on the commanders of the servers to address their players if they want a successful outcome. Just an idea but idk. Maybe this will be fun.

This is not a fix, period. This is just reversing the roles of NA and EU. It fixes nothing. Either find a way to implement a secondary reset time for EU or put the game back in beta and rework WvW where you have EU on a different server than NA. If that is not possible then upgrade the server so that it can remove the notion of queue system. If that still doesn’t work then it’ll be just down hill from then on. The problem in WvW right now is imbalance players causing uneven odds for the outmanned side. Address that issue and it will cure everything else. It is just as plain and simple as that so please stop focusing on band-aids and look for a cure.

DevonCarver.5370:

I talked to our server guys and we just don’t have the ability to reset these at different times. As much as that is an unsatisfying answer for you in the EU, it is reality.

Nothing is impossible in a technological world!

Almost all the guilds in FA are skilled and can go toe to toes against even numbers. Imagine what they can do when they have coverage like TC.

It is nice to see queue data but I think it still won’t help anything unless ANet can address the issue of people being stuck in queue for an hour+. The other issue they need to address is how each server’s WvW population differ greatly. The main problem in WvW right out is the imbalance of players fighting on each map. This occur frequently, almost all the time, during reset night, and it spread throughout the week as more and more of the players, from the outmanned side, lose interest. I believe the solution to this mess still lies in a system that specifically deals with population balancing for the 3 servers of the particular match. We don’t need all of the band-aids, such as outmanned buff, increase in objective points, new reset time, outbreak, or any other future ones. The players will be more happy to win and less disinterested after they lose when they knew, beforehand, they were fighting against even odds the whole time. Balance is the only thing keeps competition fun and worth while, not band-aids.

scootshoot.6583:

xTiMeBoMBx.2863:

scootshoot.6583:

Linked server queues like WOW are the only way to resolve numbers differential but it will ruin WvW by doing so.

There is a certain amount of server pride and enjoyment playing alongside the same peep’s day in and day out.

The next new MMO shouldn’t have this issue as everyone is going to be on one super server so it should resolve factions rolling with 5x the number of players at a given time slot.

Yeh I’m jumping ship as soon as that MMO is out if ANet doesn’t get this balance system sorted out.

Closed beta invites have already gone out. Will definitely try it out. If anything should expect far greater game performance in large scale battles due to a newer engine that takes advantage of multi core processors that are prevalent today. Also will support duo video card setups (sli, crossfire) as well.

I know exactly which MMO you’re referring to, I signed up for it too, but let’s not talk about it anymore because I don’t want this thread locked. Anyway, ANet is not new to MMO and they pride in fairness, so I just don’t get why they’re so slow to react to imbalances.

scootshoot.6583:

Linked server queues like WOW are the only way to resolve numbers differential but it will ruin WvW by doing so.

There is a certain amount of server pride and enjoyment playing alongside the same peep’s day in and day out.

The next new MMO shouldn’t have this issue as everyone is going to be on one super server so it should resolve factions rolling with 5x the number of players at a given time slot.

Yeh I’m jumping ship as soon as that MMO is out if ANet doesn’t get this balance system sorted out.

ANet really needs a system that can calculate each server’s WvW population rather than total population.

etiolate.9185:

I’d prefer a change to the scoring system. The way it works now, you gain more by winning briefer periods of time where you are out-populating a server than you do winning by small amounts over long hours during prime time. As has been seen, this has an overall negative impact on the game’s population towards WvWvW. ArenaNet hoped that server transfers and such would balance things out, but that was sort of a naive approach to player behavior and obviously did not work out.

If the game divided up the match into mini-matches of even time periods and rewarded points for winning time periods, it would put each time period more in balance with each other. Your server may have drastically lost map area when your population was asleep, but you make that up through bonus points for winning more overall time periods during primetime. Until you do something like that, you will have the current situation where periods of population imbalance matter more than the more competitive times of day.

I like this idea but I think such point mechanic can’t be possible because WvW is set this way, unless they remake/create a whole different WvW. Another issue is ANet has no way of calculating X amount of WvW players for each match-up from each server because they fluctuate so much each week.

Cactus, you have yet to explain how what I suggested can be manipulated other than saying it “can be manipulated.” Like how can anyone manipulate, let’s say, a cap that has reach 30, with my idea, it meant all 3 servers has around 29 players (+/-1-10). How can any one server rally in more people to that map, as you so suggested as possible manipulation, when the cap is at 30.

SilencedScream, yes I noticed that issue but coverage issue can’t be cured by anything. You saw how Orb of Power failed. You saw how useless outmanned buff is. you saw how pathetic/overpowered, depending on the force behind it, outbreak is. Well you can recruit for more people to fill in that coverage gap but then you’d be shoveling your coverage gap to the server from which you got those people. In other words, you’d just be passing on your problems to another server. For this issue I think etiolate’s suggestion would seem to work well.

Cactus.2710:

A player cap is an idiotic way to fix the problem of balance. Preventing people from playing WvW is most definitely not the way to save it. As I and others have repeatedly told you before, it’s also a great way to manipulate matches. Want to protect a big lead? Pull most of your players off a map so that your towers and keeps can be easily defended by the few people you leave there. And forcing teams to spread their players evenly across the maps doesn’t increase strategic content at all … it reduces it. We often attack an enemy’s BL in force in order to pull them out of ours.

Please don’t misunderstand me, though … I am not supporting the current situation. ANet’s system of tiers and matchmaking is most certainly messed up and will likely never give us proper matches. It needs to be changed, period, and I do agree with you that people will leave this game for one that does WvW-style play properly when the next one arrives. ANet has at best maybe six months to fix this thing … but player caps will kill it even sooner than that.

I think you’ve misunderstood the cap system that I’ve suggested, or you didn’t read the whole thing at all and began to rant as soon as you saw the word “cap.” If you actually re-read it, I didn’t suggest a dead cap because only a dead cap can prevent people from playing. Plus, whether it be a dead cap or the cap I suggested, they can never be manipulated because a cap means you can’t go pass X amount of players for each battlegrounds. Whatever players each servers have on one battleground is set to stay there and fight. My suggestion was a constantly growing cap just as long as each server can meet the cap. For example, again, the cap starts at 40 for each battlegrounds. The cap would continuously increase by 10 for each battleground when it is met by all 3 servers there, this is to get people in queue in. The only time the cap would stop increasing is when it can’t be met by all three servers. When it can’t be met that would mean all three server has a balance number of people fighting each other. The player difference between all 3 servers would be only 1-10. No more 20 people, with 30 others in queue, fighting 50 people on the left and helpless against the other 50 to the right of a battleground.

With my suggestion there is no manipulation so I don’t where you got that idea from because it’s non sense. The cap I suggest would only increase when it is met by all 3 servers so this notion of one server pulling more people to another map, while leaving a small ground behind, to defend a big lead would be impossible. For instance the cap grew to 50 on battleground A and all 3 servers have 49 players fighting it out. The cap would stop at 50. Let’s just say you’re in one of the 3 server and you happen to be winning on battleground A and with a huge lead in total point. You look at the map and you saw your server is in bad shape on battleground B and the cap there has only reached 30. This would mean that your server and the other 2 servers have only gotten up to 29 players (+/- 1-10) on battleground B. However you can’t take your people from battleground A to B because there is already 29 players there fighting. Sadly, they happen to be losing but it is fair because they’re fighting against almost the exact numbers of players that they have. Being on the losing end with my suggested system would only mean you got outplayed by the attackers/defenders, not outmanned like the current system.

eithinan.9841:

This is not the way to fix population problems. It is open to many forms of manipulation. Whining on the forums you are outnumbered will not solve your coverage problems, recruiting players to your server will.

A cap is exactly the way to balance out the 3 competing servers. You can imagine that the 3 servers in any matches are on equal skill level, hence they’re on the same tier. However, without a population cap the server that yields the most WvW players will always come out on top. That is a kitten system because the victor is determined by their population rather than tactics or skills. That is our current system. There are WvW guilds out there that would destroy other oppositions if the odds were even. Now, I’m not talking about a dead cap where X population is set for each server on each battlegrounds. I’m saying at reset night start the cap at about 30 or 40 for each of the three servers. Then the cap would increase by 5 or 10 only after the previous cap of 40 has been met by all 3 competing servers. The cap would only stop increasing when it is not met by all three servers. This method would keep a constant balance between the three servers. It will require each server to play more strategically by relocation of population for each battlegrounds. Induces more tactics rather than constant zerg ball.

There is, literally, no point for ANet for have such tier system if they neglect the fact that each servers have different amount of WvW population. The current WvW mechanics support population domination so why do we even have tiers? Am I wrong to think that the tier you’re in is determined by your skill level? At least that’s how ANet views it through their SPvP tier. Why smash 3 servers together when each server’s WvW population differ so greatly? This is also destroying the population of lower tiers because people end up moving to other servers or strait up quitting the game.

The hogwash excuse that ANet wants everyone to enjoy all of the game’s content is literally destroying the game’s experience for people. Sure people want to enjoy, play, socialize, and most importantly, to compete. However, they enjoy it more when things are balanced. The people in general wants fairness and balance in any system/mechanics. The game stops being fun and starts to grow dull when balance is lost.

I, myself, has been falling asleep, playing other games, or quitting in the middle of dungeons because the game has become so dull to me. I used to be full of excitement at every reset night for WvW but lately I just want to log off. The only reason I even do WvW anymore is simply because I’m needed since we’ve been so outnumbered in last 3 weeks on all battlegrounds. I just feel like SPvP is hording all of the attention even though most of the game’s population only do SPvP just for kicks, not something they’re serious about. Yes, there are hardcore SPvP, but their numbers don’t compare to that of WvW nor PvE. I even went back to play that game that has devil in it’s name yesterday. (can’t say other game’s name on forum but you know what i mean) I told my guild that I was done for the night but I was just really bored and disgusted at the imbalance. If things don’t change soon then I see myself leaving for some upcoming MMO and I know I’m not alone in this. I’m just the one willing to say it.

It’s time ANet focus more on WvW and fix the queue system. It is so unreasonable to have one server with 25 people on the map defend against 40+ of the other 2 servers while the reinforcement is stuck in queue. The queue system is a total fail and the lack of an automated balance system is a bigger fail. At the moment, victory is based on the server’s WvW population rather than skills or tactic.

yep the long queue is going to be the downfall of WvW. Less and less people will want to waste their time doing nothing but wait, especially if they got work in the morning,

I’m about 60% WvW, 39% PvE, and 1% SPvP. I just think ANet as a whole needs to focus on WvW more so than SPvP because GW2 is never going to be an eSport as they so desired. WvW population as a whole far exceed that of SPvP simply because you don’t see that many guilds recruit for SPvP. For every 1 guild recruiting purely for SPvP there’s at least 4 or 5 guilds recruiting for WvW or WvW+PvE. The Queue system is a mess, unbalance server match up, lack of an automated balance system, Orb of Power still m.i.a, and outmanned buff is a joke. But with all that said, ANet continues to cater to SPvP when the majority of the game’s population is in WvW and PvE.

Ragnar.4257:

The queue system is most certainly messy and temperamental, but ANet have said several times that the population limit is per-server, not per-map. It is not possible for you to be unable to join because the other server has too many people on the map. At least, according to what ANet has told us….

The rest is just QQ. If the enemy have more people online, adapt and deal with it. Don’t tell them they’re not allowed to play.

Maybe you should play in FA and see how outnumbered they are every second of the week. Maybe you should play in FA and see how their 20 man defense have to struggle to defend against 50+ attacker from each side but their support is stuck in queue for hours. The notion that queue in based on server is hogwash because just last night at least 20-30 TC came into EBG w/o a problem while FA’s 30 man defense were already fighting 50 of them at Mendon. I personally don’t mind if I can’t join a battleground due to cap limit because at least I know all 3 servers are fighting at even odds at that point in time. Hot-join in SPvP already has a system that would even out the 2 sides for a fairer fight so stop defending the current queue. Plus the cap is not a dead cap so how would it stop people from playing WvW? I specifically suggested the cap should increase by 5, more or less, every time it is reached by all 3 servers.
Example:
Cap starts at 30 at reset
All 3 sides reached cap
Cap raised to 40
All 3 sides reached cap
cap raised to 50
etc…
This will go on until cap can’t be reached by all 3 servers. What ANet said the queue system is, is totally different on how it currently works. And yes it is possible for you to be unable to join when the other server has 3 times your numbers on each battlegrounds and that is the hour long queues. How it currently works is not server based, not fair, and not working. I mean SPvP has a system to balance out the teams in hot-joins so why can’t ANet do the same for WvW? “Adapt and deal with it” is what ANet basically told the community when they revamped AC. The people did exactly that by not doing AC anymore. The prove to that is gw2lfg.com and the ghost town in front of AC where is used to be filled with people looking for parties.

Ragnar.4257:

Map population can go down as well as up. So you’re fine with being out-manned if the people who are out-manning you were on the map early enough and stuck around?

And booting / pop-capping, there’s no real difference, it’s just arguing over semantics. End result is alot of people being prevented from playing when they want to, however you look at it.

Nevermind the fact that, outside of primetime, there is almost always 1 server absent from a borderlands. For much of the day, most bordelands are in a state of 1v1, with the third server having no more than a handful of camp-flippers. So you’re saying those 2 servers who want to get stuck in shouldn’t be allowed to because the third one isn’t there?

Well I did say 25, more or less, to start with. What you’re saying is to allow them in and then you have those people capping everything uncontested with their huge zerg. Allowing them to upgrade and fully siege everything. Then you have the server that lost everything comes in trying to take things back in a 3:1 odd. How is that fair? There is no possible way for any server to take anything back when they’re stuck in a 3:1 odd. On top of that everything they’re trying to take back is fully upgraded with a 50 man zerg raining siege and harassing them and not being able to call in help because there’s a long queue. The cap would allow the absent server a chance to fight not inevitable defeat just because they have jobs or other real life related stuff. At the moment the cap seems like it’s based off of the total population each map can hold.
Example:
Server TC 200 WvW players

Server KN 150 WvW players

Server FA 100 WvW players

Each battlegrounds hold 100 players total

There are 4 battlegrounds.

How do you make this a fair and even match when the queue system seems like it’s based off of total population of each battleground? A out-manned buff would only work if it made each player as strong as Siegerazer but I don’t see that happening.

Ragnar.4257:

Population imbalances get resolved by the tier/ranking system. The solution to a problem is never to prevent people from playing. By all means suggest ways to help out-manned teams by improving out-manned buffs and defensive seige. But simply booting people out of the game and saying “sorry, you’re not allowed to play now” is a, and there’s no nice way to say this, stupid solution.

No one said anything about booting. The suggestion was to set a “25” player cap for each server of that map and that cap increases by 5 each time the cap is reached by all 3 servers. At the moment there are servers playing as though they belong in tier 1-3 but their coverage is just not great. This cap suggestion would somewhat fix the coverage issues servers have when they don’t have enough NA. SEA, or EU presence. Anyway, what you’ve simply said is the tier you’re in is relative to your population, not skills.

WvW queue is a mess! Can we please get some sort of official comment? How is it fair for one server to be stuck in queue while their 20 man players struggle to defend against 2 servers with 50 players each. How hard is it to create a cap on each WvW map? How is it not reasonable to have a cap when a cap is needed to weed out the good tier servers from the bad ones? When did having a high WvW population determine what tier you’re on? ANet pride on fairness, so how is that fair? ANet wants everyone to be able to play so there’s no cap preventing people from enjoying the contents, but where is the fun, enjoyment, and fairness for those constantly fighting against uneven odds every day in WvW? Those same people would destroy and win fights/objectives when facing even odds, so where is the justice for them? How is increasing the population of each map any help? How is population increase for each WvW map going to help when high WvW population servers would just get more in while low WvW population servers get none at all? Why can’t each WvW map start with a 25 players cap for each server and have the cap raise by 5 only when the cap is reached by all 3 servers of that map? This sounds like a good system that would weed out skilled servers based on their skills rather than population, why wasn’t this thought of? This sounds like a good system that would put each server in even battles not lopsided 3:1 fights, why wasn’t this thought of? I’m bored and tired of uneven matches, making me want to take a break from game, so I hope ANet think of that.

Nikked.7365:

We’d all love to get a reply from the devs, though they seem somewhat absent from this subforum. Habib and others do stop by every so often, though.

That said, the same thing came up on my server this past reset night. Not sure if it’s a bug or misreporting by teammates. Server reset, and my guild was assigned to protect our home BL. We all jumped in, and a guildmate who was late to the party entered the queue. A second guildmate entered after this person and cleared the queue faster than the first guy.

While I disagree with your point about having twice the defenders for home BLs, there could be something buggy going on with the queue. My report is pure hearsay, however.

If you’re being attacked on the left by 30+ and on the right by 20+ then it’s only reasonable your side have up to 50. You then can split up and still have a decent chance at defending. For example, 20 Red is defending against 20 green at hills, 20 Blue shows up. What then? If you take 10 to defend against Blue, you’d end up with 2 10v20 and Blue is sure to win if they add a breakout into the mix, plus Green is also sure to make a winning push when they realize you split your force.

At the moment is seems like the system is based off of how many players each map can hold. There’s no balance system. A server with a higher population will quickly flood a borderland, not allowing their opposition in to even have a chance at defending/attacking. If that is so then it’s a very sad system and it should be change right away.

I know ANet wants everyone so have their time at playing and have fun but the current system is doing the opposite. There is not much fun or enjoyment out of sitting in queue for 30+ minutes especially when you’re outmanned on your home land. If the map can hold only 100(example) players, Red flood at reset with 50, Blue with 30, that leaves Green only 20. “Well click and join the borderland quicker” Yeh, if having fair opposition numbers is based off of how fast you click to join a borderland, which seems like reset night, then I think I’m done with WvW. In a fair system, opposition numbers fluctuates to balance the 3 servers.

Have you ever been in a situation where you are outnumbered in your home borderland yet your friends and/guild are caught up in queue, waiting to get in, while your defense gets steamrolled by 30+ opposition? The funny thing is that 30+ is from X server attacking your left portion of the map while Y server with about 30+ attacking your right side. Where is the line drawn when it comes to queue? How can a 30 man defense hold against 2 30+ relentless servers especially with no option to call for extra help? “But you can defend with seige!” Well yes, unless they build their siege out of range from yours.

Anyway, I feel like home borderlands should be able to call in people equals that of both opposition force combine. If X server has 30 attackers and Y server has 20 attackers then the defending team should be allowed to have up to 50 players if they’re able to gather that many. I’d love to get some sort of reply from the dev. team on this matter, thanks.