Let's discuss Battlegroups

Change is bad, Change is terrifying! Change causes folks to lose their minds and spam forums 24/7 to try and stop it. Change makes us weak in the knees and binge watch Grey's Anatomy.

However we are at the point in this game where Change has to happen.

We cannot EVER roll back the game to 2012, Red Guard and Sacryx are not going to magically appear, and lets be honest, none of you would make the grade for that guild.

Currently we have a dwindling population, coverage issues, linking problems, server stacking etc etc etc. The list goes on and on. We are in a state of real flux right now. Smashing your face against the keyboard against any form of change is counter intuitive.

Can we discuss the possibility of Battlegroups without everyone losing their mind. Lets be reasonable folks. It's not a matter of how but When.

Make EOTM a better place!

and lets be honest, none of you would make the grade for that guild.My guild can and I can prove it. Or at least my guild is getting at that level. Also Visceral Effect, KnT/KnM, Os Guild are all already at those levels.

Wait what would it matter if RG came back? We figured out how to kill the melee ball years ago using only pugs.

Last time we got real change, we got DBL.

Missing the point guys, of course today's players are better but the RG of Yore was it's own monster.

@Aridon.8362 said:

and lets be honest, none of you would make the grade for that guild.My guild can and I can prove it. Or at least my guild is getting at that level. Also Visceral Effect, KnT/KnM, Os Guild are all already at those levels.

vE sure, but those other guilds you mentioned don't even gvg lol. Are you an eu player?

@Eremes Guile.1480 said:Make EOTM a better place!

I do agree to make it a bette place..... removing it would make it a better place :sunglasses:

Sacrx appears magically on a daily basis on discord. Just need to say his name three times while standing in front of the mirror.

@Elementalist Owner.7802 said:

@Aridon.8362 said:

and lets be honest, none of you would make the grade for that guild.My guild can and I can prove it. Or at least my guild is getting at that level. Also Visceral Effect, KnT/KnM, Os Guild are all already at those levels.

IKR? knt, the masters (and sole residents) of 4am on a list with RG xD

@"Dawdler.8521" said:Wait what would it matter if RG came back? We figured out how to kill the melee ball years ago using only pugs.

Last time we got real change, we got DBL.Precisely the sort of destructive, good-old-days conservatism that the OP was talking about. I feel like WvW needs fundamental changes to stay relevant, and the playerbase has got to welcome that and roll with it, because yeah, frankly, if I were a WvW dev, I probably wouldn't want to deal with you guys either.

That said, we absolutely need more conversation and engagement from the WvW team, and if you do see it, please be constructive. Rampant cynicism and all this "you can pry my alpine borderland from my cold, dead hand" drivel does nothing to help this game improve.

Full disclosure: desert is and has long been my favourite WvW map. I'm kinda fed up with the played-out whining over it.

So let's go further into "Battlegroups" -- how would they be different from EoTM? The maps would still be limited by the server infrastructure which means 60v60v60, or 70v70v70 on EBG, so they'd just have to make multiple instances of the same maps to accommodate everyone. There would be no incentive to build siege or defend anything if you had no idea what instance you were logging in to. You could get disconnected and log back in to a completely different instance where all the keeps/towers were un-upgraded. It will not work unless you want WvW to just be EoTM 2.0.

The mess we have right now is the result of Anet investing 0% of the expansion to improve WvW.

@Xillllix.3485 said:The mess we have right now is the result of Anet investing 0% of the expansion to improve WvW.

Last time anet invested in wvw in their expansion was a huuuge success, right?

@Offair.2563 said:

@Xillllix.3485 said:The mess we have right now is the result of Anet investing 0% of the expansion to improve WvW.

Yes, core was amazing :), on HoT they didnt invested on WvW they tried to shutup some players mostly than search for a solutions or decent changes.They added and changed stuff where wasnt needed at all, even the guild halls are super useless....just added some grind to the chat rooms called guilds.

Change is a good thing if u know what yoru are doing or where/what needs to be changed, change y just change and hope players fell for placebos is a a bad thing...

@Offair.2563 said:

@Xillllix.3485 said:The mess we have right now is the result of Anet investing 0% of the expansion to improve WvW.

Well the desert map is a great map, it's just missing waypoints Anet don't want to bother adding and they need to remove obstacles everywhere.

Soooo about those Battlegroups.. care to explain?

@Xillllix.3485 said:The mess we have right now is the result of Anet investing 0% of the expansion to improve WvW.

Does kinda feel like we ended up financing PvE content, doesn't it?Once upon a time people expected 3 different borderlands by the first year lol.Estimates proved a bit off

Considering that we're getting one new PvE map every 2-3 months now (and I'm not complaining about that, it's literally the only reason I'm still playing GW2) - I fail to see why adding a bit of diversity to WvW should be so hard.

@Ben K.6238 said:Considering that we're getting one new PvE map every 2-3 months now (and I'm not complaining about that, it's literally the only reason I'm still playing GW2) - I fail to see why adding a bit of diversity to WvW should be so hard.

i think designing a WvW map will be alot harder as you have to condier all the strategic siege positions and possible advantage/disadvantage to create a balanced map or one that favours the side you want (i.e. if you want people to have an advantage on home map). while on a pve map you can create a little this area , a cave here, a jumping puzzle there and a skritt camp over there, add some events PoI, vistas, add a part of the story for it and there you go!at least thats what i think it is.aside from that adding DBL with i think a greater focus on smallscale than alpine, wasnt really successfûll as alot of people still dislike the map. so i mean they could make an alpine map 2.0 with just little diffrent looks..or they will probably need to know what kind of map people want, what is important for the map to be accepted by the community as they dont have too many resources to waste.

RG farmed ppl because they knew how the game worked from their alpha acess. When ppl reached their level they quit the game. ;)

@Trajan.4953 said:Change is bad, Change is terrifying! Change causes folks to lose their minds and spam forums 24/7 to try and stop it. Change makes us weak in the knees and binge watch Grey's Anatomy.

However we are at the point in this game where Change has to happen.

We cannot EVER roll back the game to 2012, Red Guard and Sacryx are not going to magically appear, and lets be honest, none of you would make the grade for that guild.

Currently we have a dwindling population, coverage issues, linking problems, server stacking etc etc etc. The list goes on and on. We are in a state of real flux right now. Smashing your face against the keyboard against any form of change is counter intuitive.

Can we discuss the possibility of Battlegroups without everyone losing their mind. Lets be reasonable folks. It's not a matter of how but When.

Hmmm nope still broken sighhh

@MUDse.7623 said:

@"Ben K.6238" said:Considering that we're getting one new PvE map every 2-3 months now (and I'm not complaining about that, it's literally the only reason I'm still playing GW2) - I fail to see why adding a bit of diversity to WvW should be so hard.

They should consider strategic siege positions, but I'm not entirely sure it's worked out that way (the treb fire interchange between only SM and red keep in EB was definitely not a good design feature). For PvE, "add some events" and "add a part of the story for it" are actually really massive undertakings that are much less significant in WvW maps, so while map architecture has to be a bit more careful in WvW there's quite a lot less work in other areas to compensate.

I think the only reason we haven't had more WvW maps is that ANet aren't sure if they'd be money well spent.

The mode has to move to some sort of similar system if it it to survive

@Trajan.4953 said:Can we discuss the possibility of Battlegroups without everyone losing their mind. Lets be reasonable folks. It's not a matter of how but When.

Sure, let's discuss the possibility. How about if you actually start a new thread that explains what a battlegroup is.

It would also be helpful to hear how it would address the existing issues outlined by various people (including ANet): matchup balance, Team/Server price, population balance, off-peak coverage, map preferences, and so on. Obviously, it wouldn't solve all of WvW's problems, but at the minimum, it should be very likely to do a much, much better job than the current system... otherwise it's not worth all the headache to design, test, implement, and get players to adapt.

One thing is for certain, WvW should not become a Guild only game mode. Battle Groups wouldn't be any different than Worlds are now functionally. The big difference would be fresh labels. These labels should have themes and lore.

What WvW needs right now is the Dev's to stop trying to squeeze and spread out populations. They are going against the natural flow of human behavior and everyone perceives it, feels it, and hates it.