EOTM needs love - Page 2 — Guild Wars 2 Forums

EOTM needs love

2>

Comments

  • DeathPanel.8362DeathPanel.8362 Member ✭✭
    edited June 8, 2019

    @Voltekka.2375 said:
    I am sorry, you wrote on a previous post/comment that you want eotm to become a pve map, and it to have reward tracks. Since my cognitive dissonance is apparent, pray tell me which PVE map has reward tracks as a feature. If you want eotm to remain a wvw map, and for it to have a reward track, you should really make better arguments to the devs mainly WHY they should spend their time to change eotm rewards. Ad hominems hardly make your case stronger.
    I am a patient man, I will wait for your apology

    Wrong. I never said I want EOTM to become a pve map. I said it could use currency/skin unlock mechanics similar to LS maps and its own reward track and only that reward track to keep it separate from WvW and not impact it. That's different from saying I want it converted into a PVE map.
    Either way your statement still contradicted itself.

    You: Plenty of pve maps to farm, no need for more.
    Also You: I would rather Anet spend resources on the Alliance system, new ls maps.

  • Sovereign.1093Sovereign.1093 Member ✭✭✭✭

    yes, yes it does. some servers are so small that there's no one there. some servers are so big that you can't even play.

    Not Even Coverage is the Only broken thing in WVW.

  • DeathPanel.8362DeathPanel.8362 Member ✭✭
    edited June 10, 2019

    @Sovereign.1093 said:
    yes, yes it does. some servers are so small that there's no one there. some servers are so big that you can't even play.

    The issue is wvw population difference. Two servers with similar overall population levels may have vastly different population numbers that play wvw. The issue is Anet takes metrics and link worlds based on that overall population and not the wvw population.

  • SWI.4127SWI.4127 Member ✭✭✭

    You are wrong, they use WvW play hours as their metric.

  • Sovereign.1093Sovereign.1093 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @DeathPanel.8362 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:
    yes, yes it does. some servers are so small that there's no one there. some servers are so big that you can't even play.

    The issue is wvw population difference. Two servers with similar overall population levels may have vastly different population numbers that play wvw. The issue is Anet takes metrics and link worlds based on that overall population and not the wvw population.

    i thought the issue here is eotm :3

    on the issue of wvw, the solution i can think of is simple server reset every 3 months; so ppl can stack on a new server and those not active will simply have to choose eventually or atleast be removed from the worlds. that should unify players provided they are informed ahead of time like in a calendar. :)

    Not Even Coverage is the Only broken thing in WVW.

  • @Sovereign.1093 said:

    i thought the issue here is eotm :3

    on the issue of wvw, the solution i can think of is simple server reset every 3 months; so ppl can stack on a new server and those not active will simply have to choose eventually or atleast be removed from the worlds. that should unify players provided they are informed ahead of time like in a calendar. :)

    The reason wvw got stacked in the first place is allowing people to transfer which allowed wvw players to stack certain servers. This is why world linking doesn’t work because it’s based on overall population and not wvw population. Two worlds with the same population can have drastically different wvw populations. If there’s a reset no transfers should be allowed or people will just stack again and you’ll be back where you started.

  • @SWI.4127 said:
    You are wrong, they use WvW play hours as their metric.

    Wrong. They use that for the upcoming alliance system. Right now it’s only based on overall world population.

  • Sovereign.1093Sovereign.1093 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @DeathPanel.8362 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    i thought the issue here is eotm :3

    on the issue of wvw, the solution i can think of is simple server reset every 3 months; so ppl can stack on a new server and those not active will simply have to choose eventually or atleast be removed from the worlds. that should unify players provided they are informed ahead of time like in a calendar. :)

    The reason wvw got stacked in the first place is allowing people to transfer which allowed wvw players to stack certain servers. This is why world linking doesn’t work because it’s based on overall population and not wvw population. Two worlds with the same population can have drastically different wvw populations. If there’s a reset no transfers should be allowed or people will just stack again and you’ll be back where you started.

    not really, if my idea was followed since worlds would be for wvw only. because pve is universal.worlds dont matter in pve.

    Not Even Coverage is the Only broken thing in WVW.

  • @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @DeathPanel.8362 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    i thought the issue here is eotm :3

    on the issue of wvw, the solution i can think of is simple server reset every 3 months; so ppl can stack on a new server and those not active will simply have to choose eventually or atleast be removed from the worlds. that should unify players provided they are informed ahead of time like in a calendar. :)

    The reason wvw got stacked in the first place is allowing people to transfer which allowed wvw players to stack certain servers. This is why world linking doesn’t work because it’s based on overall population and not wvw population. Two worlds with the same population can have drastically different wvw populations. If there’s a reset no transfers should be allowed or people will just stack again and you’ll be back where you started.

    not really, if my idea was followed since worlds would be for wvw only. because pve is universal.worlds dont matter in pve.

    Your statement doesn’t make sense. It’s like you’re responding to something I never even said. People don’t transfer because of pve. They usually transfer to stack the winning wvw world the same way there are always people trying to swap to the winning team in FPS games. Allowing for transfers is what caused the worlds to be so stacked in the first place for wvw.

  • Sovereign.1093Sovereign.1093 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @DeathPanel.8362 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @DeathPanel.8362 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    i thought the issue here is eotm :3

    on the issue of wvw, the solution i can think of is simple server reset every 3 months; so ppl can stack on a new server and those not active will simply have to choose eventually or atleast be removed from the worlds. that should unify players provided they are informed ahead of time like in a calendar. :)

    The reason wvw got stacked in the first place is allowing people to transfer which allowed wvw players to stack certain servers. This is why world linking doesn’t work because it’s based on overall population and not wvw population. Two worlds with the same population can have drastically different wvw populations. If there’s a reset no transfers should be allowed or people will just stack again and you’ll be back where you started.

    not really, if my idea was followed since worlds would be for wvw only. because pve is universal.worlds dont matter in pve.

    Your statement doesn’t make sense. It’s like you’re responding to something I never even said. People don’t transfer because of pve. They usually transfer to stack the winning wvw world the same way there are always people trying to swap to the winning team in FPS games. Allowing for transfers is what caused the worlds to be so stacked in the first place for wvw.

    transfering isnt a bad thing, having a full world with afk account is. so, if there is a world reset, those who are active can get together and play.

    Not Even Coverage is the Only broken thing in WVW.

  • Ayrilana.1396Ayrilana.1396 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited June 12, 2019

    @DeathPanel.8362 said:

    @SWI.4127 said:
    You are wrong, they use WvW play hours as their metric.

    Wrong. They use that for the upcoming alliance system. Right now it’s only based on overall world population.

    Wrong.

    A “Full” server is a server with a number of Active WvW Players (as defined by the algorithm) above a certain threshold. It has nothing to do with hardware limitations, or PvE players.

    https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/World-Population-Changes-Are-Coming/page/5#post5326517

  • @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @DeathPanel.8362 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    @DeathPanel.8362 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:

    i thought the issue here is eotm :3

    on the issue of wvw, the solution i can think of is simple server reset every 3 months; so ppl can stack on a new server and those not active will simply have to choose eventually or atleast be removed from the worlds. that should unify players provided they are informed ahead of time like in a calendar. :)

    The reason wvw got stacked in the first place is allowing people to transfer which allowed wvw players to stack certain servers. This is why world linking doesn’t work because it’s based on overall population and not wvw population. Two worlds with the same population can have drastically different wvw populations. If there’s a reset no transfers should be allowed or people will just stack again and you’ll be back where you started.

    not really, if my idea was followed since worlds would be for wvw only. because pve is universal.worlds dont matter in pve.

    Your statement doesn’t make sense. It’s like you’re responding to something I never even said. People don’t transfer because of pve. They usually transfer to stack the winning wvw world the same way there are always people trying to swap to the winning team in FPS games. Allowing for transfers is what caused the worlds to be so stacked in the first place for wvw.

    transfering isnt a bad thing, having a full world with afk account is. so, if there is a world reset, those who are active can get together and play.

    Then you’re just going to be back where you started when a bunch of guilds and wvw players stack onto a few select worlds.

©2010–2018 ArenaNet, LLC. All rights reserved. Guild Wars, Guild Wars 2, Heart of Thorns, Guild Wars 2: Path of Fire, ArenaNet, NCSOFT, the Interlocking NC Logo, and all associated logos and designs are trademarks or registered trademarks of NCSOFT Corporation. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.