Do you a want any changes to WvW? If so what and why?

[Knighthonor.4061]

@KeyOrion.9506 said:I'd like to see boons have Downtime. This permaboon sharing is beyond obnoxious. You can have your boons back after an allotted period time has elapsed. Lets call it BOON SICKNESS, and be done with it. They used to have this type of condition inside GW1. I wouldn't see why we couldn't have said condition in GW2. Treat it like a sugar crash. You had your up, then you'll have your sugar like crash, except with boons.

If that happens certain classes will be seriously gimped. Example Revanant and their Herald Elite Spec deals with Boons

[bluberblasen.9684]

@KeyOrion.9506 said:I'd like to see boons have Downtime. This permaboon sharing is beyond obnoxious. You can have your boons back after an allotted period time has elapsed. Lets call it BOON SICKNESS, and be done with it. They used to have this type of condition inside GW1. I wouldn't see why we couldn't have said condition in GW2. Treat it like a sugar crash. You had your up, then you'll have your sugar like crash, except with boons.

Ele is already death-- you cant kill ele any more.. :)

[melandru.3876]

@"Blocki.4931" said:Reduce maximum amount of players on maps. Can still be effective with a total player size of 50 and would help lower lag. At the same time it's a bit less blobby.

nice! so 200 players per side, and the others waiting in q can go f themselveson reset every map is allready capped with 10+t q's (50+ on eb)before mount, when the map cap was 75 instead of 70 the caps were still there

so you want to deny wvw, and reset for 20-50% of the wvw players, to reduce "lag"?

make os, and eotm attractive to play and the playerbase would more distributed again

[Blocki.4931]

@melandru.3876 said:

@"Blocki.4931" said:Reduce maximum amount of players on maps. Can still be effective with a total player size of 50 and would help lower lag. At the same time it's a bit less blobby.

nice! so 200 players per side, and the others waiting in q can go f themselves

I would give a leg to have 200 people actually playing the mode at the same time, but that's rarely the case. Gotta love seeing 90+ queues on EBG when the other maps are completely empty though!

on reset every map is allready capped with 10+t q's (50+ on eb)before mount, when the map cap was 75 instead of 70 the caps were still there

That's a problem with specific servers/links though. In an ideal world people would switch to low pop servers to balance it out. I know that's not going to happen, but that wasn't the point of my suggestion. It would go a long way to equalize things. I'd imagine that a lowering of the player cap in combination with alliances would be great actually. With many more simultaneous matchups that can be properly balanced around the numbers.

so you want to deny wvw, and reset for 20-50% of the wvw players, to reduce "lag"?

I don't care, I don't play on resets because they usually involve too much waiting already. Reducing lag would just be a positive side effect.

make os, and eotm attractive to play and the playerbase would more distributed again

Maybe if they had objectives and rewards.

So let me flesh this out (and I have done so in other threads before):

I would lower map cap to roughly 60 players.

But.

Introduce another EBG style map. Why? Because the overflow from lowering the player cap would fit perfectly into another map. No stupid gimmicks on there either. Hell, if they wanted they could restrict mounts/gliding in there too and just go back to the running gameplay that people were so used to.

[melandru.3876]

@Blocki.4931 said:

I don't care, I don't play on resets because they usually involve too much waiting already. Reducing lag would just be a positive side effect.

deleted eveything but the essential

pretty selfish if you ask me

[Blocki.4931]

@melandru.3876 said:

@Blocki.4931 said:

I don't care, I don't play on resets because they usually involve too much waiting already. Reducing lag would just be a positive side effect.

deleted eveything but the essential

pretty selfish if you ask me

Sadly I don't see a reason to care about the minor percentage of players who will be affected. It's not my job either. Read the rest of my response then. I presented an idea of how I would change it personally. I'm not a game designer and I even raise an issue with it myself, but also present a solution.

[Wnerwiak.6049]

remove ressing defeated ..you were defeated = start from way point ..the state right now promote big groups ..they can't be stopped until they find equal in numbers opponent ..let small groups play some significant role in fights ..let them shave big packs one by one

[Grim West.3194]

WvW will always be pointless because coverage is the only thing that matters and ANET refuses to address it.

[Bigpapasmurf.5623]

1.) Mystic toilets at spawn2.) More underwater combat/locations to cap (like the old quaggan area)3.) More warclaw damage on doors, or less cost

[kwaggmire.2051]

@DanAlcedo.3281 said:

@"kwaggmire.2051" said:The number one reason for guildies quitting now, is because you're either stuck in a T3 wasteland, or you get stuck in T1 against BlackGate, are massively outnumbered, and have zero chance of winning. There is a SIMPLE solution! MAKE A REWARD TRACK FOR IMPOSSIBLE ODDS!!!!!! Make a set of ascended gear, that can only be won from lots of cumulative fighting with the Outnumbered icon showing. This way, when your team has the Blob size, the game is fun. When the fight is even, the fighting is the best, and when you're fighting with zero chance of winning, you're happy to be working for a set of ascended gear. I'm really surprised this isn't already a thing. WvW is becoming intolerable, because AR and FA have ZERO reason to fight at T1.

„starts farming O-Buff and flame commanders joining the map“

And why would fighting guilds care about gear/skins?

They should already have perfect gear, also they most likely dont care about a skin.

Sooo.. Dan Alcedo,You're saying that:

1. fighting guilds are all 1-dimensional fighting machines?
2. That all the players should "already have perfect gear"?
3. That fighting guilds shouldn't care about skins?

I'm fairly certain that anyone reading this thread knows that you're being absurd. Or maybe a child. Maybe you truly don't understand how ANET makes all their money?

Everyone loves gear. Look at the current World Boss Infusion Event. Maps are absolutely packed with players now. Best thing that's happened to the maps in a long time.

If you are saying there's no problem with the terribly lop-sided T1 WvW, then you're either being intentionally dishonest, or accidentally clueless.

[DanAlcedo.3281]

@kwaggmire.2051 said:

@DanAlcedo.3281 said:

@kwaggmire.2051 said:The number one reason for guildies quitting now, is because you're either stuck in a T3 wasteland, or you get stuck in T1 against BlackGate, are massively outnumbered, and have zero chance of winning. There is a SIMPLE solution! MAKE A REWARD TRACK FOR IMPOSSIBLE ODDS!!!!!! Make a set of ascended gear, that can only be won from lots of cumulative fighting with the Outnumbered icon showing. This way, when your team has the Blob size, the game is fun. When the fight is even, the fighting is the best, and when you're fighting with zero chance of winning, you're happy to be working for a set of ascended gear. I'm really surprised this isn't already a thing. WvW is becoming intolerable, because AR and FA have ZERO reason to fight at T1.

„starts farming O-Buff and flame commanders joining the map“

And why would fighting guilds care about gear/skins?

They should already have perfect gear, also they most likely dont care about a skin.

Sooo.. Dan Alcedo,You're saying that:

1. fighting guilds are all 1-dimensional fighting machines?
2. That all the players should "already have perfect gear"?
3. That fighting guilds shouldn't care about skins?

I'm fairly certain that anyone reading this thread knows that you're being absurd. Or maybe a child. Maybe you truly don't understand how ANET makes all their money?

Everyone loves gear. Look at the current World Boss Infusion Event. Maps are absolutely packed with players now. Best thing that's happened to the maps in a long time.

If you are saying there's no problem with the terribly lop-sided T1 WvW, then you're either being intentionally dishonest, or accidentally clueless.

1. fighting guilds are all 1-dimensional fighting machines?

Yes. As someone who was in a WvW Fighting Guild for almost 6 years and Co. Leader for 2 years, fighting is was you want to do.

Why would you join a FIGHTING Guild if not for Fighting?

2. That all the players should "already have perfect gear"?

Having Perfect Gear or near perfect is a requirement for joining a Raid.

3. That fighting guilds shouldn't care about skins?

The Guild will 100% not care how you look.If you want skins, grind them in your Free Time.... like everyone else is doing.

Fighting Guilds care about winning and the prestige they get from it.

Also having grafics at lower settings/standart models is basically a requirement also.It lowers the lag etc and gives you a better winning chance.

Nobody who cares about winning a fight in WvW cares what you or others look like.

Making the Outnumbered Buff even more rewarding and farmable is the real absurd thing here.

"Maybe you truly don't understand how ANET makes all their money?"

Mount Skins.

[Cristalyan.5728]

@"Blocki.4931" said:Reduce maximum amount of players on maps. Can still be effective with a total player size of 50 and would help lower lag. At the same time it's a bit less blobby.

So, your opinion is that if you cannot kill WvW with "skillful updates" you should prevent the players to join a map? Even now with already a lowered number of players (to make room for for WarCat) we can still see queues.Even if you can fill a map with players, the goal should be to make more players to play WvW, not less. Following your rationament and going to extreme, we can say that a number of 1 player per map per server will solve the lag problem. Removing the WvW from the game will absolutely solve any lag problem of this game mode.

[Ben K.6238]

I've already gone on about what I'd like from WvW enough that there's not much point rehashing it. I'm curious, though, why changing Lion's Arch to a server-based city would be a good idea.

Does anyone actually spend enough time there that it would benefit WvW in some way? Personally, I almost never go there anymore.

[Kylden Ar.3724]

Yeah, can we change WvW back to 2013?

[LetoII.3782]

Pay Karl to spend 4 hours a day learning to WvW in the game he's trying to balance.

[Kylden Ar.3724]

@LetoII.3782 said:Pay Karl to spend 4 hours a day learning to WvW in the game he's trying to balance.

That's gotta be cheaper than a Senator...

[snh.7091]

@displayname.8315 said:I'd like the alliance change I've heard so much about.

that's a myth.

[Shroud.2307]

I'm still happy with WvW as it is. There has been questionable changes such as; the introduction of Mounts, automatic upgrades, tactivators, etc., things I don't exactly love but nothing that I hate so strongly that I stop enjoying WvW. Although I'd like to see some of these things changed, I'm not certain how they could be changed in a way that I'd be happier with without completely removing them.

So, because I'm not completely sure how to "fix" some of the things I dislike, the only other thing I'd like to see for WvW is new maps. I'm not sure how they'd work, whether they'd be in a rotation or if they'd just add on more borderlands or what, but I'd love new places to play. I understand how many people loathe Desert Borderland but not every new map would necessarily turn out like that one. And although I don't love it either, I do enjoy it from time to time as well. It's just nice to change things up from the monotony of EBG and Alpine when you've been living in WvW for the last 5+ years.

[katniss.6735]

I would like condi to not be so obnoxiously dangerous compared to power damage. Hard counter to power is toughness. Hard counter to condi is resistance + cleanse + vitality.

[LetoII.3782]

@"SpellOfIniquity.1780" said:I'd love new places to play. I understand how many people loathe Desert Borderland but not every new map would necessarily turn out like that one.

I think DBLs major malfunction was the lack of maps being introduced. As there was only to be the one, they tried to pack in ALL THE THINGS. The center event pushed the structure fight to the perimeter making their placement inferior, and the amount of stuff surrounding it made the center event run like butt. Murderball could've been it's own thing, like eotm, and I'd be a huge fan.

[GDchiaScrub.3241]

Remake runes of demon summoning so I can create flesh reavers again. Practically speaking, this is something the current ANET teams can manage so I can nearly guarantee 100% success without disturbing the overall balance of the game.

D:

[LetoII.3782]

@GDchiaScrub.3241 said:Remake runes of demon summoning so I can create flesh reavers again. Practically speaking, this is something the current ANET teams can manage so I can nearly guarantee 100% success without disturbing the overall balance of the game.

D:

Just run minion mancerThose guys are my favorite

[Hyper Cutter.9376]

@katniss.6735 said:I would like condi to not be so obnoxiously dangerous compared to power damage. Hard counter to power is toughness. Hard counter to condi is resistance + cleanse + vitality.I don't know what rock you've been under, but conditions have been out of the meta for ages. iirc, even scourges run power builds now.

[Malavian.4695]

I would like to see Guilds rewarded for claiming objectives and holding them. The guild has to blow tactics, but reward? Nothing.What if there was a pay out to the Guild at the end of a match up to each member who was in WvW for that week (solved when matchups are done by guild)What if there were Boss points that could be earned to increase the toughness of the bosses or NPCs defending the keep that could be expended?Or some new boss skins that could be purchased?Maybe some alternatives to standard defenses like auto turrets?Different decorations?I think it would provide some incentives for holding objectives like it used to be.