[Prestige and Glory : simple fix to server/alliances stacking and better reward system]

Remove ppt.

Remove player drops.

This removes most of the motivation for stacking.

 

Whoever kills the most will win, and move up, making it very hard for blobs to hide in T4 to farm smaller servers.  Removing player drops means that loot has to be tied to reward tracks, so fixed based on play time, not how fast your map que can kill 20 guys over and over.   The goal of wvw was supposed to be playing to win (for server pride), but now people only play for loot, and do whatever leads to getting it the fastest is the meta.  Which, at the moment, is server stacking facing outnumbered servers.

[Don't you think it's time that healing specs get some kind of mechanics to get reward points by healing and buffing?]

This must be the "I don't get enough loot healing my map que while we farm 25 guys" thread.  Players dropping loot is one of the biggest problems in wvw.  Everyone just stacks to fight outnumbered servers for easy loot.

 

How about we remove player drops and tie rewards to the individual reward tracks?  Blobbing is far too profitable now as it is.

[Squad Related Function - Map Hopping Emergency thingy [Suggestion]]

10 minutes ago, Stand The Wall.6987 said:

geez you reactionaries. if you don't check the box, commanders can't move you. i would assume it would be best if the commanders can only manage players within their own squad.

Right, but the point is that large groups could map swap bypassing the que, otherwise it wouldn't be a "swap". Meaning, a large guild/alliance could make it so no one ever plays on the maps they want to control.  Two friends and I are in que (you know, if I had friends).  We have waited 20 minutes and are now in slots 1, 2, and 3 in que.  Commanders just keep swapping people back and forth, 2 hours later, my friends and I log because we still can't get on the map due to "swapping".

 

At least OP wanted it to be an opt-in feature, but it's a horrible suggestion.

[Alliances will kill WvW. A nail in the coffin for GW2 PvP.]

18 minutes ago, Zikory.6871 said:

All Anet can do is try to balance out time zones with relatively equal numbers, which is what Alliances is supposed to do. Even then, it can't account for players not playing. 

They have no real power over server strength. That has always been community driven. Alliances won't change that. 

Anet actually said the first couple times they talked about alliances, that it would not address coverage or play time disparities.  They literally admitted it would not address one of the biggest problems of wvw, which is, you go to bed with all your stuff, and wake to everything paper because no one played overnight.  Alliances will NOT fix or change that.

[Alliances will kill WvW. A nail in the coffin for GW2 PvP.]

20 hours ago, tangible.8765 said:

You are making out these hardcore gvg people are people to be feared and that they are going to 'farm' everyone they come across and using that as a reason to reject alliances. At the end of the day anet need to make sure they get their world sorting algorithms as accurate as possible to ensure balanced world populations. 

And when one alliance realizes they are going to be facing another specific alliance, they will transfer at first opportunity so they can avoid the other alliance, so their ktrain for easy loot isn't interrupted.  Unless they remove transfers, a source of anet income from the game, which is unlikely, a bunch of the playerbase will continue to stack and transfer to avoid real competition so they can win 90% of their fights by pressing 1.

 

On a side note, I find it interesting people just keep making the assumption that anet will limit alliances to the size of 1 guild or 20% of a world, because they "think" that makes sense.  It's just guessing, but regardless, players will continue to exploit the system, whatever it's limits.

[🗫 List your top WvW concerns over the years [comments/feedbacks/solutions] ⚖]

On 7/8/2021 at 11:15 PM, Josh Davis.7865 said:

What's everyone's favorite idea for cool match-up rewards?

Something cosmetic, that is acct bound that can't be sold.

Half the problem in wvw right now is everyone is just playing for loot/ranks.  So they only want to do whatever gets them the most money fastest.  Which is why the meta is "fight 20 guys with a map que and transfer to another server if another map que plays when we do".

[Alliances will kill WvW. A nail in the coffin for GW2 PvP.]

6 hours ago, joneirikb.7506 said:

 

 

The new "Worlds" under the alliance system will contain a mix of:

 

* Alliances
* Guilds
* Non Guild Players

 

If we assume that there is 1/3 of each, then all worlds will on average consist of 1/3 non-guild-players. Something that no guilds nor alliances can stop in any way. There will not be any worlds without pugs. In-fact if half the wvw players are pugs, then indeed 50% of the worlds would be pugs.

 

And Guilds will have a much better recruitment options, as they will get new pugs each time the servers gets shuffled. In terms of pugs, there is really little to no disadvantage with the World Restructuring system. (The main drawback there is those that lean more toward server loyalty, than pug-life.)

The main difference for pugs, is that those on big stacked servers can no longer coast on that. While those still on small servers that routinely gets beaten will now have more variety, as the Worlds gets blown up and re-made every 2 months. So you never know what kind of guilds and alliances you'll get to work with. And if you find some you enjoy, you can join them to stay with them.
 

All of this was explained in detail in the original thread:

 

https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/topic/19480-world-restructuring/

Stacked alliances will remain.  The OP is correct in what will almost certainly happen to wvw.

[Should there be OOC weapon/build template cooldown restrictions?]

I'd just be happy if certain classes would stop mounting up while conditions are still ticking away on them.

[What do alliances mean?]

1 hour ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

If they are in the same alliance, even in different guilds, they join the same world next reshuffle too.

 

I think you are confusing world (ie the dynamically generated server with 2500+ players) and the alliance (a group of guilds with max 500 players that always join the same world).

 

The system do mean you have to put some effort into WvW - join a guild, join an alliance - instead of just coasting along on "your" server, but there really isnt anything tricky about it. It gives players more control over how they group themselves.

 

If people dont want to do that its fine, you land on a random world. That is very easy.

That's the point though.  Guild size = 500 players.  Alliance size 5 guilds = 2500 players.  Estimated world size was around 2800.  The system will start grouping them on the same world, as the system is designed to do.  It's the reason there are several 2500 member alliances already, and have been since it was announced.  Anet was hoping that this would mean that they could match 2 or 3 2500 member alliances against each other for matchups.  Making it balanced.  But that isn't going to be what happens.  All the blobs avoid each other now or transfer when they face an equal size blob in their playtime.  Alliances aren't going to fix that.  Alliances are just going to change the name of the place you play (server to world) but players are still going to exploit it to fight doors and numbers half their size.

 

Without a reason for players to fight and hold stuff, which used to be server pride, the game is nothing more than "how fast can I get loot (wxp)?".  Giant boonball fighting pugs and doors.

[What do alliances mean?]

Anet gave a pretty ok description of how it would work a few years back.  Yes, it will be possible for multiple 500 person guilds to ally with each other, and stack a world.  It's the same system used in PvE where when you map to say, Lion's Arch, you are still likely to end up with guildies and friends than randoms.  The system is designed to group players that way.

 

The system will be exploited to stack multiple blob guilds/tags on a single world, so they can still ktrain everything.

[WvW skirmish claim tickets weekly cap.]

On 7/9/2021 at 11:06 AM, Gotejjeken.1267 said:

Too many afk corner runners to have unlimited tickets

The corner runners aren't getting participation though, so no tickets.  They are just bot running, with 0 participation, to take up slots on the map.

[TC, stop beating yourselves up.]

33 minutes ago, dank.3680 said:

 

Yeah except the part they aren't telling you.  Oh we tried to take back our keep and lost the fight now mag is spawn camping us instead. Repeat once the other team also opens their keep.  I actually play on mag, I actually see whats happening on our end. And that's exactly what it is, bouncing back and forth trying to keep both 'summer homes'. 

Which should be pretty easy to do most hours, especially when mag has been a t1 population server for a long time (usually in t4) while every other server is medium or high, regardless of the labels anet puts on servers.

[TC, stop beating yourselves up.]

20 hours ago, dank.3680 said:

lol it's literally not though. Yes mag only cares about SMC and takes it and tries to keep it full wipe. Yes mag likes to take enemy keep and spawn camp.   But, it's just bs to say mag seige humps smc. There is almost never anything built in SMC on mag other then trebs. Yes plenty of trebs to hit towers.  Ac/catas/defensive siege  lol no, nobody bothers. 

 

 

That's just because a scout called a group out somewhere else or a EWP was pulled. Mag does very well to respond to scout callouts.  Even mid-seige of a keep mag will dip and go take care of another area then come back. 

But it's been like that for years.  Seems convenient that for multiple years a scout will call the exact same time we get close to even numbers...every time.  This is what chat with friends on other servers looks like when we both face Mag.

 

Friend: how's mag week for you guys going?

Me: same as always, they have more than twice our number pushing.  You?

Friend: we haven't see them yet this morning.

Me: Ah, yeah, it's been 25 vs 5-10 of us all morning.  Ghost town over here.

couple minutes later...

Me: ok we're up to about 20 now, mag left.

Friend: yeah, I was gonna ask if you had people log in, mag is out front in the road.  About 30 of them vs 10 of us.

 

This happens every time we face mag.  This is what every server reports when they face mag.  Seems a mag scout calls any time the enemy is almost on even footing.

[TC, stop beating yourselves up.]

4 hours ago, jul.7602 said:

I believe the first thing you are missing is some very basic reading comprehension. Please read this quote, highlighted in bold and explain how you concluded that I do not roam at all.

 

 

Back to the subject matter of this "FC roaming population". In my opinion, roamers are reasonably competent players that know good positioning, have a solid build even if its not optimized for zerging, and avoid instantly dying on first engagement. If this FC roaming culture really existed, it would be very obvious and would show up in the strength of their FC militia/pug force. Of course we know that the above isn't true, and we can approximate that by looking at the KDR. Every single map, including desert BL has FC in dead last place. Not first, not second, but dead last. Obviously not every single kill-death is a result of a roaming battle, but for instance just look at red BL. Maguuma never zergs in red BL, which means that most of the activity there is probably small man or roaming. You would expect FC to at least be at parity with the other servers, but instead they are last place. I'm not interested in blasting FC, but lets not make up alternative facts here either. If FC was a roaming server, they would at least be winning a good portion of their non zerg fights, yet we don't see that happening at all.

 

 

Actually mag doesn't siege hump SMC. Outside of the cannons, there is often very few little siege there. The mag militia has no problem wiping the vast majority of enemy groups without the siege. It's honestly a waste of our time to build it when we can just 1 push the enemy anyway.

 

The next thing I don't get is why people claim mag siege humps, but then also complain about mag spawn camping? Which is it? We can't be spawn camping FC 24/7 and siege humping smc at the same time.

I almost spit out my drink.  Having faced mag more than a dozen times this year, SMC is packed full of siege, most hours.  They treb open every tower in range of smc, and only push it when they outnumber the defenders.  Occasionally, while 20 push 5 guys at a keep gate, another 3-5 will take a tower that has had walls down for 20 minutes.  This is every day, all day just about.  Every server has some good roamers, but mag rarely leaves the smc buff without more players than what they are facing.  They push your keep door, and when you show an even number or equal skill group, all of a sudden those guys are on the other third of the map pushing the other outnumbered server.

[Delete Drown State (not down)]

What, you don't like trying to kill rangers underwater who are being ressed by their dead pet, with no way of interrupting it?

[Presence of keep only when outnumbered]

This seems like an ok idea, but then you end up with issues like we have on TC.  15 alts running into walls, 18 hours a day, to prevent us from fielding a normal response.  I wish this was a random, once a month thing, but this happens several days out of every week.  Both regular players who don't want to log out, and tons of alts who just want to troll, watch chat, or player cap us.

[Defending needs nerfs]

Every blob I see complaining about "zergs" hiding inside structures, it's a map que mad that the 25-30 pugs don't want to come outside and be 3v1'd.  The attacker has every advantage, even the walls favor the attacker.

 

Want to even it up some:

1. remove downstate

2. make every skill require line of sight to the target, including aoe's

3. remove all siege except rams and oil, limit rams to 3 on a gate

4. remove guild aura buffs

5. nerf boon sharing

6. make it so that only siege can damage and contest structures

7. remove the supply depots from SMC, still requires yaks to upgrade, but no free 1800 sup for the map que

 

Wait for a bit, see how that plays out and make adjustments or more changes if necessary.

[Can we just remove invulnerability from down in WvW / (PVP Game modes)?]

What I find interesting is, unless it is a 1v1 or 1v3, I never see the invulnerability anyway.  When I die, it's downed, and in the same .1 second dead.  I have even noticed stomping other players that a certain elite skill will skip the invulnability to, and just kill you.

[Why are relinks still 2 months?]

1 minute ago, Ronin.4501 said:

Not gonna happen, and here's why:  If the linkings are reduced to a single month, then the awful link that you're forced to endure isn't so unbearable and you suffer through it, and Anet makes no money.  If the linkings remain 2 months as they are currently, maybe you decide that it's just too much and you transfer to a different server, and Anet makes money.  Anet wants to make money.

This is also the reason why alliances never happened, and probably never will.

[Temporal Curtain]

2 hours ago, phokus.8934 said:

It doesn’t pull a player through a gate but up to it instead.  So stop lying about an ability and its interaction with you.

I have been pulled from the bottom of the stairs in Klovan all the way up the stairs and over the wall, by a single pull.  I have been pulled through the walls at WC, Klov, and OW.  I have also pulled people up stairs and over the wall at the NE inner of SMC.  The skill has a greater interact range then the skill says it has.  Yes, it needs to be looked in to.

[Superspeed stacks up to 10 seconds - bad for strategic gameplay]

I say this as someone who mostly plays minstrel scrapper, superspeed should not exist.

[Aerin's shield]

Seems to be a timing thing.  You have to wait a certain period of time before it will let you break it.  Seems to be unbreakable for about 30 seconds, but after that, no trouble actually making it work.  It may be a timing thing for the whole episode, and with dps higher than it used to be, the instance is making us wait.  Every time I do it, the first 2 attempts seem to fail, but then I can break it no problem.

 

Just food for thought.

[Its time for tails!]

No, what people have been waiting for is a way to permanently turn off the "run on all four legs" animation.  It ruins just about everything about Charr.

[Who are the most skilled wvw guilds atm?]

There really isn't any way to gauge this.  Most of what is left, at least in NA, is blobs that never have to face any other large, organized groups.  They stay on servers where no one their size plays during the timezone they play in.  When other large, organized guilds end up in their ktrain time, they transfer to lower tiers to avoid them.

[Could you explain this to me please?]

This isn't just against full zerk targets.  Full minstrel scrapper, still 100 to 0 in 1 hit.