Jump to content
  • Sign Up

Ubi.4136

Members
  • Content Count

    1,377
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I feel like it will be a new map too. But, somehow I feel like we will end up with Luxon vs Kurzick and only 2 sides to a match.
  2. The linking is useless though. Because the bandwagon blobs have already transferred to stack other servers.
  3. 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 outn
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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 worl
  8. 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".
  9. Stacked alliances will remain. The OP is correct in what will almost certainly happen to wvw.
  10. I'd just be happy if certain classes would stop mounting up while conditions are still ticking away on them.
  11. 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
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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
×
×
  • Create New...