Arya Whitefire.8423

I think the only schedule that would even begin to fix things is something like: 3-8 hour matchups during the week. And maybe you could run some portion of the weekend as a long "old school wvw" matchup.

WVW is basically a bullying simulator. Stack up every advantage you can find, and pwn some newbs!. So stealth fits right in.

Nah I played all the betas on multiple servers, the losing teams all turned into ghost towns on weekdays outside prime time hours. With the exception of the very first beta. So like, unless you're the winning team, I hope you enjoy logging into a T3ed enemy held garrison every night.

You can't make people play when they're losing. The new system will be no more effective at this, than the old one. But then again, you could potentially measure how stubbornly someone stuck around, and assign them a stubbornness score. More stubborn people count as more player hours 😛

In a general sense you have a point... But atm, there is an epidemic of glitching keeps. Since the info is, out there, in an easily accessible form. I play most NA servers, and people have been talking about it everywhere I go.

Anet tried to implement an autoban for speed hacking 5-7 years ago. It had a zillion false positives, and they had to turn it off. It was probably at least partially because, a completely unmodified client can be made to cause you to speed hack in various ways. Just like a completely unmodified client sometimes loads keeps and towers with no walls.

There is a very rare bug, that can cause some wall segments to simply not exist as far as the client is concerned. I've had it happen to me with 2 EBG towers. I could walk through the walls as though they didn't exist. In a fully server side authoritative movement system, the walls would still work even if your client wasn't drawing/simulating them. But gw2 allows the client enough authority of movement that we've had speed hacks and bots teleporting to gathering nodes going on 11 years now. Allowing the client some authority on movement, is part of what lets gw2 combat feel so fluid, so it's not all bad. No doubt if walls can sometimes not load due to a bug, then it's also possible to write some software to cause it to happen at will. The real fix is to make objectives un capturable if a wall or gate hasn't been down recently. Since it will never be possible to stop the various ways to glitch into objectives.

Because banning hackers and exploiters requires continuous ongoing work. A change to the game that entirely removed the benefits of exploiting through walls will still be going strong in 2, 3, 5 years when wvw, no doubt, has even less developer support.

Either something like the OPs suggesting needs to be implemented. Or the end state is that glitching keeps and towers will become a normalized part of the game.

Yeah it lets the dead accounts choose, which means if they choose fast, they can use them to bandwagon to the already overstacked teams.

My line is simple, I never convert gems to gold. Since all that does is hasten the day of the final quit, and at the final quit, all money spent on gems was pointless anyways.

There's actually a good reason to remove dead accounts, anytime anet makes WvW "interesting", there's a chance the dead accounts become undead for a while.

Yakuuma returns. Prepare the pop corn.

As much fun as identifying cowards could be, I think it's be much better to identify bullies.

One big misconception people still have about wvw is that it is "balanced" around player count. It hasn't been since like 2016. And the alliance system will also not be balanced by player count. Rather it will be balanced around player hours. One positive, is that the alliance system will punish most groups who play overtime to win. Though some groups with multiple accounts will be able to bypass that balancing, and even make it work in their favor.

The biggest issue with basically all current and proposed outnumbered fixes is that with current tech, they can only be calculated and applied to a map, instead of being matchup wide.

I see 3 issues with the new system: 1. You have less choices to choose from. With the old system, it was a rare day where you couldn't finish 3 dailies in 5-15 minutes. With this system it seems like 20+ minutes occurs at least twice a week. And some like wvw defense, can take over an hour. This is somewhat offset by the weeklies using the same pool of rewards, so you can just skip those days, and not really have lost much compared to the old system. 2. Some of the dailies in the old system served as social activities for the day. For example jumping puzzles, and PoF bounties. Even if you primarily play WvW or PvP, it's good to have the option to go do dailies like this. 3. I pulled up, and played with the daily panel at least 5 times before I figured out that the Astral Rewards tab had a scroll bar. It might be something specific to my config, but that scroll bar is not very visible. And it's possible some of the complaints over the new system not being perceived as rewarding enough, might be from other people who haven't noticed you can scroll it down to find the mystic coins, gold, laurels, etc.

There does need to be something to keep people with resources from just swapping to the winning team constantly with no penalty. But that goal could still be upheld with some changes to make it less harsh. 2 ideas: 1. After 1-2 years on a server you can transfer with no penalty. Covers loyal players that need a change. 2. If you haven't played to wood chests in 2-8 weeks, then there is no penalty. Covers returning players.

If you want to bust the meta, it might be a better approach to measure popularity as much or more than combat effectiveness. I have this dream in my head of a game where builds are monitored in real time, any time a build is found that is too effective or too popular it is instantly (on the order of minutes to hours), nerfed into the ground. In theory this would remove the incentive to publicize good builds, and all but destroy the concept of meta. If it were working the way I envisage it should work, then the best players would be able to eeek out just a bit of advantage by fully understanding the build space, and choosing builds that are just a tad better than the median. But then they would always live in fear that the build they found would leak, so they'd keep it to themselves, or just a few friends.

Instead of a fixed 3 relics per character, 1-3 relics per equipment template would feel more fair, to me anyways.

I think one big problem with the analysis of how well this is working, is anet's psychological tricks with the skirmish scoring system. A close game with the old system was when 2 servers were within 15-30k or so points at reset on Friday. A close game with the current system, is when 2 servers are within 6-12 points at reset on Friday. I didn't monitor the scores closely, but I'm pretty sure most of them had a 30+ point delta by wednesday.

I had 2 accounts on Moogooloo. It was stacked, so of course it was "fun". Much less so on the other sides, though during prime the first week it was alright, the 2nd things got less active and more lopsided.

I wasn't expecting anything, but I'm still disappointed. Maybe the signet builds will be a little bit more fun to play with.

A well programmed bot would play the eh stack/boonball meta better than 99% of players.

I know at least 1 way to "speed hack" in gw2 with zero third party apps. And it probably explains why anet once tried to add server side speed hacking detection before giving up after tons of false positive bans. Also re: walking through walls: I once loaded into EBG, and for the next 3 hours, 2 walls were missing in a friendly tower, and I could walk through them at will. Again no third party apps. Due to trade offs anet made in their networked combat engine, I don't think it can be completely fixed without greatly impacting the smoothness of the client side animation/prediction systems. But they probably could tone down it's affects or find and remove the most blatant abusers. TLDR, we're stuck with it, but it probably could be made at least a little better.