Korgov.7645

I keep thinking back the PvE megaservers beta they were not able to rollback and just decided to leave it on.

Are you able to rollback the WR beta forever?

So after years and years of developing WvW Restructuring as the top priority we reached this beta. The 8th and final 3 week long marathon beta to truly showcase and rub it in how each goal has been reached and exceeded. 1. Balanced teams 2. Preserve communities 3. Reward winning matchups How did we do on these 3 goals? The matchups have been lopsided. I have no idea who were assigned to my team. Even less so who were in the enemy teams. All I got was inventory micromanagement chore in form of +25% more "reward" boxes.

We can assume the already reported bugs are somewhere in the backlog. Publishing a vetted list of reported bugs takes effort, too. Which would be away from development.

Source: https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/wvw-world-restructuring-beta-4-begins-on-august-12/ The scope of the Beta 4 event is very limited. Do not expect anything beyond the listed items.

I hope that by content design they realize WvW is a PvP environment where players provide the content. No megalasers, no new NPC mechanics, no Golem Rush events, no new types of siege, no vertical progression, please. Yes, for glory rewards, for combat related achievements, for more visible guild representation, leaderboards, bounties, level playing field for new players (warclaw, gliders, siege masteries, shied gen locks must go), easy access to BiS gear/consumables and all traits/skills for new players (if you enjoy a gear grind, PvE is for you).

haha, you scared anet is actually dumb enough to do this? Portable Cannons, Golem Rush Event, Toxic Alliance Event, Repair Hammers, Megaservers, World linking, Warclaw, Gliders, Jumppads, Megalaser, Barricades, vertical map design, Shadowportal... I'm scared.

Repeatable currency only reward track. That would do away inventory micromanagement and clean up the user interface. It is a drag opening those boxes, some containing even more boxes, ultimately containing meaningless items that end up being salvaged or sold to get to the currency. Those dancing boxes and popups in the UI are pointless - not even PvE players would be excited about them.

What else would condi player have on their gear? Critical chance that would turn conditions uncleansable? Ferocity that would multiply condition durations?

Condi is nigh useless against large groups due shared cleansing. Perhaps cleanses could be made self only, which would give room tuning down condi damage in overall. Even in small scale conditions rarely get all their ticks. This makes Expertise less valuable and drives condi builds to use Dire only - the tankiness wins due attrition. Toning down the sigil and rune would be a no brainer. Then looking at how most cleanse skills have power creeped to cleanse multiple conditions. Making them cleanse only a single condition would allow to make each condition more significant and allow reducing the rate of condi applications. The choice of what and when to apply/cleanse would make the condi gameplay more dramatic over the current spamfest.

If you invest points, the third improvement is to give a speed boon to nearby allies who go walking.... Well they follow me at a similar speed than my mount, and this has no sense. The pve devs who came up with the silly idea of adding mounts to wvw never thought it through. When Warclaw came out, players without the expac or those who hadn't done the steps get the mount would trail behind the main group. Warclaw mastery #2 was added to allow those players to keep up. Warclaw should never had been added to WvW. The whole thing has consumed way too much resources from the real WvW issues like population imbalance, skill lag, profession imbalance, lack of glory rewards, and real competition.

There aren't that many. Taken from Wiki: And this sigil grants Aegis if you are very lucky:https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Superior_Sigil_of_Luck

When pugs follow a guild raid commander they can see on the map, they will get told to kitten off. That's even worse for the morale, isn't it? Not only your contribution is ignored but downright not wanted. Someone being rude in chat doesn't stop someone from playing. Now I never tell people how to play or what to do with their squads, but I see this as bad for the game mode for both sides. If pugs have nobody to follow, they will lose interest and leave. This leaves less recruits for guilds to keep themselves active, and leads to less fights for everyone. It would be good to look at the reasons public commanding is so unpopular. Not only commanding but also scouting and PPT roaming. I would argue on lack of a common goal. It got removed when world linking was introduced. ANet decides the outcome of matchups, not players. With no reason to win a matchup players make goals of their own: top KD ratio, wipe that other guild group, defeat someone in duel, guild missions, ganking stragglers, whatnot. When those side goals are the only content other players feel unwanted. server pride died with seasons. with the exception of BG. everyone else figured out we lost cuz we didn't buy enough off hour guilds or guilds in general for server pride before player hour caps were implemented. For me the world identity lived on until the linking started. Some, like you, saw it coming even earlier. Before linking I did hate whenever large guilds migrated to my world. They stayed for month or two while the low rating allowed them to steamroll the opponents. Which boosted the ratings making matchups harder at which point the large guild would migrate out. The linking and continued lack of migration controls made it even easier for some communities to maintain unhealthy population. The 1-up-1-down system also allowed quick tanking down to stay in unchallenging matchups.

When pugs follow a guild raid commander they can see on the map, they will get told to kitten off. That's even worse for the morale, isn't it? Not only your contribution is ignored but downright not wanted. Someone being rude in chat doesn't stop someone from playing. Now I never tell people how to play or what to do with their squads, but I see this as bad for the game mode for both sides. If pugs have nobody to follow, they will lose interest and leave. This leaves less recruits for guilds to keep themselves active, and leads to less fights for everyone.It would be good to look at the reasons public commanding is so unpopular. Not only commanding but also scouting and PPT roaming. I would argue on lack of a common goal. It got removed when world linking was introduced. ANet decides the outcome of matchups, not players. With no reason to win a matchup players make goals of their own: top KD ratio, wipe that other guild group, defeat someone in duel, guild missions, ganking stragglers, whatnot. When those side goals are the only content other players feel unwanted.

When pugs follow a guild raid commander they can see on the map, they will get told to bugger off. That's even worse for the morale, isn't it? Not only your contribution is ignored but downright not wanted.

I voted to remove mounts. I feel ANet is wasting development hours on this completely irrelevant feature. Now that Warclaw is in the game people are asking for improvements - more waste. Cut the losses, remove the mount and use the saved hours on real WvW issues instead.

The "sad" truth of WvW is that you need PoF to truly compete anyway. Its quite obvious that the mount is just another incentive to buy the game. And honestly... I think that is fine. GW f2p is just a taste of the game and HoT is very, very old now. Not that its impossible to play it without either, but you do get pigeonholed in your choices. Personally I would prefer it if instead of renting mounts, they added multi-seat mounts. Warclaw should be able to take 1 passenger. Like An asura taking a charr in his backpack? That would be so funnyThe passenger hanging onto the Warclaw's tail flailing around as they go. :P

They won't change the core mechanics of a class. It's hugely disappointing, but this shitshow is our lot for the next two years. :( IMHO, PoF was a disaster. They will change numbers on the skills: damage coeffs, base damage, number of conditions... Now let the number to change be: How many seconds enemy player is immune to the skill once getting hit by one. Increase that number from 0 to 1 for all Scourge skills in WvW only. Problem solved. No? Does that exist? Or do they have to write this immunity from scratch? Does their code mean they have to make it by putting a link to every single skill into this faux "ability" ... seems like the work of a few days! Do they have that amount of time spare? Will it impact the performance of the game? We don't know the answers to these questions.Already in the game. For example: https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Power_Block or https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Wilting_Strike. As for performance... if this trait (https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Enchantment_Collapse) can exist, then skill immunities can too. On the other hand, if you need immunities to balance the game, your game design is rotten. :rolleyes: Resistance, Stability, Winds of Disenchantment, perma evade, unblockable skills :rolleyes: But to fix those we would need to rollback 2 expansions and have a good, long look at the core mechanics from WvW point of view.

They won't change the core mechanics of a class. It's hugely disappointing, but this shitshow is our lot for the next two years. :( IMHO, PoF was a disaster. They will change numbers on the skills: damage coeffs, base damage, number of conditions... Now let the number to change be: How many seconds enemy player is immune to the skill once getting hit by one. Increase that number from 0 to 1 for all Scourge skills in WvW only. Problem solved. No?

Worlds have a Glicko rating. It determines the world's placement on the leaderboard. When a world wins or loses against the expectations the rating goes up and down respectively. How is the Glicko rating calculated when new worlds are created? Do players carry the rating with them to the new world? Or will the Glicko be removed altogether? Then what lasting reward is there to winning a season for alliances/guilds/players? If there is none then all worlds will be like the current guest worlds with no incentive to win.

If you don't find a way to do this and make it work, this system change will solve nothing. For the time zones that people consider 'off hours' there is no 'good' way to accomplish. Merging NA and EU would solve (most of ) the coverage but destroy the playability for one or the other Manually splitting up alliances so that every tier has equal OCX/SEA coverage would do it, except most would leave the game if it became that draconian, Forcing, based on play hours from the previous year a cap on numbers of people based on those play hours would do it, until people decided to play in different zones that what they have. There are not enough SEA and OCX people to populate 4 tiers on NA, and I would probably bet the same problem exists in EU. It is still going to come down to 'unfair' coverage regardless of the change. The only way to even attempt to balance it is if the scoring in the 'off hours' for the matchup is less than the scoring for the 'prime time.'But this is still unfair to those in the off hours who might get rewarded the same, but feel like they have less impact. Sadly, I don't really see a way to make WvW work better timezone wise, unless ANet tries to make sure alliances are split evenly between time zones. I definitely think ANet should consider time zones when setting alliance limits and especially when creating worlds. As for how to make it work ANet could reduce playable area during off hours. Like close down all borderlands at night so that EB will have enough activity. Further if BL maps were 3-way balanced like EB, you could have ABL+DBL+EB all open at peak hours, EB+ABL open during the day and EB only at morning/noon. So off hour people don't get to play the map they want? Sounds pretty fair already. True. Then rotate which map gets closed.

If you don't find a way to do this and make it work, this system change will solve nothing. For the time zones that people consider 'off hours' there is no 'good' way to accomplish. Merging NA and EU would solve (most of ) the coverage but destroy the playability for one or the other Manually splitting up alliances so that every tier has equal OCX/SEA coverage would do it, except most would leave the game if it became that draconian, Forcing, based on play hours from the previous year a cap on numbers of people based on those play hours would do it, until people decided to play in different zones that what they have. There are not enough SEA and OCX people to populate 4 tiers on NA, and I would probably bet the same problem exists in EU. It is still going to come down to 'unfair' coverage regardless of the change. The only way to even attempt to balance it is if the scoring in the 'off hours' for the matchup is less than the scoring for the 'prime time.'But this is still unfair to those in the off hours who might get rewarded the same, but feel like they have less impact. Sadly, I don't really see a way to make WvW work better timezone wise, unless ANet tries to make sure alliances are split evenly between time zones. I definitely think ANet should consider time zones when setting alliance limits and especially when creating worlds. As for how to make it work ANet could reduce playable area during off hours. Like close down all borderlands at night so that EB will have enough activity. Further if BL maps were 3-way balanced like EB, you could have ABL+DBL+EB all open at peak hours, EB+ABL open during the day and EB only at morning/noon.

Q: Will there be any record at all to prove that I/my guild/my alliance won a season?

It is not the team balance that is causing the biggest WvW issues. It is the class imbalances. After this change, there will be no more excuses that 'X server has more coverage'. Everyone will point to the class imbalances more than they already do. This is just another band-aid. Another hood-wink to divert the players attention from the real problem. The profession/skill balance is important for enjoyment of the game play, diversity, and freedom to choose your playstyle. However every team is free to force their players to play the FOTM profession and be on an equal footing. There's nothing a team can do solve coverage imbalance. With true coverage balance the matchup/season victory can have meaningful rewards. Something that makes players try to win instead of bragging on the best KD ratio.

First if all I am thrilled ANet is addressing the team balance issue. It is the biggest flaw in this game mode. It's the reason matchups cannot have any meaningful rewards. Few topics that may have already been covered by earlier posts, but here's my 2 cents. Matchmaking transparency The world linking never produced equal teams. There are too few ways to combine worlds. Especially in EU where you have to consider language barriers, too. The system is not transparent and it feels unfair. I want to know the exact formula that would be used to form teams under the alliances system. Whatever is input to the formula must also be visible. The system should prevent meta gaming. Like preventing alliances to tank down to easier matchups. The formula has to create an equal opportunity for each team to win the season. Motivation to win With the world linking guest worlds have no reason to fight for the victory. Their war efforts are not acknowledged nor expected. Players on guest worlds are just cruising through matchups without a purpose. Winning a matchup/season should have lasting (but not permanent) glory rewards for all players participating. For example unique skins, markers, decorations, titles, finishers. Leaderboards for players, guilds and alliances.