exeggcuter.8394

You are correct, apparently I'm just an illiterate. Still, it would be nice if you could filter the history list by word, or at least export it to a .txt file. That's probably too much an ask, tbh. That's likely hard to program. I still stand by the idea that kicking and inviting should be separate functions, however. The alliance I'm now in has rank sorted by which guild they came from, but that kind of organizing is ... hard. I dunno, this feels very much square peg into round hole design to me. Seems like ANet went through extreme lengths to shove this mega guild system down our throats without ensuring the way guilds are currently constructed actually, like, works well. I feel it would work a lot better if you could, say, have it so people can only kick from their own rank (IE guild). But no, instead we're stuck with a system that is somehow worse than World of Warcraft.

So, from a design perspective, the way kicking from a guild works in this game is insufferable. I quit WvW, and thus Guild Wars 2 (possibly forever) partly because of this. When a player gets kicked from a guild, there is no message saying WHO kicked the person, so there is no way to track down who's doing what or why, if they are trying to be sneaky. Outside of WvW this doesn't matter, since being in a guild doesn't do much. In WvW, with the alliance system, this means a singular terrible person can screw over your ability to play with your friends. If they time it right, they can ruin a whole bunch of people's experience for a month or more. As an added bonus, there is currently no way to allow someone to invite players, without giving them the ability to kick players, or vice versa. Imagine a new alliance with several smaller guilds. Now imagine a guild leader has a grudge against one of the other guilds but hasn't expressly shared their feelings with anyone. All they'd need to do is wait until it's too late to fix the damage to kick everyone on that guild they hate. I can't speak for anyone else, but this sort of junk has already happened to me for the most absolutely PETTY of reasons. Anet, at the very least, change the way the guild system works to SHOW who kicked who, and make it so guild leaders can give the ability for someone to invite people, without being able to kick people. The only reason I never noticed this before is because I never needed to figure out who is causing problems before. Only to realize there is no decisive way to figure that out. TLDR: Go nuts with shenanigans. Kick people from your alliance you don't like no matter how petty the reason. Nobody will ever know. P.S. to the mods: I already saved this to a .txt file. Delete this and I will repost it verbatim until this gets fixed or I get banned.

So the new way of disabling waypoints for keeps has been fun and all, but I can't ignore it any more: it's broken. Sorry, ANet, you done goofed here. Not sure who else reading this has experienced it, but I've seen multiple instances of people using a normal waypoint like an emergency waypoint during a fight for a keep. The defender will win easily by just mosh pitting the attacker. This is hilarious as the defender, I can't deny it. I am unsure if this is what ANet wants from WvW or not. If it is not, an alternative: keep the current system, but in addition, if any of the inner walls or gates are broken, the waypoint remains disabled until all inner walls/ gates are patched shut. TLDR: broke inner = broke waypoint. fixed inner = fixed waypoint.

Simply make it so you can no longer rally by killing stuff. GW2, generally, makes it so it is impossible to be a detriment to your team, accidentally or otherwise. Making it so killing players can't rally downed players removes this loophole. This would instantly remove the animosity I observe between boonball guilds and the rest of their team. I can see no potential downsides to this change, especially since lots of abilities allow rallying downed players (the scrapper gyro springs to mind). Anyways, GL HF peoples.

Simply prevent outnumbering from happening. Map que's are currently a thing. But right now the only thing, to my knowledge, able to cause a map que, is when there's a certain number of your own team on the map. It is not at all affected by the number on the other teams. The only workable way to prevent the horrendous number imbalance which plagues WvW is to deny entrance to players on a currently overstacked team. Suggested math: Sum up the current number of players on each team on all maps. Compare that to the other teams, and add a fixed amount, if the team already has too many, well, then all the maps will be qued until the other teams have more log on, or the overstacked team has players who log off. Importantly, this will be a separate type of map que. You can still hop between maps that are not yet full. A potential example for devs at Anet: Lets say the formula is no team can have more than 50% more than the other two teams put together +5 players. Red has a full 50 man squad who wants to play. Blue has 10 roamers online. Green has 15 roamers online. (15+10)*1.5 + 5 = 42.5 . So, 8 people in that 50 man squad will be in que, assuming those 50 are the only ones on red team at that moment. Those 42 players can hop maps at will since it's an overstacked - type que. Those 8 players will not get to play until some reds log off, OR if more greens / blues log on. I can't think of any other game where this kind of overstacked imbalance is even allowed, mechanically! Restructuring won't fix this. Alliances won't fix this. Going back to the old server system won't fix this. Denying entry to overstacked teams' players MIGHT fix this. Above all else though, blame the players for putting themselves on overstacked teams. Ya'll suck.

I've led some pugs as a text commander to repeatedly flatten kill farmers on EBG, so I can't complain! Been a good time. Btw, stop kill farming, ya gits.

Greetings ANet devs, The latest few patches have made me suddenly realize how much a dire threat solo roamers are to massive squads, so I am proposing a solution: The Tag Laser. If a squad leader has 25 or more players in their squad, the tag laser automatically kills any enemy player within render distance if they are [outnumbered]. I think we'll agree this will be the Final Solution to the Roamer Question. Regards, Pinecone Grenade of Ehmry Bay P.S. I know this will be deleted so just get on with it.

So I've been thinking and talking with server mates about alliances / restructuring and the issue it's meant to solve. The main issue its designed to solve is server population imbalance. There are far cleaner and easier to program ways to achieve the same end, none of which require burning the current system and remaking it from scratch. Guild wars 2 has stuff, like mithril ore. Loads of folks play WvW to get stuff, like gift of battle. I like stuff, people like stuff, skritt like stuff. The devs could easily use that stuff to incentivize people to voluntarily swap servers. Examples: You are currently on a low population server? Ok, have a 100% bonus to reward track progress. You are currently outnumbered? Ok, have a 50% bonus to reward track progress. To compel people to actually swap servers though? Give people on a full server a discount to swap servers. Possibly even enough of a discount to make moving from a full server to a low pop server free, depending on if enough actually do this. Any other ideas? Go nuts and toss them in the replies. I fully expect ANet to not implement any of these ideas, since they seem to have fallen to the sunk cost fallacy with regards to alliances. It's clear, to me, that alliances will cause more problems than it will solve. But that's just from my own personal limited experience.

Suggestion: remove cooldown for engi's talent [Invisible analysis]. It's pretty much useless as it stands right now what with the pulsing invisibility some classes have. Also I'm starting to suspect the revealed part of that ability does nothing.

Clickbait title, sorry. The mechanic of rallying off of dead players is, in my opinion, insufficient. With extremely rare exceptions, in guild wars 2, it is impossible to intentionally or accidentally screw up friendly players. The fact harvest nodes, and all loot really is instanced is the simplest example of that design philosophy. No friendly fire, etc. Almost without exception, it's impossible for someone to intentionally mess up your own team, and even harder to mess up your team by accident. The problem: Killing a player in WvW is capable of rallying a whole mess of players. I fully understand this is part of the general strategy, and that's fine. However, I've often heard of the issue of brand new players making the experience for their own team worse since they obviously don't know what they are doing yet (because they are new). These new players engage in a fun zerg vs zerg fight, die, and rally the entire enemy zerg. I've seen zergs hold off on finishing off a player until its convenient to maximize the utility of this insufficient mechanic. I would never do this myself, but I could easily see someone doing this intentionally because Reasons. Potential Solution: Remove the ability to rally from dead players, or reduce the number who can be rallied this way to some arbitrary lower number. Maybe just one person, whoever happens to be closest or whatever. Continuing to allow rallying from NPC's would remain reasonable to give the team attacking an objective some kind of mechanical advantage. What this solves: None of the dense zergs will mind new players being around as much since they will no longer be able to effectively help the other team. It will be a lot easier for new players to be welcomed into the WvW community since it's a lot harder us to be effectively worse than dead weight, pun intended. TLDR: One of the few ways to harm allies in all of guild wars 2 plz remove / rework thanks.

hmmm I'm not sure if I have anything productive to add to the most recent replies except this: Keep in mind that the sort of players I'm currently advocating for are the same sort that rarely if ever use these same forums. There were 2 points to me making this post: 1. An apparently failed attempt to convince private tags to show their tag for the sake people not in their squad. 2. To understand whether there is a good reason why a tag might choose to be hidden, or at least hear a reason I've never seen before. I wish I could understand but it makes little sense from someone looking from the outside. I've seen intensely powerful fight guilds happily make their tag visible. They are honestly the better ones since they are aware pugs can do things members in their own squad cannot. You know, like use siege, or other such incredibly disruptive shenanigans that can disorganize an enemy squad if they aren't expecting such things. I dunno, I'm seeing pretty weaksauce arguments here besides "I don't wanna".

I am almost always my team's default pug tag because there rarely are any. By no means do I rely on others here lol. I saw a void and filled it the same week I started playing WvW. I'm simply emphasizing that it would be nice if it didn't have to be that way as often as it is. If you've ever played with EBay then you've seen me tag at least once, most likely. Pinecone Grenade is the name. Also, I'm well aware there are limitations in my own empathy. That's among the reasons I made this post, since I want to understand. I've yet to see a good reason that makes sense to me for this hidden-tag nonsense I've seen.

I guess I need to provide some context to make it make more sense. Earlier today a guild on my server who I will choose to not say who, had a hidden tag. A person was considering swapping servers since there was never anyone around during their time of playing WvW. They actually specifically mentioned the same hidden guild who was actually online as he typed that. That is good advice that chaba is providing. However, asking a more casual player to do those things you advise is questionable advice at best. This post is more about advocating for the casual players that make up the vast bulk of Guild Wars 2's playerbase. I hope that makes more sense. Also, specifically to chaba's point 3: just block people who are there only to be a nuisance. It's actually surprising how few players it really is who do that. They just type a lot. Another related point: it is unreasonable to simultaneously complain about a lack of numbers on your team while also being unnecessarily disdainful of your own team's newer players. Try to remember that moment when you had no warclaw yet. If that moment never happened to you, try to imagine starting WvW for the first time and being among the few without a warclaw. Now try to imagine looking for a huge group of friendlies you can follow around to see what WvW is really all about. Now imagine being unable to find one because the frikken tag was hidden. Non-rhetorical question: in those shoes, would you still choose to give WvW a try after getting flattened by an enemy zerg several times? My answer was yes, yes I would. And I tagged up pretty much my first day. Not even sure whether I had my warclaw yet. I very well might not have. Did people in team chat decide be absolute degenerates about me tagging up and trying to learn the game? Yes, yes they did. I'm lucky (unlucky? idk) that I am so absurdly stubborn that I chose to give WvW a genuine try despite my own team deciding to be nasty. Most people would choose not to put up with that and simply never play it again. Which is why tags tends to be in short supply, and new players also tend to be in short supply.

7. Blockhead Magee.3092 ; Paraphrasing but: Apathy. Not a reason lol. Sorry but not caring what others think has its own set of consequences. I have legit seen tags have this as their stated reason btw, so you aren't alone in that they don't give a kitten about people not in their guild. That's a fast ticket to getting people to quit wvw / guild wars 2 / their server for good. Which is I guess the ultimate point of me actually making this post in the first place so thanks for proving this is an actual problem that exists.

Sorry for the double post, but just thought of another semi-reason: There is a setting that allows the tag to be visible but invite-only. For fight guilds this is probably ideal since it ensures boon priority is where it's supposed to go.

This is honestly something ANet should straight up change. Make teammates visible on the map regardless of distance. Other games of this sort of style do that already. (Planetside 2 comes to mind.) If you're a commander and have a huge zerg, show the tag please! It makes the experience for everyone on your team not in the tag a lot more enjoyable. I've heard various counter-arguments and they are all pretty weak, but I will do my best to address them for the sake of fairness. 1. We're trying to be sneaky. ; Ok sure, I guess that makes a sort of sense, IF your squad is doing portal bombing / stealth pushing enemy squads. Very few squads actually do this, though, and if you're reading this it is unlikely the squad you've been playing does it regularly enough to justify it. 2. We're concerned about spies. ; Also arguably valid but a spy can just as easily run along side you or better yet be in voice chat without your knowledge. Also, as someone who's usually the default visible pug tag I can rest assured that this is rarely ever an actual problem. Far more often it's just getting spotted by scouts, and hiding the tag does nothing there. 3. We're doing stuff as friends and don't want random plebians loitering around us. ; Not a great reason IMO. First, I'm mostly addressing squads of like 25+ people with this post. There's no way you have 25 close friends. I don't mean that as insult, I mean that as a limitation of our brains. Secondly, though, it is helpful to treat those on your team as people worth playing with. You might get more people wanting to join your guild this way, instead of transferring off the server like I saw today. 4. Similar to #3, we're doing guild missions. ; Not a real reason, full stop. It will make zero difference whether non-guild people help you complete the mission. If anything showing the tag would make it easier. 5. We want to get better / prove ourselves are good / bragging rights / etc. ; I will begrudgingly admit this is actually a good reason, in a selfish way. Just be mindful that it makes the experience for the rest of your own team less enjoyable as a result. 6. It's bugged ; This one is actually a good reason lol. I've seen it before and had it happen to me and it's impossible to know it's happening unless someone else tells you. I do not know how to fix it other than reforming the squad and hoping for the best. Another thing ANet needs to fix really. I think there are other reasons I've heard but I can't remember them. If anyone is able to post an actually good reason I'm willing to change my mind on this. TLDR : show tag, more fun 4 non-squad teammates.

No, you aren't weird and I agree wholeheartedly. Was a nice challenge when the numbers are similar-ish. I learned a lot about how to play better. Mag is a great example of everything wrong with the matchmaking tho. And how it's 100% player-created. Getting to pick which team you on means people pick the winning team given the option. I'm thankful ANet is at least profiting off the suckers who choose to do that. This is why they at least want to do alliances. Because it removes some of the ability for players to pick the winning side. But sure, go ahead and keep bandwagoning to the winners. Keeping giving ANet a financial incentive to change nothing. Keep complaining about ANet not fixing a 100% player-made problem. They will laugh at these complaints all the way to the bank!

Reminds me of that Futurama joke: nobody drove a car in New York. There was too much traffic.

I think Maguuma and blackgate should get linked just to see if the forums will actually explode.

That is a great point actually... I wonder how many complainers in here are just mad they can't bandwagon. *Frikken Shame!*

Whoa hang on lets not start being reasonable.

Gaige explains it perfectly. I have nothing to add other than agreement really.

"I don't like the company that makes the game I choose to play!" Ya'll are silly.

...Huh! When I saw a guildie post this I thought for sure it was them using data from an older post. I'm on Ebay hence the confusion. Our server's link has been a ton of fun though, so I can't really complain lol. We'll see how this goes.

I love this idea simply for the comedic potential it has. It feels very looney tunes to me. I could see this working just fine if it only did some hefty knockback but basically zero damage, while also tearing clear through stability. You could easily put it right behind a wall as a, ya know, booby trap. Given mortars basically already do this, it would likely not break much, either. But as OP said, this would require actual effort on ANet's part, which, ya know, costs MONEY. So I'm not holding my breath on anything of the sort.