exeggcuter.8394

Lol oh snap didn't see this thread was that old haha.

Hmm and I just now remembered another thing that might possibly help. Being outnumbered on a map used to provide an extra 5 pips per income so long as that buff was present. Not sure if that would do much, but it would at least give people a real incentive to stick around if their team has a huge disadvantage. Even more tangentially related, but I think there should be some extra bonus to players who are in higher tiers. I've mentioned it before but I hatefully detest modern matchmaking that effectively punishes winners and rewards losers. Several replies mention teams intentionally losing; this is a system failure. Examples of rewards: say, you happen to be in tier 1 you get, as an example +15 reward track progress per tick, or whatever. And in tier 2 that'd be +10, +5 for tier 3, and no bonus for last place. That way winners get rewarded and losers do not get rewarded. There would remain a proper reason to win. For me winning purely for the sake of winning is enough, right up until I realize that winning means it's losing. It makes losing suck less though, I guess. But the idea that a team would intentionally lose because it makes logical sense is a failure of the rules as written.

" I’m sorry to say this isn’t a MAG problem, this is an ongoing change to society that everyone wants something easy or free without any work. My father would slap me for such a quitter attitude. I pity how soft most of you guys are. 💀 ~obs" I firmly disagree with the overall sentiment that society is somehow worse than it used to be (frikken nostalgic geezer). But! This is literally what Maguuma is right now. They have an overwhelming numbers advantage, so they have it super easy right now. Having fought against them as a pugmander myself, they really aren't any more skilled than the average player. This is not a question of changing the game mechanics. The janky mechanics are entertaining as hell to me. And I'm also not proposing a permanent idea of maguuma going alone for *all* relinks either. ANet has at it's disposal a system for rebalancing servers every 6 weeks that exists right now and works. Saying that servers choose not to play because they are *THAT* badly outnumbered frankly reinforces my point. Maguuma will live for 6 weeks going alone. I don't have the numbers of course, but whatever server pair is currently in tier 4 can have Yak's Bend - the server currently linked with Maguuma. TLDR: not a skill, game mechanic, hacking, w/e issue, purely number of player issue. GLHF ya'll.

So it's pretty common knowledge amongst those who regularly play WvW, but Maguuma has way more players than any of the other servers. This is fine, to an extent. There will mathematically be that one server that has the most players, facts. However! The past year or so, maguuma would get the most points, sure, but never More Than The Other Two Servers Combined. There is a point which the server has too many dang players, and I think it's safe to say we're well past that point, and they need to go it alone. I'm using wvw stats as my source. I'm also simply going by the final score that each team had since it gives a rough but quick relative estimate of the server's populations: Dec 31 2022 to Jan 7 2023: Maguuma: 838,347 points. Sea of Sorrows: 246,100 points Jade Quarry: 268,272 points. Dec 24 2022 to Dec 31 2022: Maguuma: 628,695 points Sea of Sorrows: 364,506 points Blackgate: 319,479 points Dec 17 2022 to Dec 24 2022 Maguuma: 564,676 points Sea of Sorrows: 440,520 points Isle of Janthir: 285, 563 points Normally my fights against maguuma have been entertaining as hell despite me knowing in advance I'll be heftily outnumbered. But this is just... confusing tbh. How is it *possible* that it got this imbalanced? I guess I shouldn't be too terribly surprised ; when the players themselves get to decide which team they're on. For most it makes rational sense to choose to be on the side that always wins. Without any mechanism to force such players out of the easy win situation, that's what it will naturally trend towards. I'm relatively new to the WvW scene, and maguuma being the bloated server was there since I started playing. This is beyond absurd at this point. Logging in and seeing literally the entirety of all 4 maps controlled by one team, aside from a few camps? That's a sign of genuinely failed matchmaking. This is not a question of one side having more skilled players, or one side having more skilled hackers. This is just a question of one side having WAY more players than the others, to the point I suspect it's more than the rest of the servers put together some days. I fully recognize this has been brought up by other posters before, myself included, but I figured I'd go the extra mile and add some data to back it up. From what little I've seen this week it's going to be similarly lopsided. Again, I have no issues with one server being dominant, that's unavoidable. But at a certain point, it's a failure on ANet's part, and to a huge extent the players themselves. Bloody wallet warriors...

I've seen this shenanigans before. From what *I'VE* personally witnessed, none of it is hacking. All of the stuff I've personally seen with my own eyes was a result of questionable map design. Teleporting to very specific areas, glitching past walls, getting stuck in the floor like that one guy who replied earlier, etc. I've not personally bothered trying to replicate any of it myself, but honestly that is entirely inexcusable. There's a saying of don't attribute to malice that which can easily be explained by incompetence. That's more or less what I've personally seen. The sort of out of bounds glitches you see in old console games speed runs. Entertaining to watch others do in a single player game. Frustrating as hell to go against in a multiplayer game. Next time all of ya'll see these "hacks" happen, feel free to take a mental note of where it happened. The number of such areas is finite but quite large. Also also: similar vein: how realistic is to be able to break a wall using a catapult underneath the hit box of a wall? Air keep has a few areas you can do that, and it's equally a result of questionable map design. Fixing those out of bounds glitches should 100% be a high priority on ANet's part. Simply adding a few invisible walls in those areas would do just fine. I know of a few areas that could badly use some.

Hmmm yes I get that it's been there for a while. That's literally the entire point of posting this thread, though. ANet is allegedly planning on making changes eventually. Hence the post to get discussion going. Glad to see that part is working. I guess in summary right now it's a catch up mechanic a lot of people hate that's been around for ages, but is meant to make it so the team without tier 3 stuff can still take out tier 3 stuff. This reminds me a lot of the philosophy behind the Blue Shell in Mario Kart. Which also has little in the way of counterplay.

Yeah, obviously if they can kill the person defending the keep's ability to have a waypoint, waypoint goes offline. The specific thing I have issue with is when someone manages to take out the waypoint by tossing their body in the general direction of it. All ya gotta do is survive long enough to get close enough, which is not especially difficult even with several people chasing me. I've done it myself many times, and it's fun as heck. It's just there's no counterplay option aside from ... what? Babysitting keep with 10 or more players? With the objective of stopping a single player from disabling the waypoint? Target painter traps could help I guess, but that seems like a crapshoot at best.

Hmm and I just now realized I didn't address another point Mr. Strider here made. A scout identifying whether it's a tap is not the same as preventing the waypoint being disabled. That first one is well within the capabilities of any scout worth giving participation to. That second one is another thing altogether.

I like the suggestion of it requiring killing a guard. For one, it requires actual effort. For another, you can't have a build both good at killing a guard quickly, and being able to run away and survive for as long as possible. Those two things require mutually exclusive stat blocks. If a cannon / oil pot, etc is killed that's also completely acceptable imo. Servers currently don't value scouts, I think, because it's easy enough to wipe out a waypoint after having been scouted, tracked down, and actively hunted down by several players with the ever present run away with pool noodle worthy DPS. Why bother scouting for such players when they're just gonna wipe out the waypoint even if you *DO* scout for them? As commander I highly value scouts, but never to counter this particular type of play precisely because there currently aren't any good counters to it. So I guess I'll ask it again, if only to rile up the players defending this: Is this good game design?

I agree that it's one of the best ways to contribute solo. However, remember that most professions have a build available that allow running away without dying for a considerable distance, even if actively chased by a player that is experienced at doing so. Now imagine your goal is to prevent a waypoint being disabled by such players. All this person has to do is shoot a guard once or scratch a gate, or scratch a cannon. Is this good game design?

Hello, So I just now realized how bad a mechanic the disabling waypoint at keeps is currently structured. All you have to do is damage a guard (even by just using the warclaw's javelin thing) and the waypoint will be disabled for 2 and a half minutes or so. I understand why this mechanic is there, so that attacking a keep is a winnable fight. However, it is extremely easy to disable a waypoint without having any plans of attacking that objective at all. This often means that waypoint on that on keep is almost useless, since it can be taken out by the opponent on a whim. I'm not going to claim it is unfair, since it doesn't favor any of the teams, but it's definitely one sided in favor of the person doing the disabling. The threshold for pulling it off is so low that I've been able to do it without ever dismounting from the warclaw. For those who don't know the trick, attack a gate with the javelin ability. That's usually enough. It gets a lot harder when an enemy player is trying to stop the disabler, but it typically ends with the waypoint disabled anyway, regardless of who actually survives that duel. Here is my proposed solution: the keep needs to take siege damage (of any source) to have the waypoint disabled. There should be no delay to this. The second it takes a catapult boulder hit, for example, BAM waypoint disabled. Since gates don't require siege damage to destroy, here is my solution to that. If a gate has <90% max HP and takes damage, BAM waypoint immediately disabled. Damaging the lord should also obviously disable the waypoint. At that point the walls and gates are not stopping the objective from falling to whoever is attacking it. Damaging the lord with a trebuchet would be a perfectly reasonable cheese way of doing it, since that requires far more effort than simply going near a guard on patrol well outside the walls. Damaging cannons, guards, oil pots, staring at the lord, wandering near the keep, thinking about attacking that keep or even looking at WvW stats shouldn't be enough to disable a tier 3 keep's main feature. It should require some amount of effort and or skill. TLDR: DISABLING WAYPOINT TOO EASY, MAKE HARDER PLEASE THANK YOU

How would ANet even do such a thing as splitting those servers, anyway? The first thing that comes to my mind is forcing everyone currently in those servers to swap servers (for free obviously) on their next login, with those 2 servers as a potential option assuming they aren't "full". Side note, but I do find it kind of hilarious that ANet calls their low population servers "Medium" to make it sound... I'm not sure, better? Reminds me of how Starbucks calls their small drinks "tall" as if calling it that makes it not a small drink. Crap like that makes it easier for the "WvW is dead" memes to circulate.

I'm just happy this is leading to potentially good ideas. I do wonder, though, how ANet calculates how active each server is. Do they just add up the total number of times each individual player secures a batch of pips? Like if I play enough this week to get that every 5 minute pip income 30 times this week, that counts as 30 for my server? That's probably how I'd calculate it if in their shoes. Then again I'm a pretty lazy coder in the rare instance I'm programming something.

This week Maguuma is linked with Anvil Rock, 2 extremely active WvW servers. I've noticed that every relink all servers are linked with exactly one other. This might not always be the optimal choice. I don't play on the EU server. However, from what I'm able to look up, it seems some servers aren't linked with any others, while others get tripled up (3 servers on one team). It's widely regarded amongst the players I've spoken with that Blackgate and Maguuma both have huge populations. Do they really need to be linked with another server? I've heard their que's to get into maps are large enough that it kind of sucks for them as well. Note that I have never played with either server, only against them, so anyone on those servers, feel free to interject your opinion. If nothing else, changing the numbers of servers linked at one time would allow a more granular flexibility of matchmaking until Alliances are released. I know I'm not alone in that I really only play Guild Wars 2 for WvW anymore, since it's a unique experience. For all its glaring flaws, it remains quite fun. For me personally, the biggest flaw right now is the matchmaking. This is a bigger flaw than the supposed cheaters (most of the time it's just cheesy skill use, I do it myself sometimes). Yesterday I was playing with my side having ~30 or so players tops, and both other teams having easily >70 players. I am unable to verify whether I am exaggerating (I have zero way of seeing how many players are online on any of the teams). But the fact remains that imbalance that bad really should not be *possible* much less something halfway expected at this point! Anyway, this is really just food for thought. It would be nice if it was implemented in some way for the next servers relink. In summary: always 2 servers probably bad, sometimes 1 or 3 servers probably good. Have a nice day.

I'm not really sure, this is more a start to an idea, not a good one. I imagine the same effect would happen if thieves couldn't perma stealth in WvW. Or if there was a more reliable way to get rid of stealth, like if stealth traps were larger and lasted longer. Or if ANet decided to go full TF2 and make thieves basically the Spy. This could also be like 'this thing only works inside of objectives you control'. Or like a tactic or improvement even. Like make the tier 2 tactic slot not suck to the point of not even filling it and give that slot a large stealth reveal or teleport disable that lasts a minute or so.

Hello, I just submitted this bug in game, but I feel it's important enough to put here as well. I'm trying to use my gear templates with 2 weapons in each, but it's not working correctly. If I swap which gear template I have equipped while mounted and swap it back, it's possible to end up with a different weapon equipped without ever dismounting. I can't seem to figure out what's happening, and google has been useless for this as well. If I am not mounted, it works just fine, sticking with whatever weapon slot I had before. I am genuinely baffled here. I'm trying to make it so I can have the right stuff out in WvW as the situation demands, so I'm basically always mounted when I make that swap, having it hotkeyed and everything. I thought I had it figured out a few days, where it would simply prioritize the 2nd gear slot, but that's definitely not what I'm seeing now.

Suggestion: Add a dimensional anchor trap in World Vs World. Reasoning: Thieves are able to teleport in a way which currently has no counterplay. I wish I could chalk this up to my lack of skill and other player's high skill level but I don't think that's the whole story. On more than a lot of occasions I would run into a situation where I'm fighting a thief and I have literally no means to catch them. In a duel situation that's frustrating but expected. Most classes have some kind of build that can do that. Where it becomes an actual game-breaking problem is if a single player chooses to disable a keep's waypoint by teleporting away from people attempting to stop the thief. As the gameplay exists right now, there is no real way to tell where such a thief placed their portals, so it is not really something that can be countered. To be clear I have no problems at all with such teleport gameplay existing. I have no issues with teleporting into keeps after the walls have been breached, and mesmer portals and thief portals bringing in more players to invade a keep or tower. That is all part of the fun and strategy. My only real problem is there currently exists no way to counter it effectively. There aren't any tools at a defender's disposal to counter this specifically. More specific suggestion: There are already supply traps, and target painter traps. Adding one that prevents all enemies who walk over it from being able to teleport for say, a minute, would be a nice niche addition. ANet would of course be free to decide what exactly counts as a 'teleport' in this case. Whether such a hypothetical trap only disables abilities able to teleport not just the caster but also teammates... I suppose that's up to whoever bothers to read this post. Anyway, as always, Good Luck, Have Fun fellow players!

Alternately, we as the players, could do our part by simply boycotting transferring altogether. If we want this to change, we can't give ANet a reason to keep it as it is. If more people simply refused to transfer at all, they wouldn't get their precious $$ from this lame system. Then they might have to change it to something else. For example, I kind of like the idea of ANet making it blatantly pay to win, but to raise the price to an absolutely outrageous sum. The price of gems themselves are dynamically adjusted fairly fast, they could easily do the same with WvW transfers. You really want to be in the highest pop server? That'd be 80,000 gems please! It just has to also be that servers are never ever fully blocked. It would also do a decent job of showing how badly stacked the servers actually are.