DAN.7314
-
Posts
72 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Blogs
Events
Articles
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by DAN.7314
-
-
18 hours ago, The Boz.2038 said:
So your plan is "an alliance can fill a map, but when they're having lunch, the map is entirely abandoned"?
Not sure how you got that from my post.
The empty map problem is always going to be an issue with a 24/7 WvW concept. There aren't enough players during non prime time hours to have even fights on every server. Players when given the chance will bandwagon. That's unlikely to change. I'd personally prefer to see instanced battleground type content or reset the WvW maps (like EotM does) every X hours to prevent the off-peak hour domination. Or give skirmishes a weighted score based on the total player activity (more during prime time).
.......................................
With the current system, the largest transfer/alliance/bandwagon I have ever seen in NA was around 300 players. They won every match-up, often without losing a skirmish and at times spawn camped all 4 maps in t1, and knocked the dominant server out of t1 after they reigned for many years. In this previous system, the alliances were often limited by servers becoming full and it was not an invite only system. Anyone could join. There was a gem fee though.
The new alliance system is going to allow veteran players to stack even easier with higher numbers (500), in an invite only method (no uninvited noobs), and with no transfer fee.
-
On 1/16/2022 at 2:20 PM, joneirikb.7506 said:
Just to clarify, the World Restructure system also takes "Player Hours" into account, not just number of players.
So in theory:
Team A could be 2500 players playing 2 hours daily/average.
Team B could be 500 players playing 10 hours daily/average.
Team C could be 10000 players playing 0,5 hour daily/average
(Clearly not the right numbers)
Edit: Perhaps we should make a habit of saying something like 2500 players/hours, instead of just saying 2500 players, to try to make this more clear?Just highlighting this post as it adds to my previous post.
In combination with the fact (as others mentioned in this thread) that stacking already happens with less than 500 people with the basis that the alliance system is balancing total player hours, just further makes me believe alliances are going to accomplish absolutely nothing.
Every player hour is NOT equal. Veteran and/or skilled players contribute multiple times more value then other players even though they might contribute the same amount player hours.
Good players already stack and bandwagon match-ups with far fewer than 500 people. There will be one overwhelming stacked alliance just like in current WvW (at least in NA - where I play). Alliances are just giving people a much easier way to bandwagon IMO.
Cut the alliance size down to 50 or 100. Full squad size (which you virtually never see organized guilds run) is 50. Balance player hours around that alliance cap. I think it would lead to easier to balance match ups.
PS: Sorry for the triple post earlier. Forum is a little whacky.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
-
13 hours ago, gloflop.3510 said:
One option which anet has is to reduce the number of players per alliance. I would encourage them to keep this option on the table. It should be rather easy to implement.
I've had the same thoughts ever since alliances were announced. 500 per alliance is way too many. Even half that would probably be too much to prevent stacking.
There are people who put 40 hours into WvW a week (some play way more). You stack 500 of them together on one alliance you would have an average of roughly 120 players from alliance on 24/7 (40 hours x 500 players in alliance = 20k cumulative weekly hours divided by 168 hours in a week = 119 players). That would be four 30 man squads on every map around the clock. Even if you cut it down to a playtime of 20 hours a week (enough time for many to get diamond chests done) that would be an average of 60 players on 24/7.
I think they need to introduce a new type of guild with the expansion that is only for WvW and has a reduced player cap. Make it the new alliance size as well. Can only join alliances if you are in the new WvW-only guild (otherwise you get placed where ever). Or just scrap WvW and make instanced maps with 20v20v20 and/or 50v50v50 or even just 1v1 (GvG) maps with WvW rules and set up, but that's not going to happen.
-
1
-
-
13 hours ago, gloflop.3510 said:
One option which anet has is to reduce the number of players per alliance. I would encourage them to keep this option on the table. It should be rather easy to implement.
I've had the same thoughts ever since alliances were announced. 500 per alliance is way too many. Even half that would probably be too much to prevent stacking.
There are people who put 40 hours into WvW a week (some play way more). You stack 500 of them together on one alliance you would have an average of roughly 120 players from alliance on 24/7 (40 hours x 500 players in alliance = 20k cumulative weekly hours divided by 168 hours in a week = 119 players). That would be four 30 man squads on every map around the clock. Even if you cut it down to a playtime of 20 hours a week (enough time for many to get diamond chests done) that would be an average of 60 players on 24/7.
I think they need to introduce a new type of guild with the expansion that is only for WvW and has a reduced player cap. Make it the new alliance size as well. Can only join alliances if you are in the new WvW-only guild (otherwise you get placed where ever). Or just scrap WvW and make instanced maps with 20v20v20 and/or 50v50v50 or even just 1v1 (GvG) maps with WvW rules and set up, but that's not going to happen.
-
1
-
-
13 hours ago, gloflop.3510 said:
One option which anet has is to reduce the number of players per alliance. I would encourage them to keep this option on the table. It should be rather easy to implement.
I've had the same thoughts ever since alliances were announced. 500 per alliance is way too many. Even half that would probably be too much to prevent stacking.
There are people who put 40 hours into WvW a week (some play way more). You stack 500 of them together on one alliance you would have an average of roughly 120 players from alliance on 24/7 (40 hours x 500 players in alliance = 20k cumulative weekly hours divided by 168 hours in a week = 119 players). That would be four 30 man squads on every map around the clock. Even if you cut it down to a playtime of 20 hours a week (enough time for many to get diamond chests done) that would be an average of 60 players on 24/7.
I think they need to introduce a new type of guild with the expansion that is only for WvW and has a reduced player cap. Make it the new alliance size as well. Can only join alliances if you are in the new WvW-only guild (otherwise you get placed where ever). Or just scrap WvW and make instanced maps with 20v20v20 and/or 50v50v50 or even just 1v1 (GvG) maps with WvW rules and set up, but that's not going to happen.
-
2
-
1
-
-
Soloing is often faster then joining a non pre-made through LFG (as the events don't upscale when you're solo), at least in my experience. Some of the public instances can be painful. Bring swiftness/superspeed to share when you're solo (if your class has it) to escort the tank quicker. You can skip an event or two by ignoring the mobs as long as the tank and escort NPCs don't get in combat.
Joining a pre made (with support boons and superspeed) is definitely faster, but sometimes it can take a while to get the LFG filled up!
-
On 9/17/2021 at 1:35 AM, adammantium.8031 said:
Super-tough problem to solve. I played in asian hours on US servers ("night crew") for several years, and now play EU prime on EU servers. Off-hours players clearly shouldn't have their experience hampered in any way though.
My idea would be to lessen the impact on scoring that holding structures provides on maps with low playercounts. For example, tir 3 SMC only gives the full 30 points per tick if both enemy servers have full maps. If both enemies are half-full, give 15 points. Bottom out at 10 points per tick.
There's still value in owning a t3 SMC, there's still a waypoint, but you get fewer rewards if you're not actually doing anything with SMC.
As has been said elsewhere, that an empty map can tier up itself and gain increased PPT is also problematic. Auto-upgrades should not be a thing.
I like the idea. I think more of the problem is a skirmish during overnight (non prime time hours) gives the same weight as a prime time skirmish to the week's match up. Changing the amount of PPT won't really effect anything other than total warscore. Whoever has the better numbers during overnight hours is still going to get the 5 skirmish points even if SMC is only ticking for 10 points. If they stopped basing match ups on skirmish scores and used total warscore instead to determine the winner then your idea would work. It would give PPT more value during higher population times. They could still use the skirmish system to give out extra PIPS to the 1st/2nd place teams during that skirmish. Just stop basing the winner of the match up on skirmish wins and switch to total warscore.
-
12 hours ago, LetoII.3782 said:
...You do realize that you've stated something easily done with the right equipment is cheating because you can't do it on your incorrect equipment?
It's been long known Anet doesn't allow macro's in competitive gameplay.
https://help.guildwars2.com/hc/en-us/articles/360013762153
The multi skill macro set ups in PvP/WvW are against the rules.
Anet doesn't enforce it though. 🤡
-
3 hours ago, JDub.1530 said:
Everyone seems to support keeping the public instance of Marionette. If ANet intends to continue adding this type of instanced content, then I suggest they set up a daily rotation of public "raids."
For example: on Mon we have Marionette/Dragonstorm on alternating hours. Then the next day have two other instances on alternating hours. Etc...
That keeps them from overloading the schedule and keeping the instances populated and allowing people to continue to experience the content with a chance to succeed. And the private instances still allow people to access them on off days or hours. And this scheduling can just expand as they add more instances.....up to a point, as you still want these events to come up fairly frequently in rotation, so it's not you miss the day and have to wait weeks for it to return.
I had this exact thought the other day. It could kind of be like how they have the daily rotation for the past living world maps.
Once there were too many maps there weren't enough people populating the maps, but when they rotated the dailies it got people into the maps on those daily days so achievements and METAs got done. They could do a similar thing with the EotN instanced content. Right now there is really only dragonstorm and TM, but if they keep adding more content it would be a great idea!
-
Seems all normal (non CM) mobs have more HP now. This is in solo DRM.
-
On Fields of Ruin the mobs have noticeably more hit points (when CM is turned off).
-
I run this DRM solo a lot for the dailies, and I've found recently that the when I get the dwarven alchemical acid, it never shows up. I skip through this DRM extremely quickly. I always get all the pre events done, and can run through the whole thing with 2 of 3 CMs in 7-8 minutes. Only thing I can think of is I run too far ahead of the dwarves right after the pre events end (where you have to kill all the destroyers), and the npc interaction gets bugged so they never lay down the acid. I can see the dwarves, but they don't lay down their acid.
-
@Eloc Freidon.5692 said:
@Ayrilana.1396 said:@Eloc Freidon.5692 said:I don't care about people who don't want compensation for their loss. They are entitled to that. I care about people who want compensation. Those people are also entitled to that.Imagine if Anet decides to cut the costs of all Legendary crafting requirements in half. Many people won't be happy. Yes these examples are comparable, so don't @ me.And if costs were instead increased, would it be fair for all players with existing legendary equipment to fork over however much gold that they increased by?I remember back in 2013 the refinement recipe for silk was increased to three scraps. Should everyone who had crafted those scraps prior been required to pay the difference of what they owed?Players want compensation when something is made cheaper but then shouldn’t the game get compensation when something is more expensive?Not comparable. What even?I am totally FOR people coming out on top for investing early when they make something harder to craft. Because that is the opposite scenario. Making new players pay for old missed episodes IS a thing.This is exactly like all the people who sold the ingots early and have made a hefty profit. Good for them. But Anet is nerfing the quantity needed for collections going forward, and for those who have already completed any of the collections it sucks (whether they bought the ingots or grinded them out).
I didn't buy any ingots myself (grinded all my crystals out), and completed 2 of the 3 collections (128 ingots). I am happy to see the amount of resources necessary for these collections to go down, but the fact I put all that effort in only to get nerfed is pretty insulting.
128 ingots took 1,280 crystals. With the price of crystals needed to make ingots being halved I would have been able to craft 256 ingots. You will only need 208 ingots to craft the first 3 collections, and yet I'll still going to be short.
-
I have already crafted one of the t2 sets, which costs 80 ingots. The t1 set I had to craft before costs 48 ingots. That's 128 ingots total I've used, and with the new recipes saving 5 crystals an ingot I used an extra 640 crystals. Would be nice to get something back. I love the lower cost going forward, but for those that have already completed some of the collections it's pretty inconsiderate.
-
I just bought 200 of the new deldrimor supply chests that can drop the volcanic weapon boxes. They cost me 4 thousand tyrian defense seals. I got zero volcanic weapon boxes. I've opened another 50 of these boxes previously and got zero as well.
I've opened 250 DRM end chests or more (mostly gold chests from CMs). I've gotten zero volcanic weapon chests from there.
I could understand if it was a rare weapon collection with no mastery point tied to it, but this is a STORY achievement with a mastery point! I haven't gotten a single weapon for this collection, and I have played DRMs a ton!
-
I've been running Metrica CM solo each day 3 times for the daily crystals and for the gold chests. Have done this last 2 weeks. Prior to that I did normal mode 3x for the dailies. Also did 15 runs for the CM achievements when DRMs were first released. I have easily looted100 final chest rewards with maybe 2/3 being gold chests, and haven't seen a single weapon box drop. I can see why they are so expensive, but it's ridiculous to be part of a story achievement. I REALLY hope the tyrian seal currency gets some better things to buy (like account bound weapon versions) because that's about all you get asides the daily prismatic crystals.
-
Would be interesting if they lowered the population caps for each map, but introduced additional 1v1 (server versus server) maps for the match up. So you would have a red/green, red/blue, and green/blue map. They could be simple GvG maps with less PPT targets that focus more on promoting fights. Lag should be reduced with smaller map caps and players spread out over more maps.
-
@Strider Pj.2193 said:Play on> @Su Santidad Raul.5479 said:
Hi, excuse me, I wanted to know if someone can support me to know if they know any server where they capture the stonemist Castle enough, preferably 3 or 4 times a dayreset.Also play on Friday before reset when the match has already been decided. Sometimes SMC flips over and over again before reset.
-
@"Melian.5368" said:Due to the lack of skill lag in PvE, I have come to the conclusion that it's not the number of players & skills going off in the instance, it is the 2 way nature of calculations done in WvW which causes bottlenecks to become overwhelmed that causes the lag. Games like eve online solve this through something called "time dilation" where they slow down the game so the servers can catch up, but it can also be done by smartly designing the code to avoid bottlenecks.
I imagine the bottleneck in WvW battle calculation would be the damage done to player hp per tick, as this has more things that leads up to it and affecting it than anything else, like the calculation of condition durations or cordinate movement calculations etc. If this is the case, reducing the load (for example getting rid of "protection" or "vulnerability" buffs) or distributing that load would solve this issue, i.e. calculating the effects of your gear stats on map load or gear change instead of when damage occurs, thus increasing load times but reducing the necessary calculations at peak times.
Regardless, this investigation requires man hours and is a matter of if ANet decides to invest or not, which can be decided via the pushback they receive. So we should keep reporting as these lag spikes occur, and keep the issue visible.
I've had skill lag in PvE before. Not nearly as often as I see it in WvW, but in some of the big open world META events (especially the ones with a lot of NPCs) like Thunderhead peaks I have experienced it fairly often.
-
Two resets. Most people transfer right before a reset happens so it's not two full weeks and just a little over one.
-
My final tally was 9 glitched weapons out of roughly 120 chests.
-
I am at 7 weapons out of 94 chests so far. Might be a few more than 94, but I think I only did all 6 glitched chests the first day, and then 4 every other day.
-
It was really bad for me today as well. It was weird that the lag seemed to happen 90% of the time going against only one of the opponent servers in WvW. Double weird that they didn't even have a zerg, and generally only 5-10 people caused the lag. Was getting some 50v50 fights versus the other server and the lag wasn't as bad.
-
I'll give them a pass because of the pandemic going on, but a little communication from Anet would be nice.
WVW alliance is dead before out of beta due to ultra stacking alliance guild.
in World vs. World
Posted
You mentioned that the current guild size is the the same as the alliance cap of 500, which is a problem, I agree.
I think I suggested earlier in this thread that they introduce a new guild when alliances come out (a WvW only guild). WvW guilds will function the same as other guilds, but will have smaller roster sizes (equal to a new smaller alliance size).
Current guilds can switch their guilds to the new WvW guild, but might have to kick people to fall under the new size limit. Can only join an alliance if in a WvW only guild.