Whiteout.1975

I am asking because I have lost all my motivation for a few years now, honestly. I am just trying to understand what you get out of WvW as a player. Like does winning the match matter to you? Are you just in it for what rewards do exist? Is it some made-up reason for which the game mode does not recognize? Or . . . ? Perhaps I have an oversight, have forgotten, or just outright cannot relate. Either way, I am curious. Anyways, thanks for any legit replies ahead of time. P.S. You are welcome to state things that hurt your motivation as well, just to keep things fair here.

A taste of what this EPIC battle will look like . . . Versus Enjoy the competition.

That sounds like a good way to either prevent PPK or abuse it (if PPK still counts).

And who exactly would be the owner of this extra borderland? In my opinion, the team with the lowest active WvW population. Though, if they must, they can always add new maps. I was just saying to prepare for the almost inevitable complaints as a result. Yet, maybe some people will like a new map regardless, just as some people liked the Desert Borderland. We just do not know how many will/will not like it. Therefore, if Anet especially knows they are going to be lazy in the design, assuming Anet wants to make a new map, then I probably wouldn't risk it so much. Lowest active population can change in the middle of a match, transfers can happen, or a sleeper server can suddenly wake up and screw this up, and let's not suggest changing ownership in the middle of matches because that would be beyond messy. ~~Also not a good idea to just hand out some extra points to the lowest side and possibly artificially keep them in a tier where they don't belong. ~~The population can change in general. Transfers can happen in general. High Population or Low Population. The primary problem is Transfers.A sleeper server can wake up. A server three fourths, half, a quarter, one-tenth asleep can "wake up." You can be the judge of how sleepy they are maybe, but all can, to some extent, "wake up." I just wonder if they wake up, however accurately that is judged, will they be guaranteed to be effective if so? How long will that last? Does this rarely (once in a blue moon) happen? (I think so) Will that be enough to move them up a tier? Does that truly matter when the primary problem is Transfers? Personally, EBG is fine. I'll take what I can here. I'd prefer a set up like that anyways for this predicament. Good of you to mention. Amazing, I agree too. Well, if they are in the queue in this scenario. That is their choice and no other individual's fault. Just as it's no one's fault if someone decides to play PvE or spend their life doing something other than WvW. The problem is not/was not that there is so much as a queue. Also, the problem is not that people are purposefully choosing to wait since that is what they intentionally decided to do (each person being in charge of their actions). The problem here, since the start of the OP, was that each map has the potential to hold too many players, which is thought to cause some lag. I agree with the OP on this. I completely agree. However, I can absolutely guarantee you this would help. I have been on tier 8, 3, 1 and back to tier 3 servers through my WvW years, each for 2 years or more. Moving with mostly the same friends. Anytime we would get our biggest lag spikes, this was either because a big zerg/blob joined or there was a big fight going on in the server. When maps were less filled, less lag resulted. We had either had different or similar Operating systems (I never got the full details); however, this did not matter. We all felt the lag from this together, not just on separate occasions. The other good thing is this would limit servers from blobing up as heavily on 1 map. This allows other maps to potentially receive more activity, and with two EBG's (like you suggested) people can now try to get into two instead of one on reset especially.I cannot guarantee this move (lower cap + another map/more) would abolish all lag. Honestly, I don't think this is the sole source of all lagging. However, I can guarantee you that it is a major driving force in lag creation. Sadly, in the end, nothing substantial will likely change and I enjoyed wasting my breath for the fun of it. Have a wonderful day :)

And who exactly would be the owner of this extra borderland? In my opinion, the team with the lowest active WvW population. Though, if they must, they can always add new maps. I was just saying to prepare for the almost inevitable complaints as a result. Yet, maybe some people will like a new map regardless, just as some people liked the Desert Borderland. We just do not know how many will/will not like it. Therefore, if Anet especially knows they are going to be lazy in the design, assuming Anet wants to make a new map, then I probably wouldn't risk it so much.

Even if COVID-19 did not exist, this would continue to be a problem due to laziness. However, I do wish the devs and their families well during this pandemic. @LionZero.3479 I agree.IMO, I would reduce the population caps, maybe by 50 players per team(?), so that maps fill more quickly with fewer players and add another Alpine Borderland map(s) to compensate. The number of extra WvW maps could be possibly different depending on the server/WvW population for the week. Also, to reduce the likely potential headache's from complaints about either: A. Buggy new maps or B. New maps. Thus, there would be 150 players less per map. However, they could fill a new map instead of waiting in the queue. Yet, there is no way for me to distinguish if that number (150 total) would be exactly ideal; especially, across each server/WvW population.

I think that mounts should exist for situational purposes; however, mounts should not prevent/neglect Player versus Player opportunities for engagement. For example, if anyone can easily fly away on their Eagle Pokemon, then Player versus Player engagement drops drastically along with the risk of death. If "the risk of death" lowers, then this becomes a game of musical keeps with little to no chance of being rewarded for killing a player (emotionally, loot, PPK, etc.). Therefore, whatever Mount/Pokemon exists should do so in a manner that assists the player environmentally without being at the expense of Player versus Player engagement. Initially, without further context, I would say a WvW Turtle. As I come to think of it now, there is a Pokemon like this lol. None the less, I am serious; a War Turtle. The War Turtle would be slow but maybe have particular abilities to help make up for the moderate movement. The War Turtle could taunt 3 - 5 targets for 1 second in a 450 - 600 radius (because it is slow). The War Turtle could carry mini siege on top if its big shell. The mini siege could include an arrow cart, catapult, and ballista. The siege would be less effective than the normal versions of siege. Yet, what should happen is too hard to say. Even with production capabilities, there is no guarantee ideas turn out exactly the way we expect them to be. If that were the case balance would have been fixed a long time ago. Anyways, I hope my ideas were at least of interest. Anyone may expand upon them if they wish to. Take care :) P.S. There is also https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Turtle_Banner. Perhaps some inspiration for the turtle's functionality can be taken from here, in a very cautious sense. Best not to undermine the PvP aspect of WvW ultimately, but a "slow" turtle helps keep this in check initially.

@"Swagger.1459" Hahaha, this may surprise you, but I actually highly agree with you. This is one thing I was trying to point out in the past, years ago and was basically met with the same conflict. The beauty of WvW should be to actually enjoy spending more time playing the game, far less about farming in order to play it and around it. The longer we spend farming for builds... The less time we spend truly playing them; much less WvW.The more characters we play (meaning more builds to play/test), the bigger the grind. What I would like people to understand is that this isn't about how "easy" you obtained your first build for even say "3" of your most played characters. It's about experimenting to find what we like to play the most... While battling against "balance patches" that can easily hinder the any sense of progression we've made across all of our "x" amount of builds/characters. And Legendary shouldn't even be an excuse... It's called "Legendary" for a reason. Personally, I would prefer if there was a vendor and say we pay like 10-20 gold for access to an armor set (like Clerics, Dire, Berserker's etc.) and after that it just freely (again, after initial payment) gives us exotic armor (and maybe ascended (slightly higher price)) unlocked for our account that is non-salvageable, limited to WvW and account bound (everything to make it fair and stop the crying over "my legendary that I chose to invest into"). So, once we have it unlocked... We have it ready to go to experiment with in WvW and can play the fucking game. Same goes for runes, sigils and maybe food; have a vendor for each of those. We still "earn" everything, but we lose the any sense of needing to regrind (aka repeat an already earned progression) and can just play the fucking game after initially earning something. Also, we have PvP that pretty overall ignores the economy when it comes to buying gear. And I'm sure they have gold they spend on other things left over, I know... I was there. Got nerfed or become bored and wanna try something new? No problem! Just throw it on and fight. Though, I guess farming is still more important these days apparently.In conclusion, the game is suppose to be about progression...Not "re"-progression due to multiple failures to create more stable balance. Have a nice day :)

@"Strider Pj.2193"I have just been playing other games and doing more IRL things. Feels a lot better than waiting around for "Alliances" IMO. I think it was still good of you to have made a post about the Alliances; to say you did so if anything. I just feel sad for everyone that is still actively waiting on a company that takes their players (WvW/PvP especially) for granted, speaking as a veteran. Still, I honestly wish you best of luck and Anet (because they did keep me for 5-6 years). I just wish I could play the game again, but I just feel like I'd be shooting myself in the foot at this point (for about the 5th time). If anyone else enjoy's, be they new or whatever... I'm happy for you all. Enjoy while you can. I'll come back around when population balance is fixed/Alliances and check those out. That's all I'm interested in at this point. Again, best of luck...

Maybe I have the unpopular option here then... And that's okay (at least it should be). I view it like this... I believe a mode - game for that matter, is worthy of the Players it is able to keep. Even if a new game comes out on the market (especially the highly successful ones), that could drag people away from WvW too for however long. Perhaps some people like this style of 15 vs 15 and flock to that, also for however long, but at least they would still be playing GW2 in this case. And by the same token... A new form of content - This new form of content (especially if successful) could attract new people with a certain taste GW2 did not offer them before. Not just some that might be older/veterans like myself and others. Then, we also had the lay off's happen and Warclaw not exactly being successful among general opinion. So, in this case I actually wish @Anet good luck and also wish them, at the very least, the greater end of success with this. Now, would I rather see alliances come out and work OR population imbalance fixed? 100% absolutely. Though, I'm just gonna take this with a grain of salt and assume this is the best they can do right now at the moment and hope it works out for the time being. However, existing WvW problems should be/remain more of a top priority IMO because of the sheer time they have taken to still accomplish thus far (population imbalance, alliances, balance, rewards). Though, at least 15 vs 15 has been asked for a long time too... So, I give it a pass because of that in terms of trying to output that kind of content (even though 15 vs 15 was with WvW in mind), but will it actually "pass" and be successful? We shall see, but none less.... Good luck @Anet. One last minor note, who knows? Maybe the PvP 15 vs 15 could be a stepping stone for a more WvW oriented 15 vs 15 mode (with gear and such). This wouldn't be the first time something was brought into PvP before making it's way similarly to WvW. Just a being a tad optimistic is all. Anyways, enjoy the rest of your day fellow reader :)

No, they still won't be. The moment supplies are immedialey needed, you use them. The moment you get "a breather", you fill up the supply depot in case enemies come back in a few minutes. You try to make it seem like there would be some hard decisions to make, but there really wouldn't. And if you don't limit the WP, might as well have some people running defended building depot -> walls, while some would keep WPing -> run one way to depot. Either way there won't be much of a choice instead of a clear optimal behavior in a given situation. That brings nothing fresh to the game and only supports the winning/defending side. Well, supply must be used where it is needed specifically in order to be effective. If you/defenders get a "breather" then so do the attackers... If you resupply... Then so can the attackers. Aside from that, you're welcome to your opinion at the end of the day... I'm gonna go enjoy life. The main take away from this post could be best summed up in this video as 1 example starting at 4:08... Something this guy call's "Internal Realism". What I feel from the lack of this action in WvW/GW2. Just what he calls it take it or leave it. If there is a problem, like I said in an earlier reply that this will because of the mechanic's that surround the action (of depositing supply) as opposed to the action itself. Have a nice day.

You're still oversimplifying the "main difference". You're ignoring the fact that 20 people dumping supply into a structure's storage means that that supply can now be used by 5 defenders against 20 attackers (siege disablers, repairing walls, etc.) while the other 15 go get more supply or hit an objective of the attackers, etc. With mechanics the way they are right now, 20 people with supply have to be present in order for that supply to be used or saved. Banking supply is a form of "buying more time" for defenders , not costing them time at all. It upsets what offense/defense balance to sieges there is right now. I mean... You can think I'm "oversimplifying" here and I'll just return the favor by saying I think you're over-analyzing resulting in a bit of a exaggerated outcome. Sounds fair to me. Anyways, I'm literally not "ignoring" this... I just disagree with how extreme you're making this situation sound. If "20" players show up deposit supply (assuming they need to) and leave "5" behind as defenders... Well, this can already happen today. Also if you're "Banking" supply then it's not being used initially/immediately. Though, if those "5" want more supply to use themselves they gotta hop off of whatever siege they're using because they're otherwise "defending". Which, means they're (or some portion of defenders) are not actively on siege because they are busy fiddling around with more supply for whatever the specific cause. The main difference is still a Zerg showing up and pumping supply directly into whatever is damaged (as it happens today still) vs pumping it into a Supply depot which still has to make it's way to whatever is damaged if that's the intention. Those situations don't exist because you're not accounting for how your suggestion bypasses player numbers. My main point is that allowing players to bank supply would greatly extend siege times and we don't need that. Siege can already take up to three hours between teams of even numbers and is part of the game that no one wants to really do. I don't care much for too much siege ether at the end of the day. So we can agree on that at least. However, the choice here, considering your example, is still this... "We can put supply directly towards siege (siege in this case) OR... Empty out our supply, leave our defenders to defend, have to go restock on supply, x amount of defenders choose to get off siege to pick up supply (since it doesn't magically appear in their hands) and go from there." And hope the rate of doing ether option is enough to deter attackers with maybe some attackers going back to get supply from the nearest supply camp as well (for ironically "more siege") since this happens incredibly often already from the attacking side.

Thanks for the reply. I can appreciate at least trying to balance around idea (like a few others briefly tried). So, I think currently the server with more players will naturally be able to shift supply as it is today without this change. The main difference is supply going directly into a damaged wall/seige etc. vs a supply depot possibly. Overall... This comes with the cost of time if they choose to instead put supply into the supply depot. Which may or may not be worth it depending on the situation; instead of directly putting supply in like so... Player(s) -> siege/wall/door. This would now go... Player(s) -> supply depot -> Player(s) (again) -> siege/wall/door. Though, if the larger group feels the need to defend against the smaller group... I'm not so sure on how threatening the larger group truly is then, if that's the case. Ultimately, I'm not so sure the possible rates of attackers would be bothered too much by the possible rates of defenders risking leaving their objective to go grab more supply any more than it affects those general situation's as they happen today honestly without this change. Because some people still bring in supply while under attack today. It just more common the case to find them wanting to immediately invest it into something to help them defend and I just don't see the supply depot on average/overall being the immediate "go-to" method for defense. So I think the whole small vs large perspective is a slight over evaluation in giving a bit too much credit of what could happen... Instead of what would likely actually happen generally speaking. None the less, still is something important to consider and am glad it was mentioned. Main point is... There will be situations where choosing to go invest into the supply depot could easily be worse also.

Hahaha Ikr? How dare we wish to have the choice to deposit supply in the supply depot! Absolutely absurd, blasphemy! Yes, how dare a defending zerg get out of combat safely behind their walls in order to waypoint to another T3 keep and come back to deposit a ton of supply back into the attacked structure so that a handful of defenders are ready to prolong the siege defense while the defending zerg just bought time to go do something else.Wait what? If the an entire Zerg teleports from defending a keep being attacked because they moved out of combat. That makes it easier on the attackers to take it while they're away. Then... If they if they did make it back somehow to still defend and end up losing that keep... They just lost all that supply instead of choosing to hold onto it. Then... If the attackers choose to attack the very keep they just pulled supply from... Well, now that "t3 keep" has lesser supply to defend with for itself. Sounds like it could be risky... I like it :)

Hahaha Ikr? How dare we wish to have the choice to deposit supply in the supply depot! Absolutely absurd, blasphemy!

lol, well it's an easy action yea. How dare I be able to pick up supply, but not put any back. Hmmm... ? What I mean is that leveling up structures would be too easy and fast. Hoped that would be obvious. That wasn't so obvious to me because I already made mention to this in the "risk" example I gave... "help it progress further (use your imagination)" piece of it in the OP. So I just thought you were referring to the actual action of doing so. Anyways, I've already given the possible price to pay in that very same example... "OR... Do I use this supply to help take another Tower/Keep via siege?". If your're busy with helping out a walled objective progress somehow... Then you're not actually busy taking one because your doing that instead. Or helping a force on your side take one. The thing about "risks" you've listed in your first post is that they're not "risks" at all. Camps rarelly are missing supplies and the moment they get new ones, they'd be transfered to more valuable objectives. Not much of a hard choice to make here, seems pretty one sided to me.Idk about that. I've had to wait for Camps to replenish plenty of times in my years. Seems like it would depend on the situation (maybe even server population). That's not a risk I pointed out or was referring to however. The point was... Taking supply over to Tower/Keep vs possibly having the option to take another enemy Tower/Keep. There are times were this will be a risk and times were it won't depending on your forces. You can take supply, but not return it. Something doesn't seem right about that. If anything the problem would be the mechanics that surround the action as opposed to the action itself. And initially... Like I said, you gotta rely on the speed of the workers at the end of the day no mater the supply you have. That can be easily adjusted if need be.

You have to rely on the speed of the workers at the end of the day. That would be the issue if anything, not so much the action.

lol, well it's an easy action yea. How dare I be able to pick up supply, but not put any back. Hmmm... ? What I mean is that leveling up structures would be too easy and fast. Hoped that would be obvious.That wasn't so obvious to me because I already made mention to this in the "risk" example I gave... "help it progress further (use your imagination)" piece of it in the OP. So I just thought you were referring to the actual action of doing so. Anyways, I've already given the possible price to pay in that very same example... "OR... Do I use this supply to help take another Tower/Keep via siege?". If your're busy with helping out a walled objective progress somehow... Then you're not actually busy taking one because your doing that instead. Or helping a force on your side take one. At the end of the day. It's too weird to pretty much completely rely on a yak, pick up supply from a tower, but not help replenish it by putting some back. If you can simply pick supply up... You should be able to set some back. Also, you still can't go past tower supply caps and must wait/rely on the workers to pick the supply up and make use of it. If they need to tone the worker speed down... Well, I don't see why that wouldn't be an option.

lol, well it's an easy action yea. How dare I be able to pick up supply, but not put any back. Hmmm... ?

This one has seemed to have slipped my mind on asking over the years, but I would be a bit surprised if it wasn't brought up before. So, we can take supply, but not help restock? That is, besides waiting on the fat yak to get there (generally speaking). Something about this just feels... So unnatural to me. The reason I'm bringing it up is I think it could add a certain level of "risk" to the gamemode. For example, "Do I help restock this Tower/Keep now and help it progress further (use your imagination)? OR... Do I use this supply to help take another Tower/Keep via siege?" Also, I'm leaving out "Camps" because that's where supply is generated in the first place, but other objectives (as mentioned) I could see it making general situations occasionally more interesting. Love the idea... Hate the idea... Don't really care. Just thought I'd mention it. Have a wonderful day <3

This thread is so salty that my eyes started burning before diving into it. Anyways, Great video. I can appreciate the effort put into making the video. I'm not understanding the salt here though. Likes what's the issue exactly? Just seems like people died at some point and been mad ever since.

Yea I really enjoyed the your thread :) I just wanted this thread to be around basically general thoughts/interpretations of what balance should be is all. Rather than "this is why it's not working" and sticking mainly to one initial interpretation or keep on reverting back to that one interpretation. It just occurred to me that over the years I've heard a few interpretations on balance, but the one mentioned in the OP, for some reason... Just sat with me the longest. And I think that "reason" is actually because on one hand... That perspective makes sense to some degree, but on the other... I don't believe that's the full story (or enough of the story) ether in just being able to play "anything". I actually think GW2 is a very diverse game though. The problem that is somewhat unfortunate is that diversity and viability aren't guaranteed to go hand in hand. To me, it's like great... Games diverse, well done, but is even your greatest possible setup (for your class) "viable" for whatever role you're intending to play? And that's where the issue seems to lie because if you're not initially viable in your environment... Well, chances are you're not gonna have fun at the end of the day. I agree though, I don't really care much for the "pigeonholed" design ether haha. Where you are basically predestined to play "x" role, but all diversity does alone with that design is let you play a different shade of the same color because you're ultimately already predestined to fulfill "x role" on your class. Then maybe you have some traits that support or something on your "roamer" class, but you will never truly compete with the class that is, as you say... A "team fighter". So, I think that design philosophy worked better at the beginning of GW2 because what you could be was more limited too things like... Traits, stats and food. When a new expansion come's out, under this same ancient design philosophy, you will get to play something new (diversity), but you will ultimately just be a different shade of the same color due to your class, as a whole, predestined to be whatever that is. Anyways, I pretty much agree with you. If each class was more diverse as to what it could be... Viably, among the rest of the existing classes. Well, I think we would all certainly have a more enjoyable time to say the least.Thanks for commenting :+1:

Just stopping by to say I appreciate the response time from all the replies so far... And also the post is being a bit too slept on atm (generally speaking) for what it is. Would appreciate more feedback from more voices on the topic if possible. Thanks :)

? Gotta make more room for @Anet's precious PvE'rs one way or another (even when they don't really use it) ?

The only thing I hate is that the chill condition doesn't consider initiative as a factor when slowing cooldowns. Like it could slow the rate that is gained still some... So this I have more of an issue with. Honestly, at the end of the day... I don't see it necessary to remove/nuke those resource mechanics though. This still ultimately just amounts to time and cost. Besides that, I think it's a matter of treating mechanics more fairly (like mentioned above) despite being different given that their purposes are ultimately the same. Also, I like the fact that the resources are different because that just enhances feel of what makes each class/profession more unique from the rest IMO.