Riba.3271

Yup. Auto upgrade system that doesnt take supply has lot of negative consequences for depth of WvW decisionmaking.Lot of these arguments for it only see things as black and white, ppt or ppk, but you have to take into accord off-prime and small groups WvW shouldnt be reliant on having commander up always which is exactly what current system promotes; everything upgrades too fast without anyone around. Having supply in keeps/towers ALWAYS is another offender that simplifies priorityordering up to a point where decisions become monodimensional. I hope I am not one of the last few that find decisions, individuality, small groups and using your own brain fun alternative for everytime following an open-field commander with brain off.

There are new players to WvW. Any commander who thinks they're entitled to only people that contribute to the group with "100% meta never theorycrafting" despite not being able to provide these pugs the incentive to run WvW builds over 3-4 commanding sessons (It is not realistic to think it would be instant), should just stay at guild raids. The reason why leading sucks for you magically now is not because people attitudes changed, it is because meta changed to favor only defensive gameplay. Also "fight" commanders thinking fightcommanding means never capping/defending anything, just open field blobbing, despite all Legendary open commanders having done "The ppt", are obviously wrong. There is no surprise that you sitting at keep waiting for enemy strong blob to show up once every 2 weeks and then tagging up to realise other "meta" people on your server didn't feel like waiting 2 weeks will make WvW suck for you. Yes, the Legendary commanders hated the WvW changes as well so they quit already. Every change to upgrade/scoring system, shield gens to boon overcap specs made WvW lose reasons for players to communicate and coordinate between each others, which unfortunately was the endgame that defined the best groups.

There is 2 ways of playing really, simplified:Semi-pirateship Complements having zerky eles and revs, 1200 range classes.Not so reliant on superspeed/perfect compFocuses on winning at least 1 side, right or left, and bombing enemy melee when they try to engageRelies on open field or defensive positioning.Only viable at blobscale or against unorganized groupsPush in when enemy is losing ground or is low on cooldowns, but don't yolo, peel them like layers on an onion.1 mistake can lead your whole melee dying.Melee ballSimply stack on tag and stealthbomb enemies, then train around through the enemy ranged. If you keep moving you take less AoEs.Requires lot of superspeed/sustain on every melee, so scrappers/melee tempestsComplements having Scourges, 900 range class, and spellbreakersPerfect at guildscale and closed spacesEasier to learn/follow, harder to make errors/big plays on, as you just can just run with the tag regardless of class.Most compositions want to be able to do both with exception of some servers that hold stonemist and camp eb all the time (defensive positioning). So 5-man party comp is usually: Firebrand for stab, heals, cleanse, boonsOff-healer/condi cleanser with superspeed, tempest/scrapper. Note: these classes cleanse way more than firebrand.Scourge for boonremoval, extra sustain, burst damage and area denialRevenant for Dwarf elite (50% dmg reduction for pushes & counter-pushes), boons and long-range reliable AoE burstSome spellbreakers, extra scourges and maybe weavers.

He wasnt talking about guild raids. And with the premise of "it should only be for 20 or less" in the quote, 99.9% of guild runs wouldnt be affected by a limitation.Nah people in general don't care about pips that much, at least on EU. I suggested different possible changes:either:1) Make invisible squad available to only normal guilds (20 or less)or2) Make the problems pugs cause away (stealth blasting) Unfortunately you think about this too straightforward, some blob commanders have such a big ego that they don't care about new players and only want people on discord. Thus they run invisible tags on public discords. They lack the reasoning between cause and effect. They're the same people who transfer the moment they don't get more than 40 people in squad, meaning bandvagoners or, if I may say, leeches that lack leadership qualities. And yes, it is daily occurance for EU servers to have 40+ on discord, sometimes even 100.

EU lagged a lot too a few nights, not only skill lag but also rubberbanding with people teleporting around.

I think invisible tag should be limited to less than 20 people squads. Nothing good will come if blob commanders start running discord-only invisible. People won't stick on maps (or join discord) after checking there is no commander. I mean invisible tag is great and all but it also causes problems like not knowing if someone is coming to defend and if another guild is already fighting at battlemarkers. It is not that big of a deal since guilds could already run invisible with the catmander trick but I feel like communication between groups is never a bad thing. Not to mention open tags might start causing queues on maps with guilds, which causes some unnecessary toxicity because lot of people don't understand cause and effect. Tbf another reasonable fix would have been just removing long-duration stealth this is the biggest issue guilds have with pugs. Visible pugs ruining a jump on someone. Just increasing veil duration by like 1 second and making long-distance stealth impossible would change attitudes a lot.

Sorry but I played the WvW past 4 years in multiple different servers including NA (FA, FC, Kaineng (when dods was there)) and EU (Piken, Vabbi (when it was blobby, I was the last off-prime regular comm), FSP, Gandara, Deso, even some french/german servers). This has nothing to do with just Deso, which is my main server. Adaptation of the community is not the problem, rather the siege/defense/point/blob balance that insued from HoT. And I played a lot gaining like 6-7k ranks in this time. And yes, I do mostly off-prime commanding (daytime) these days but I did do nightcrew for a couple of years while tagging up primetime often when necessary. Scouting, camp flipping, small-scale, dueling etc also. I am fine with the numbers I get rn, it varies from 10 people (offensive desert map) to 70 people (good mu, eb/home bl) while I am getting a multiple good close fights each time I tag up. You might not realise this but the gap between constantly wiping because bad decisionmaking and being able to have fun commanding is way too large right now. I already adapted to all the WvW changes by reaching top level in PvP and failing at multiple objectives etc. but it shouldn't take that much for a simple new PPT commander to tag up. Scouts have almost 0 impact regarding how the game plays in large-scale outside screaming for help. I'd prefer if a single player, that isn't a commander, could feel like he has some importance in this gamemode. It just pains me to see how bad time new/unpopular commanders/scouts/camp flippers are having just because they happened to start the game later than others.

Yup EU needs 1 tier removed as well. Germans always played with superior numbers inefficiently but with the linking system they don't know how to play with so few people. Currently 3 (2 main, 1 link) servers out of 5 in T5 are German. But yea, reducing tiers doesn't fix the issues of why the WvW population is declining. They need to promote small-scale importance and decision-making so small groups/commanders can grow slowly into bigger ones, currently most of the people just log in when theres a blob because any unorganised open commanding group between 15-40 people is just pretty much getting farmed. There is a reason active people are stacking on blob servers just to sit in SM waiting for enemy/commander instead of doing anything on the maps. Community is also to blame for the inactivity off-prime, majority of the existing commanders on the servers don't tag up unless there is an enemy group already, because they don't want to be labeled as PPT commanders,. As if there is such a thing, there are just commanders that let enemy dictate when they play the game and commanders that don't. They fail in simple logic; you tag up more, enemy will tag up more, the non-guild, and even guild because recruitment is necessary, WvW will die if all servers wait for the enemy groups to show up first. ANET can't do much about this ego stupidity but they can promote new commanders, that have different motives for tagging up than veterans, by giving smaller numbers easier time by making long-duration attacks/defences a thing by nerfing shield gen attacks and rework of watchtower tactic so their movement within the map isn't that hindered. This would also give blobs something to do, circumventing siege, while enemy gathers up over just "oh we took the 2 enemy t3 keeps in 5 minutes, nothing left to do". People don't all log-in at the same time. Like if you can literally everytime walk to same gate of bay while building 3 shield gens, 5 rams and get in on the first try, because defensive siege doesn't matter against shield gens, there is something wrong with lack of decisionmaking. Like I am all for more fights instead of less siege-camping inside keeps but pace of the WvW can't handle this blob-favored braindead balance that actually isn't even good to build up more blobs.

I mean as a veteran WvW player, I feel like I am entitled to winning. Thus I deserve to be on Blackgate as losing is unfun. It is going to be neat blobbing down 20 people with 70 all day, can't wait. I will be so much better player once I win more after this server transfer.

If you read the thing carefully, not just the first sentence: There are nerf to shield gens, so you can actually take the attacker siege down as your ACs, trebs and ballistas would work. This would nerf your attacking blobs massively and actually allow you to do other things than watching them from the walls.The nerf to defending would be reducing the extra stats so that the attackers actually have a reason to attempt attacking something when enemy has equal numbers on the map . As a defender (or attacker) you should be enthuastic about increase of epic long-duration defence battles rather than being like "only my server will lose keeps because this nerf".Upgrade times should be nerfed, I mean they don't affect you much because you only focused on the defending aspect, but stuff upgrades too fast. Up to a point where if you don't have a commander for 1.5 hours, enemy has a full t3 border. This is terrible for all open commanders and guilds, primetime and offtime. Single groups and guilds have almost no impact to outcome of scoring even if they crush their opposition during the time they're active. Same affects even camp flippers that like to cap camps to slow enemy upgrade times.So there are nerfs to both attacking (making attackers have to be smarter/making offense take longer) and a nerf to defender stats (equal fighting grounds) Maybe you didn't play the game pre-HoT but back then you could hold back blobs with trebs and acs for a while. Thus your defending style of hiding on the walls, which obviously isn't viable, would be actually buffed, so your complaining is irrational. My opinion regarding if you could just freecast from top of the wall to below without attacker being able to retaliate, it would be super unfun and unfair for the attackers. You can literally build an ac if you want to hit from safety of a wall. Or just jump off the wall and pewpew at them (you obviously have range since you were planning to cast on them from walls) and as soon as they come close, you run away with your superior defending build against immobile blobbers. Don't forget that the game offers tools like Burning Retreat + Meteor Shower combo for eles to clear offensive sieges and cast. How does it work? Well you click 4 and double click 5 fast while you have Lock skill range at maximum range enabled (necessary setting for WvW) and you can channel meteor from safety of the wall. There are also other classes that can still cast from safety of the wall, for example necromancer can easily cast his wells, he just doesn't pop the stab before he goes on the edge of the wall, but rather for the stunbreak so he can dodge away. Unfortunately you have to play around the combat mechanics, you cant just brain afk cast on the enemy, unless you place an ac smartly to a position where it doesn't get instantly taken down. Of course you can use stab skills before you man it. But yeah, these changes would mean you can actually you siege to defend (shield gen nerf), so you should be happy about the suggested changes. And my intention with these changes is not to make so that you and your 2 friends can hold off the fun of 60 people by standing on the walls pewpewing, it is just making WvW decisions more relevant, for both defenders and attackers, and making it more clear what your server/timezone WvW strength is instead of it varying by both location and colours. Also if you read my signature, it says Desolation. Desolation is not a T1 server, it is T2. So don't be rude and use your observation talent.

Nah FB/scourge is a must. So is superspeed (scrapper usually). This is talking about any group that is above 10 people. Obviously you want to have some spellbreakers and revs too. I do believe that existance of guardians and scourges is necessary for WvW group fights to work (stab/mid range boon removal), so I don't mind too much about their necessity. Just make them have higher skillcap somehow. I recommended making scourges have 3 small shades (so they need to aim better) a must, removing the larger shades option completely. Anyways 7 classes are really good in WvW, so there really isn't any major group comp issues. Some are just more necessary than others, f/e you want only a few chronos for grav/illusion. Thief/Ranger could use some weapon changes to be viable in WvW groups. Ranger has 0 impactful weapons for WvW groups, thief has 1 (staff). Like 1 necro landing axe/scepter 3 is worth more towards outcome of the battle than what a ranger can do with all the skills on both his weapons. Similar reworks to what happened to guardian shield would be nice; Minor AoE boons/heals, more mobility.

Yea guys, stop giving feedback, current system is perfect. But WvW also would be much better place and more alive if it was at its release state. Also build discussion after balance patches isn't fun, its tedious. Listen to this guy. He knows our preferences.

My experience regarding staying T1 is that winning itself doesn't matter that much, but it provides you lot of tools to build the server if you actively push for better builds, activity, communication etc. People are more motivated about speaking and listening about these things when winning. And discussing with and teaching other people can be fun as long as you keep the toxicity out of it (even though it can be hard regarding builds). Basically you need to see visible improvements within your server each week, not just empty talk and dreams about how things should be. Include guilds in it, they already have necessary structure to push certain things forward. But you really only need to focus on one thing that you like; f/e if you prefer scouting, try to improve scouting within the server by forming a group of inviduals that share ideas and play together. Some people prefer just running around drunk, win or lose, and get better slowly. Really, just don't burn yourself out by reaching to the skies too fast. Regarding source of the issue you're having; WSR only doesn't care about PPT when they have desert map as homelands. And they have too many people to stay in T2. There's no actual reason other than having fun fighting to play WvW in T1 (but other tiers there should be) half the weeks as long as there is 2 different borderlands or this player mentality exists. It is unfortunate but your options are either to not play half the weeks or turn your strategic brain off those weeks.

They are not detrimental, they follow good game design for a strategic PvP gamemode, which WvW is. Meaningful decisionmaking and there being some/more equal ground for PvP fights are necessary. Desert border is only a slight design issue regarding balance but the bigger issue is that playerbase reaction to it is causing WvW to lose its purpose and making it the server internal activity overly complicated. Yes, I didn't want to suggest many changes for class balance, only a few trait changes to make classes that are troublesome regarding WvW class diversity; Too much condi conversion and boon duration (WvW specific nerf) and classes being too deadly while too reliable (big shades). None of these would affect PvE where you fight mostly static targets. Surely one could make different thread regarding how they should change AoE fields, but for me any feedback that doesn't go in detail and just circlejerks same issues everyone shouts about is just crying to wall. For this, I would make a completely different thread. This threads suggestion purpose was different, Bringing out solutions to WvW problems that are not too large to implement, rather than striving for perfect meta. My suggestion to anyone that wants certain things to be changed in meta, need to provide answers, not more questions, considering the same questions have been around for years. And my opinion is that if you cast a new field on top of existing field would cancel the possiblity of blasting existing field (that can be blasted by only 5 different people anyways), would open possibility to in combat trolling by teammates. Current system where 1 blast finisher blasts 1 field is fine. Solution to your problem would be rather be increasing cooldown of blasts/fields or reducing radius of AoE fields in terms of good game design.

Seems you misunderstand what I am wanting here. I don't want to win more matchups, my server plays red map, I play red map. What I want is for each matchup to be meaningful, not only for fights, but for points. And for scouts and players to have better understanding how the server activity is between weeks instead of it changing massively from one week to next just because the homeborder servers receive. Also I play on EU, not on NA, the issues here might be escalated up to a point where something needs to be done, try to understand them. I tried my best to explain, I will answer to any reasonable question you have about what is different here compared to your region.

Well I checked the kills on NA red map compared to other maps, and the situation seems definitely to be slightly better there. Red map only has about half the kills of 1 alpine, compared to EU matchups where it is third of it. Pretty bad still on NA, but even worse on EU. There are lot of commanders/guilds/servers that refuse to play desert map. And as I said, it isn't EU T1 red side losing currently because they're getting double-teamed, but because they don't play desert map. T1, where the winning servers go, completely meaningless regarding points from the day of matchmaking. It isn't just 1 full server, it is some commanders, guilds and people from every server. Seems like the only solution for people who play for points is to transfer to T5 and climb up to T1 with the server, then transfer again to T5, if they want their actions to matter every week instead of every 2nd week. Ah wait, that doesn't seem very fun, huh. Also should I decide to scout this week because commanders won't defend red home border, or should I wait until next week? Hmm, decisions, decisions, so fun. Maybe player just doesn't play his preferred style of WvW for half the matchups just because there exists 2 different kind of borderlands, seems like completely reasonable thing to do. I am sorry but as long as the existance of 2 different borderlands brings so much variance to how servers play from one week to next, it is a major issue within the system. And the system shouldn't have such flaws. Players will always have flaws so you can't blame them for causing some part of the system to fail.

I obviously used a wrong word there. I didn't mean "siege" - I meant "objectives", as in structures. I am telling you, those stat points, in reality they don't make a difference. See my examples. And I have countless of these examples, when objectives are lost despite these buffs. I have countless examples when objectives are lost, despite the use of siege. I have countable memories from the last three months, where we had huge fights (1h+) inside an objective we held or an enemy held! According to you this cannot happen, because the siege and objective buffs provide so much of an advantage. How then are we able to hold out inside an enemy bay for two hours? How can enemies keep attacking and fighting in our own home bay for two hours? How is it possible ff the advantage is soooo overwhelming? Or maybe that is your issue, that some fights take so long? Well, I can assure you that most fights do not take nearly that long. Usually you walk up to an objective and take it, no matter what tier it is. If it is sieged up and defended, most objectives can still be taken in a few minutes. Obviously well-armed and defended enemy keeps take longer, but even those rarely take over half an hour from start of the assault to the point they are taken. And it's a keep! A defended keep should take longer!If a fight takes really long it is typically, because both sides decide to bring a full blob. And even in this case it isn't the structure or the siege that makes the process of taking a keep so long and tedious. Rather it's simply the presence of an enemy zerg. If both zergs facing in and around an objective structure are of equals strength, all these thigns do make a difference of course - as they should - but usually the bigger factors are ability and size of the zergs facing each other. If the presence of the buff and defensive siege is an issue for you and your server, maybe you and your comms need to play the game differently. Maybe you need to attack at two places at the same time. Maybe you need to be more mobile. The same tactic that works against one server, might not work against another one. I have never had real issues in taking enemy structures, once we get our stuff together. Getting it together traditionally is the bigger issue for my server. Sorry but I am still going to believe that these 5 changes will make WvW a lot better place by giving access to more meaningful decisions to all groups while reducing variance caused by fighting location and fixing server activity between matchups. For you they might seem like small changes that don't do anything but if you look at any other competitive game, small changes like these are actually huger than seem at first glance. I mean the shield gen change would be huge no matter how you look at it. I mean for you these changes don't seem to be bad either...? Just you don't seem to think they do anything. Maybe you're just in an outlier group for which changes within WvW doesn't matter. I mean it isn't perfect obviously, so what would you like to be changed? What do you think are perfect stats from the claim buff, more or less? Would you like blobs to not be able to rush in objectives with shield gens while immune to any siege defender can build? Would you like certain tactics to be changed because they're useless/overpowered? Do you think anet should stop working on WvW balance and focus only on big updates instead of small balance changes like these they can do with snap of fingers?

In ideal world we would have already had more maps and each week they would rotated in and out without warning which would keep the fights fresher. Baring that we should have 4 unique maps which would also add in variety and freshness. We bleed a lot of players overtime by having the same 3 stall borderland maps. We need to lose another alpine map and have it replaced by another map. People should have to adjust topics moving from map to map. There are people today that don't go to the alpine maps either that stick to others like EBG. Does that mean we should just put 4 EBGs in place instead? No, having 3 different borderland maps is fine if they rotate from 1 week to next instead of having all of them simultanously. If you read, I am not asking Desert border to be removed because of it's lack of popularity, I am asking 3 of the same borderlands because currently one of the biggest flaws within unbalanced matchmaking is the unpopularity of 1 particular map within matchup and the unnecessary variance of server activies from 1 week to next. Alpine map is just better choice because it has 5-6 times more popularity than desert. Unfortunately the reasonable solution isn't to ask the playerbase to start magically playing the map so ANET has to step in to fix this player-caused inbalance.

If you see I suggest both nerfs to defense (claim buff) and offense (shield gens) to promote more equal and skillful fight/siegeplay. You can't say it is unreasonable to ask for more equal stats near objectives (that cover pretty much whole map) and other offense strategies than shield-gen cheese being viable.And as I said, taken as your personal preference that's fine. But it wouldn't make wvw objectively better. I enjoyed wvw more back when tiering and defending objectives was more worthwhile. That's not a good reason for them to change it back, however . . . Actually if you read my post carefully, it includes 4 changes to make objectives more worthwhile to defend: Upgrade times would be increased by 25%. Obviously defending an objective that takes longer to upgrade, is more meaningful.Trebs/acs/ballista defenses would become possible with reworking of siege generator, meaning sieging up a keep is actually rewarding.Watchtower rework would make scouting and sieging towers/sides of keeps more meaningful.Claim buff nerf/removal means more equal fighting ground,, it doesn't directly make the objective/sieging more important but it makes wiping enemy inside your objective seem more glorious as you're beating opponents that actually have a chance to fight back.Additional point being, insuing from the change would be attacker having to actually use their brain to attack instead of just shield gens + catas/rams/trebs/golems and rush it down. Meaning you get to use brains as a defender as well, wow that sounds fun doesn't it?There will be more attempts to attack by fighting groups if they feel like they can actually beat the defenders. More attacks, activity of defense becomes more meaningful.You've just completely lost me now I'm afraid. If making something more difficult makes it better, why are you so motivated to punish all those poor unfortunate attackers by nerfing their challenge . . ? You seem to misunderstand, I don't only attack, I defend also so don't think me of a filthy blobber, I also scout and command defense/attack. I said attacking is one-dimensional in current system where 1 way of attacking counters all defensive siege one can build. Attacking and defending should have variety, which I believe all people should find more fun. Same regarding equal fighting stats.You seem to misunderstand. You suggested more defensive nerfs. I pointed out the existing nerfs have made tiering structures a waste of time currently. You countered that making defense more difficult makes it more worthwhile. I pointed out that if that were true, making defense more difficult would punish attackers. You failed to counter . . .I suggested 2 defensive nerfs (claim buff) and upgrade time while nerfing blob attacking power by MASSIVELY. True there used to be times when upgraded objectives were worth same as unupgraded objectives. There are upsides to both, for your system it is that smaller groups can keep up with larger groups in points as easier to cap towers would have same value as higher value towers. This makes existance of small off-prime guilds and groups have way more value. I do believe the new system feels overtuned regarding how much more points upgraded objectives give and it could be reduced.. . Removal of desert map would remove the inequality within scoring system of WvW because some servers refuse to play Desert map. As I said, I don't mind desert map, I just believe it is eyesore for both people who play for both points and/or fights. It breaks too many matchups.There are a lot of classes I refuse to play even though they would make winning fights easier. That's not a good reason to take them away from ppl who are willing to play them . . .No I am talking about balance and matchfixing problems that exist because of the map. For me as a player who played lot of competitive games like Overwatch, Pubg, LoL, maplayout that is more equal and competitive is preferable within PvP gamemode. You are taking the PPT players away from WvW by making the matchups decided from the start. I just ask for 3 same borderlands, and alpine is the better choice.And anet -- with input from their players -- decided that offering variety was the better choice. They could instead alternate all of the maps to alpine or desert week to week, but that would alienate all of the players who are tired of playing on the same map all the time and all of the players who are unwilling to learn a new map. The current setup is the better option, esp since your main complaint seems to be about scoring which does not have any consequence anyway . . .Maybe you don't understand the point of view I am coming from because you're not on EU/you don't pay to attention to what other servers are doing; so let me explain; There exists servers within EU that don't play desert map. Okay so that means that one homelands is going to have no enemies. This means that a server that should be at higher tier, is traveling between 1 or 2 tiers that it doesn't belong to because the moment they get red side (go up in rankings), they stop playing their homelands.I feel it is perfectly right and just to punish players for refusing to play on a particular map, just as it is perfectly right and just for me to be punished for refusing to play easier classes. This is why I gave you that example . . .Let me give you an active example; imagine T1 where obviously the gamemode is designed to have the servers that play for also for points. So obviously each server is going to try to be the best. So now enters EU T1 currently where there resides a red-side server that has most likely won 0 skirmishes and isn't even trying to play, because they have desert map. 1st and 2nd place don't go down a tier. Meaning no one has a reason to take anything, the matchup is decided from a start. Now whole score system is meaningless. Would you remove the score system from WvW? No! Then remove desert map. Else every 2nd week in T1 will have no scoring system. And every 2nd week in T2 is ruined by a server having too much activity for it.You are correct that a team that chooses to forfeit decides the match before it begins. You are incorrect in arguing that is the fault of anyone other than the forfeiting team. And I would have nothing against removing the scoring system from wvw, but I don't think it would make wvw better. Winning can't mean anything until anet can create more balanced matchups, but it is one more thing to pursue and giving ppl a broader variety of goals is better as it increases the number of ppl who can find something they like to do . . . Lot of the balance in WvW issues are within claimbuff and player activity that changes week-to-week due to existance of desert map. As I pointed out it isn't just 1 or 2 servers, it is lot of commanders and guilds that do the same to desert map. Server should have similar strength from one week to next if there isn't internal changes, the map layout shouldn't decide that and create balance issues. I don't play on a server that doesn't play desert map, I just want WvW map layout to be more balanced so that good plays decide the matchups, not the colour of ones side.The quality of play has never decided matchups. It has always been numbers and coverage. Eliminating the desert map would do nothing to address this, unfortunately . . . I didn't say it has anything to do with people who didn't play it. I said people who are playing this competitive gamemode should have working scoring system and timezones. Existance of 1 desert borderlands changes the way WvW plays from week to week so much that it has an negative impact to lot of matchups. Okay imagine this; 1 server plays desert map, another doesn't. It doesn't just affect both servers, not only the one that doesn't play it. Now imagine you're making a perfect WvW game, would it have 2 alpine maps and 1 desert map regarding scoring and matchmaking? Having 2 different kind of borderlands, out of which 1 is popular and 1 isn't, is a major issue within WvW making WvW more unbalanced for everyone, not just the people who don't play it. You can't have balanced matchups while the map exists.The map is not causing the problem you describe. Players who refuse to play the map are causing the problem you describe. You may also want to consider that since desert is given to the team that just moved up a tier, whether ppl in desert avoid playing bc they don't like desert, or bc they are tanking to drop from an undesirable tier . . . And yes, my perfect wvw game would have long term appeal, which would include a variety of maps . . .Yes as I said desert map is fine thousand times but its unpopularity is bringing unbalance thus it should be removed. My argument was never that the map is bad. I am suggesting them to change to 3 same borderlands because the whole system of having 2 different borderlands, out of which 1 is unpopular, is messed up, not the maps itself. As I said 3 alpine borderlands or 3 desert maps is what I ask because it messes up the competitiveness and adds way too much variety of how servers act between matchups. Your argument is about if the map is good and my argument is about if the system behind it is flawed. There are different forms of roaming. For example during offtime you will have better luck in EB where watchtowers cover most camps. There are some that like to sneak north towers for small skirmishes during off hours leaving them only 1 option for siege (catas at NW tower), not very creative is it. Maybe for your type of roaming it doesn't matter but you can't say that defending and taking camps/towers isn't part of roam life.Oh I'm certain the watchtowers affect someone, or ppl wouldn't bother slotting them. But they do not 'kill roaming' as you claimed . . . I only suggest reasonable changes within powers of Anet. Of course roaming has balance and mount-whatsoever issues, but I am suggesting to give back the most important thing, freedom, to roamers. And responsibility/coordination, to scouts (and to server as whole). I don't mind you downtalking watchtower change about how small the impact of it will be, but it would be positive change to overall look of WvW regardless by opening the map up more for groups of any size. To me the biggest effect removing the watchtower would have is it would make it easier for ppl to flip structures without a fight, and harder for ppl looking for a fight to draw one. That would be consistent with a lot of anet's recent choices making it easier to cap defended structures, but I don't see it as a positive change . . . If you read my suggestion carefully, I was suggesting to make the watchtower detect siege weapons (even build sites). Meaning lot of camps and towers would require an active scout. It seems you misunderstand the fact what a fight is, if the enemy shows up the moment the red dots show up, you won't be getting in the tower and getting an epic fight. You will be countered by cannons and acs before you even have a chance to get siege up. Now this change is also so that smaller groups (5-25 people) can play during daytime, because going to north towers on alpine maps, any eb tower with watchtower, is basically a suicide at the moment. Sure you can walk all the way around through the jumping puzzle and waste 1 minute to try to sneak NW tower on enemy border but then if you fail it feels even worse. Point is if there are more groups of different size going for objectives, there will be more fights. Atm the only way to take an upgraded objective is by Sneaking it (no red dots) or blobbing it down. Issue is that you need way more people to even attempt capping towers and camps than what is fun. WvW community will adapt to changes for watchtowers by promoting active scouting more. If you played pre-HoT, you would know there used to be dedicated scouts that sieged everything up and ran around, obviously the new watchtower would still help us massively but it wouldn't make their job obsolete at half the objectives while providing variety of defenses they can experience rather than just long-range catas by sneaky-sneakys. Another thought: What if the watchtower only activated when the objective is contested so that people can pass by it and it truly defends the objective and not just limit the map. This means smaller groups could build enough siege weapons (f/e 5 catas) before they contest it but will be detected as soon as they start cataing.A good fight is a long fight. A good fight for a defended objective involves siege, sapping supply, being rebuffed, returning as many times as necessary to wear the structure down before finally breaching and getting down to the direct toon v toon pvp, which might also require repeated attempts before the fight is finally decided. Skipping to the end does not make the fight more fun . . . I stopped scouting bc ppl stopped answering calls. Discussion of why ppl stopped answering calls in wvw would likely be derailing . . . Watchtowers only limit the map if you are trying to avoid fights . . .As I said, watchtower change would change the whole way how WvW would play out. More scouts, more lordfights, more siege, more small groups, less getting blobbed down, less attacking failing before it started. The pluses are stronger than minuses. You can have good fights even with the reworked watchtower (which will still scout enemies so it won't reduce the amount of fights just response time!!! <-- see this?)

You can make the same arguments against Trailblazer and Marauder, but as has already been stated, the amount of time and effort WvW'ers have put into their gear makes it highly unlikely that ANET would launch an update replacing all of that with an amulet system, especially as some players don't even PvE, so if they can't use that armor in WvW, it effectively becomes worthless. Its ok, my heart knows that amulet system would take them 2 years to implement anyways. I just thought it was most reasonable solution to removal of Minstrel stats that don't fit any PvP mode. Well considering it's been 2 years since Alliances were announced, and still nothing, your timeline might be optimistic. But that wasn't my point. WvW players have spent huge amounts of resources on gearing up their characters, even if we are just talking about ascended gear and/or infusions. This is something you never had to do with Conquest mode (sPvP) as at worst you had to pay a few silver for 'white' quality weapons. No developer would ever seriously consider such a sweeping change as to make the hundreds/thousands of gold worth of gear that WvW players posses worthless. It just wouldn't happen. I play PvX, but I have several characters that I play solely in WvW. Still, if they did implement that change, I could use those characters and gear in PvE. But what about those players who only play WvW? All the resources they spent on gear would be in the bin. It just would never happen. I believe with reasonable timeframe of warning (lets say like 4 months) provided the gamemode meta would be better, people wouldn't mind it too much if it would allow WvW balance to be truly separated from PvE. I find it hard to believe anet would be held back by thought of a few people getting kitten if it would truly make the gamemode better place. But yeah I forgot about existance of WvW legendary armor when writing about it so it obviously the amulet system wouldn't work because it would make existing system obsolete. You must understand that thinking that other competitive people gaining stat selection is something away from you (note; if WvW legendary armor didn't exist), is shallow and selfish way of thinking which people would come around after a good nights sleep. its like PvE raiders complaining about PvP/WvW getting legendary armor. But yea you guys have convinced me that amulet system wouldn't work but I still believe the meta is boring and we need some serious balance changes. I have been advocating the amulet system in WvW for a while. They have no chance at balance at all without it. If WvW is meant to be a PvP mode, it should use PvP rules. The only difference from the PvP amulets that I am advocating for is; 1) It's split into 3, so you can mix and match some: Trinkets, Weapons, Armor. 2) Any infusion slots you might have still provide the infusion bonus. That would not only help balance, but also draw new blood. Yeah sure, the vets have all this Ascended gear, but new players do not. Which contrary to what people like to claim about it "only being 5%" still gives them an advantage. An amulet system for the mode would put newper players (often still with sub-par mixed sub 80 rares) on an more even playing field. You already can set cata's outside of watchtower range. Which is also outside of arrowcart range (that everyone complains about). In fact, catas still have a better range than a balista. But that would require people to take longer cause they can't set up right next to the wall and just tap the button on recharge. They would instead need to fully charge the cata to reach. Yet, that would put them outside the range of the arrow carts they all claim to hate and draw people out for the precious fights to break the catas... Actually I don't know whens the last time you used a catapult but fully charged catas do more damage per hit now compared to a tap, its about same speed the wall goes down with fully charged shots unless you have alacrity. I already included the watchtower range and catapults being able to take down some of the towers (not all), from outside range. The main issues with the watchtower system I have answering about were attackers not having variety, small groups/roamers being punished and scouts/communication losing its relevance. And I did know that you can cata from outside the watchtower range, your answer didn't change anything about the issues watchtower has. It is anti-fun. The issue of watchtower is not only taking tower, as I said my major incentive is not reducing defense of the towers, its opening up the map and options to players, especially in small groups. Detecting only siege weapons would still do similar thing, just delayed.

I am sorry but you are putting words to my mouth, I never said defensive sieges are the problem, I said inequal fighting grounds and monodimensional attacking are unfun and unfitting for competitive gamemode. I never suggested nerf to defensive sieges or that they're too strong. Shield generator, the only siege I talked about, is 90% an offensively used siege at higher level of WvW. Not a single time did I mention that any of the defensive siege does too much damage or fend defenders off too well. Having ascended-exotic set difference of stats is not okay in competitive gamemode. And its 2 sets difference between friendly and enemy keep. This makes existance of equally skilled, in fights, commanders, guilds or servers not exist. This means claim buff decides the outcome of fights instead of which side plays smarter with the tools they're given. Shield gens block any siege from being used. Of course this has to be so that the group has enough supplies to build shield generators in addition to siege. But basically large group meta is to attack with shield gens and it makes any defensive siege useless. Basically shield gen nerf would make it so that small group has a chance to at least buy time against large group that has 300+ supplies. I am not only suggesting only nerfs to defender stats, which shouldn't be a big deal to a player that thinks they don't do much, but also attacking power of large blobs. First we need equal fighting grounds by removal of overpowered stat buff (claim buff) and servers not having such a huge variance between weeks (having 2 different borderlands out of which 1 is unpopular), then they can actually fix the balance within gamemode. You must understand that I am aiming with these small changes, that you shouldn't think are the end of the WvW, for additional fun if you want to take the gamemode seriously or play actively by adding more meaningful decisions and less volatility between matchups/combat locations.

If you see I suggest both nerfs to defense (claim buff) and offense (shield gens) to promote more equal and skillful fight/siegeplay. You can't say it is unreasonable to ask for more equal stats near objectives (that cover pretty much whole map) and other offense strategies than shield-gen cheese being viable.And as I said, taken as your personal preference that's fine. But it wouldn't make wvw objectively better. I enjoyed wvw more back when tiering and defending objectives was more worthwhile. That's not a good reason for them to change it back, however . . . Actually if you read my post carefully, it includes 4 changes to make objectives more worthwhile to defend: Upgrade times would be increased by 25%. Obviously defending an objective that takes longer to upgrade, is more meaningful.Trebs/acs/ballista defenses would become possible with reworking of siege generator, meaning sieging up a keep is actually rewarding.Watchtower rework would make scouting and sieging towers/sides of keeps more meaningful.Claim buff nerf/removal means more equal fighting ground,, it doesn't directly make the objective/sieging more important but it makes wiping enemy inside your objective seem more glorious as you're beating opponents that actually have a chance to fight back.Additional point being, insuing from the change would be attacker having to actually use their brain to attack instead of just shield gens + catas/rams/trebs/golems and rush it down. Meaning you get to use brains as a defender as well, wow that sounds fun doesn't it?There will be more attempts to attack by fighting groups if they feel like they can actually beat the defenders. More attacks, activity of defense becomes more meaningful.You've just completely lost me now I'm afraid. If making something more difficult makes it better, why are you so motivated to punish all those poor unfortunate attackers by nerfing their challenge . . ?You seem to misunderstand, I don't only attack, I defend also so don't think me of a filthy blobber, I also scout and command defense/attack. I said attacking is one-dimensional in current system where 1 way of attacking counters all defensive siege one can build. Attacking and defending should have variety, which I believe all people should find more fun. Same regarding equal fighting stats. True there used to be times when upgraded objectives were worth same as unupgraded objectives. There are upsides to both, for your system it is that smaller groups can keep up with larger groups in points as easier to cap towers would have same value as higher value towers. This makes existance of small off-prime guilds and groups have way more value. I do believe the new system feels overtuned regarding how much more points upgraded objectives give and it could be reduced.. . Removal of desert map would remove the inequality within scoring system of WvW because some servers refuse to play Desert map. As I said, I don't mind desert map, I just believe it is eyesore for both people who play for both points and/or fights. It breaks too many matchups.There are a lot of classes I refuse to play even though they would make winning fights easier. That's not a good reason to take them away from ppl who are willing to play them . . .No I am talking about balance and matchfixing problems that exist because of the map. For me as a player who played lot of competitive games like Overwatch, Pubg, LoL, maplayout that is more equal and competitive is preferable within PvP gamemode. You are taking the PPT players away from WvW by making the matchups decided from the start. I just ask for 3 same borderlands, and alpine is the better choice.And anet -- with input from their players -- decided that offering variety was the better choice. They could instead alternate all of the maps to alpine or desert week to week, but that would alienate all of the players who are tired of playing on the same map all the time and all of the players who are unwilling to learn a new map. The current setup is the better option, esp since your main complaint seems to be about scoring which does not have any consequence anyway . . .Maybe you don't understand the point of view I am coming from because you're not on EU/you don't pay to attention to what other servers are doing; so let me explain; There exists servers within EU that don't play desert map. Okay so that means that one homelands is going to have no enemies. This means that a server that should be at higher tier, is traveling between 1 or 2 tiers that it doesn't belong to because the moment they get red side (go up in rankings), they stop playing their homelands.I feel it is perfectly right and just to punish players for refusing to play on a particular map, just as it is perfectly right and just for me to be punished for refusing to play easier classes. This is why I gave you that example . . .Let me give you an active example; imagine T1 where obviously the gamemode is designed to have the servers that play for also for points. So obviously each server is going to try to be the best. So now enters EU T1 currently where there resides a red-side server that has most likely won 0 skirmishes and isn't even trying to play, because they have desert map. 1st and 2nd place don't go down a tier. Meaning no one has a reason to take anything, the matchup is decided from a start. Now whole score system is meaningless. Would you remove the score system from WvW? No! Then remove desert map. Else every 2nd week in T1 will have no scoring system. And every 2nd week in T2 is ruined by a server having too much activity for it.You are correct that a team that chooses to forfeit decides the match before it begins. You are incorrect in arguing that is the fault of anyone other than the forfeiting team. And I would have nothing against removing the scoring system from wvw, but I don't think it would make wvw better. Winning can't mean anything until anet can create more balanced matchups, but it is one more thing to pursue and giving ppl a broader variety of goals is better as it increases the number of ppl who can find something they like to do . . .Lot of the balance in WvW issues are within claimbuff and player activity that changes week-to-week due to existance of desert map. As I pointed out it isn't just 1 or 2 servers, it is lot of commanders and guilds that do the same to desert map. Server should have similar strength from one week to next if there isn't internal changes, the map layout shouldn't decide that and create balance issues. I don't play on a server that doesn't play desert map, I just want WvW map layout to be more balanced so that good plays decide the matchups, not the colour of ones side. I didn't say it has anything to do with people who didn't play it. I said people who are playing this competitive gamemode should have working scoring system and timezones. Existance of 1 desert borderlands changes the way WvW plays from week to week so much that it has an negative impact to lot of matchups. Okay imagine this; 1 server plays desert map, another doesn't. It doesn't just affect both servers, not only the one that doesn't play it. Now imagine you're making a perfect WvW game, would it have 2 alpine maps and 1 desert map regarding scoring and matchmaking? Having 2 different kind of borderlands, out of which 1 is popular and 1 isn't, is a major issue within WvW making WvW more unbalanced for everyone, not just the people who don't play it. You can't have balanced matchups while the map exists. There are different forms of roaming. For example during offtime you will have better luck in EB where watchtowers cover most camps. There are some that like to sneak north towers for small skirmishes during off hours leaving them only 1 option for siege (catas at NW tower), not very creative is it. Maybe for your type of roaming it doesn't matter but you can't say that defending and taking camps/towers isn't part of roam life.Oh I'm certain the watchtowers affect someone, or ppl wouldn't bother slotting them. But they do not 'kill roaming' as you claimed . . . I only suggest reasonable changes within powers of Anet. Of course roaming has balance and mount-whatsoever issues, but I am suggesting to give back the most important thing, freedom, to roamers. And responsibility/coordination, to scouts (and to server as whole). I don't mind you downtalking watchtower change about how small the impact of it will be, but it would be positive change to overall look of WvW regardless by opening the map up more for groups of any size. To me the biggest effect removing the watchtower would have is it would make it easier for ppl to flip structures without a fight, and harder for ppl looking for a fight to draw one. That would be consistent with a lot of anet's recent choices making it easier to cap defended structures, but I don't see it as a positive change . . .If you read my suggestion carefully, I was suggesting to make the watchtower detect siege weapons (even build sites). Meaning lot of camps and towers would require an active scout. It seems you misunderstand the fact what a fight is, if the enemy shows up the moment the red dots show up, you won't be getting in the tower and getting an epic fight. You will be countered by cannons and acs before you even have a chance to get siege up. Now this change is also so that smaller groups (5-25 people) can play during daytime, because going to north towers on alpine maps, any eb tower with watchtower, is basically a suicide at the moment. Sure you can walk all the way around through the jumping puzzle and waste 1 minute to try to sneak NW tower on enemy border but then if you fail it feels even worse. Point is if there are more groups of different size going for objectives, there will be more fights. Atm the only way to take an upgraded objective is by Sneaking it (no red dots) or blobbing it down. Issue is that you need way more people to even attempt capping towers and camps than what is fun. WvW community will adapt to changes for watchtowers by promoting active scouting more. If you played pre-HoT, you would know there used to be dedicated scouts that sieged everything up and ran around, obviously the new watchtower would still help us massively but it wouldn't make their job obsolete at half the objectives while providing variety of defenses they can experience rather than just long-range catas by sneaky-sneakys. Another thought: What if the watchtower only activated when the objective is contested so that people can pass by it and it truly defends the objective and not just limit the map. This means smaller groups could build enough siege weapons (f/e 5 catas) before they contest it but will be detected as soon as they start cataing.

I am sorry but this was the correct action by the enemy blob. They tried to cap the keep before enough defenders showed up to wipe them due to all the defender advantages (Rushed it down)Once they didn't manage to cap the keep inside which enemy has 800 increased stats and countless other advantages, they went for easier objective where they actually have a chance to beat the enemy (400 stats, less time for enemies to gather).The stat difference of defenders and attackers is so massive that a bad group (roamers/scouts, no voice comms) without coordination can wipe a decent group (open tag, voice comms) with coordination with less numbers. Thats why taking your time to take objectives is pointless, thus using your brain to take them is not used. Imagine enemy commander being in same situation 100 times, which is reasonable, and he wiped 100 times. And you're asking him to do 101th time in hope of magical success? Do you think that enemy commander hasn't tested attacking ever? He knows how hard and unfun it is, he is a human with thoughtprocess and memories after all. Anyone who has lead actual zergs/blobs these days and pre-HoT days, knows it is like night and day, the difference of quality of fights within enemy objectives.Thats why I suggest the changes so that bruteforcing is not the correct play. Nerfing both claim buff (fighting for the objective is possible) and shield gens (brute force isn't an option if enemy has siege). So as I see, you should be for these changes, not against them.

Good to know. I didn't use plural tho, you did. There is a difference. Also to clarify context as it didn't seem clear; good player beating a good player means both having all skills available and builds ment for roaming/dueling. Not lets say you on a ranger, jumping on some God of PvP when he is half health from pushing through a choke of acs in a well necro build.I'm not sure why plural has anything do with it. If there has ever been a 1v1 at a keep, that doesnt exclude there has been another 1v1 at a keep... Hence players are involved. I chose to assume that good players have defeated good enemy players by enemy keeps in a multitude of 1v1, group fights or zerg fights over the years, not just good players only defeating bad players or good players in ascended gear beating all the good players in exotic gear. The context was clear enough for the two statements to be completely contradictory. The only flaw was that I also said inside keeps. I really shouldnt have, the buff is around the keeps (well, and towers) where many 1v1 and small skirmishes occur. On a personal level, in a 1v1 I honestly never cared. I either win or I loose. Ascended/exotic gear doesnt matter much - it's all about what builds/classes are brought and how good players are at using them effectivly. Most players will also have ascended trinkets (does anyone use exotic anymore?!?) and on top of that many will at least have the weapons, so the effective stat difference on the field is far less. Someone in exotic armor and the rest ascended will easily be able to match people in full ascended. Likewise I've never cared if the fight has been in an enemy keep or not. The buffed stats might help the enemy, but fights arent often that even. If they won they usually would have won without the buffs and the rest of the time... well I win. In a zerg fight however it's a whole different matter since the exponential gain of stats across players vastly increase the buffed zergs power (especially if it's an undefeat fully stacked zerg vs a defeated one). No actually the increased stats matter slightly less in zerg fights and it isn't exponential, if you increase the number of players to 10, the stat difference is also increased times 10, this isn't exponential, it's linear.Since you dont have infinite hp to absorb the AoE the effect becomes exponential. Every loss in a zerg means higher AoE damage across the living.Okay I give you that it is true in some, even most high-level, fights. Some fights everyone within the melee ball survive until everyone off it dies leaving so small melee ball alive that it didn't matter.