gloflop.3510

Imagine you are somewhere nicely gliding and suddenly the object gets in fight. You are then falling down to death. Do you really want this?

A major problem is that gw2 is designed for pve. The skills are then transferred to wvw. Of course, the skills are adjusted but if one would create a wvw-only game, it would look a lot different.

It would already be interesting to limit the number of transfers per world to maybe 25 players. Then full guilds cannot transfer anymore but individual players.

I am happy that the op raises an important topic. I agree that it is an issue that one cannot play in t5 if one starts in t1. Solving it by some kind of external measure does in my opinion not work because the purpose of the relink is to redistribute the strength level. So, if I am in a high K/D guild, I might end up with low K/D fellows in one world. The same is true for other measures. I would instead voice for a quick solution of the other problems by anet and the introduction of alliances as intended with world swapping to a limited extent and with longer link periods.

Anet would say that they don't like it but have more important issues to attend to. The key problem is an imbalance on the population. Else, one server does not have enough ppl. to spawn camp two other servers. You can easily overcome the spawn camping if you have enough players yourself since you have basically no distance for respawning while the enemy has to walk half of the map. Therefore, I would suggest to you to play on another map until you have enough people. Then you can break the camping siege.

There is also a riverside that is even below fsp. Let me explain the problem in short: Wsr decided during the last link that they are sick of being without a link and thus stopped playing to make them drop in their population. This also worked and wsr got a good link. The players all came back and started playing again. So, we now have an overcrowded server against 2 "normal" servers (I consider fsp as normal despite the outflow of players lately since riverside is even below). The problem will not vanish with the new system as guilds can stop playing for one link period and consequently have no activity level. Hence, coming back to the game fully would cause the system to become imbalanced.

I understand the commanders and that they want to have their ppl. on voice. I also understand the op who feels a bit pushed into a third-person software. I would also add another dimension: The discord servers are in principle a monopoly. The server owners can do whatever they want. They can also ban a certain player just because they can. The only option for a person is to pay money and transfer. The situation is not optimal like this.

Short answer: No Long answer: Such a list of WvW guilds would be a nightmare to keep up to date. It does not even work on my server accurately for the large raiding guilds. For all servers... no chance

I have been voicing for less classes/elite specs and not more since less classes are easier to balance. Else, I would prefer more variety as probably everyone else.

Let us forget the turtle for a moment. What kind of siege or mount would we like to have that does not cause an imbalance to the existing system? Here is my biggest concern. Of course we can introduce a new mount which is effectively as good as a warclaw or even less good. Then we can also save our time and not introduce it. We can also make it a shooting platform. A bit like a movable canon. The question then becomes if it causes an imbalance to fights or might be a blow to roaming. We can make it another movable mount with a catapult on top in the style of a golem. The problem might then be if a catapult then shoots from the higher position and whether the defender now would get an even harder life defending. All the obstacles which I described can be overcome. We just have to ask ourselves what kind of WvW we want to have and how the turtle would fit into it. Also, the question arises whether the time used for the siege turtle can be allocated to more important WvW projects.

All my opinion now Optimal would be to have for each class a viable power roaming option, a viable condi roaming option, and a viable zerg/blob option (maybe this also split by power and condi or support and damage). An optimal zerg and an optimal blob should still consist of a variety of different classes. It is not bad what we know have. It would just be nicer to have more classes viable like ranger or thief. Of course, this is just the major structure. Minor changes within the structure (e.g. less support classes, more viability of condi damge,...) are now neglected by me. However, they should also be taken into account. With roaming, the class should have little outcome on the result of a fight. The result should rather base on the skill level of the player instead. This is currently according to our trials within the guild less the case. It is more like: class A > class B, class B > class C, and class C > class A. So, if I play class A, I dodge class C and try to engage with class B. Class B is trying to dodge me and focusing on class C.

Let me say it like this: There were new elite specs introduced. What do you think, will it become easier or harder to get a good class balance done?

It is great and it is a problem. The players playing the different annoy each other. I don't know how often I heard "please leave the map, I cannot get my people in" or other players interrupting duels,... My suggestion would therefore rather be to create separate areas for the different ways to play. One can like this design optimal areas for the different ways to play. As an example, in a blob vs. blob, gates and walls are rather obstacles. A large open world would be more suitable. In the contrary, duelers need a more limited space to meet other duelers faster.

I was during the last releases rather lucky. I got this time some glitches which caused me to start the story instance again and of course the normal disconnects. I cannot remember similar issues with pof or hot release. So, I had this time maybe just bad luck.

The suggestion of the op basically means that I have to heal myself when ooc. I mean, I could go ooc, port to spawn, and would heal myself once, twice,... I will also have to wait for the cd. I mean, if I think the suggestion through, the complains about not healing when ooc will be a lot higher than the cry about the problem which should be fought.

I get furious when we lose a keep and no tactic was pulled entirely. When they are at the lord, the fight does not look good, yes then pull the EWP and pull the chilling fog. Is it the perfect moment in time? Maybe yes, maybe not. Is it better than losing the keep with the activation possible? Definitely yes

the reward track where I have to clean up my inventory least...

My concern with too many rewards in WvW is that then pve players come to wvw just for the reward. They feel forced to do WvW just because there is a reward. I personally would enjoy more player in WvW but I prefer those who actually enjoy to play WvW.

Outnumbered is for me a measure for the number of players on my map. Normally, it is also a measure for the players online of my world. So, if I am outnumbered, I know that defending makes less sense due to a shortage in number of players.

Then we will get lots of fun with class balance after EoD. As hard as it might sound: @anet please deactivate the elite specs until you found something like a balance with the new elite specs. I know that it will be massively unpopular but the other option is even more unpopular.

I think that we are all more and more going into a theoretical discussion. Is it theoretically possible that one world consists of 2000 accounts with a low activity and a second world consists of 1000 accounts with a higher activity? => Yes, it is. Does it happen that one world has 2000 accounts while another has 1000? => Only anet has the data and can say something for sure but I doubt it due to two reasons: 1) It never felt to me like I had a matchup in which such an imbalance occurred. 2) Anet would have communicated differently. Of course they would not say the numbers straight but between the lines would have admitted that they see a problem like this. @Xenesis.6389 collected relevant posts by anet. Feel free to read yourself. Will world restructuring make such an imbalance more likely? => It depends on how anet is programming their algorithm. However, from what I could read, they are aware of the problems surrounding population balance. It will just require some time for them to program.

It will be a challenge for anet to implement further measures than only "time online" to balance the teams. Anet can e.g. also consider coverage, hours commanding a squad, structures flipped while online,... Another problem is that all of anet's data relies on the past. To create the worlds, they assume that player will play in the future like they did in the past (playing hours, etc.). This assumption is unproblematic as long as a drop in their measures is non-systematic (meaning: if the playing time in WvW for all players goes down by 10%, there is not one worlds more affected than another). The hurdle is that entire guilds can leave the game mode or players can go to their secondary accounts. It both skews the balance.

@Sahne.6950 Your idea is in general not bad. However, I see some obstacles: 1) Will it be accepted by the players? We have many "fighting" players or "ppt-is a no" players. Those players will rather flip their eyes if your idea is implemented. 2) How long will it take until the idea is implemented? We all know that anet's devs doing their best but they are too few if you want to see an implementation within a reasonable time-frame. 3) Is it possible to exploit the system? Are player then camping at the spawn tower desperately hoping for someone to flip it so that they can fight for the easy carry back? Yes, I know one can find fixes for such issues but it will all go back to point 2). Please do not misunderstand me. I see the potential of your idea. It could be e.g. nice for a guild to try to cross the map while defending a particular player. However, to change the game mode in this direction, a lot of work needs to be done and will the work outweigh the time consumed? Are there maybe less time consuming ways to tackle the issue? When you ask me the question "how to revive roaming?", you would get the following suggestions: 1) Make it easier to engage in a fight with players by removing the dodging ability of mounts when trying to dismount. 2) Reduce options for players to disengage. Nothing is more annoying than fighting a player until he decides to run and one has to chase all across the map if one wants to have the kill. 3) Balance rewards. If I take wxp as example, I am earning a lot more if I run in a full blob compared to a solo player, since, if I kill as a solo player another player, I get the same reward as if I did a tiny bit of damage to a player in a blob-fight. The same is true for other forms of rewards. 4) Make fights more skill-based than class/build based. I mean, There are many cases where I can tell you the outcome of a fight before the fight started just by looking at the classes fighting. The more skilled player should win the fights instead of the random class-choice mechanism.

My guess is that they want to reward player for winning skrimishes/matchups. At least that was once the plan when alliances were first announced.

Although we have some tests and "beta" right now, we are still miles away from a finished version. The question of "transfers" is up to today not resolved although it is a very important one.