Yuffi.2430

Drop (or reduce) boon-share. Boon share was mainly brought in for, and is tuned for, raid groups and not WvW. The original GuildWars intention was to avoid the Classic Trinity of DPS, Tank, Healer and somehow that got very lost over the years. If you make each player responsible for their own boons you can still build and train an effective team for squad play and you also give solo players a fair chance.

Arrow carts have a target cap of 25. If raising the target cap will fix wvw encounters, why are arrow carts so useless?

The question is what is the purpose of a tag in WvW? If you believe tags are there so all players can join the zerg and run the same route then having hidden tags denies people this option. However for guild groups who want to train as a group, or play without being a pug-magnet, hidden tags allow them to practice their teamwork.

This is still a problem.

Yes, more skilled players should be able to beat lower skilled. I know some players are fine 1v3 or so, but your OP gave the specific example of you attacking a blob, solo. Just why should a single good player be able to defeat 20 lower ability players? Most people blob because it's easy, and they may or may not be skilled. I've seen a group of 10 turn wipe a blob twice their size or more, but to suggest you should be able to do this solo is crazy. I understand the frustration of blobbing, but the way to cure this is to reduce boon share and cleanse sharing, not by upping the target cap.

Why would spawn camping be your only other option? There's plenty more to do: solo roaming, small group roaming, scouting, havoc squad, even join a zerg. I'm sure other players can fill in any gaps you are missing. If you want something that hits more than 5 players build an arrow cart or a cata - I don't think these are target capped. I'm just really bemused by the idea that you think you should be able to yolo a zerg, because that would be "fair". This is despite the fact that numbers matter in any combat. If you just want to make a point and go solo against a 20+ zerg then it really doesn't matter if you can only hit 5 max because you're going to die anyway. There's plenty you CAN do as a single player, even against a zerg. Pick out the stragglers, those who are out of place, take them down, onto the next... Better still join with another couple of players and learn how to carve a blob into smaller sections you can defeat. ALL this can be done without any changes to target capping.

1. Accept that you will die sometimes, especially at the beginning. Do not be put off by this, instead try to learn from each encounter. 2. Join a guild that plays some WvW. It's a lot more fun with friends and you will find you learn a lot from more experienced players. Good luck!

I am curious - you say you can't even attempt to attack a blob because you can only hit 5 of them (due to target capping). You must be trying to go against odds of over 5:1 because 5 or less would not be target capped. Are you really trying to solo an enemy zerg? And you expect this should be achievable??

Are you referring to the situation where servers might not play seriously during a match with the specific aim of either not going up a tier, or to drop down a tier? As far as I understand, Alliances will see the end of large servers. Teams will be made from more groups and this mix will be changed regularly by ANET with the aim to balance populations. I know of no guarantee that these building bricks will be moved up or down by a single tier. As far as I know, the only promise is to keep allied guilds together (if they stay within the population limit set for an alliance). If the over-riding aim is to balance population then players, guilds and alliances of guilds could be moved to any "tier" as ANET sees fit. Also, I wonder whether there will be tiers in the current sense at all? The team names from the beta might be used to establish tiers I guess, but if there is no player choice in where ANET put alliances or guilds then I don't see how there could be a bandwagon or tier manipulation... It will be interesting to see what happens.

So many of the posts I see that don't want Alliances use server pride as their main reason against the idea. The sheer size of the current servers makes it hard to create a reasonably balanced match-up so it makes sense to use smaller groups of people. Players have already created such smaller groups called Guilds. These offer ready made groups of people who already know each other and want to play together so it makes sense to use these to create teams with a better balance. To be honest, the death of WvW servers as a basis for matches started with the introduction of Megaservers for the cities, and was hastened by the linking system. This is just the next step on this journey and will benefit the majority of WvW players.

So now we get to your actual complaint. You don't like the idea that this change might break up your community feeling. If your community is a guild, then you should be fine because the whole point of these tests is to produce a working system that will let guild members play together. If your community is a server, then you could form an alliance based on your current group of guilds you play with. Many servers already did this for the test. Of course you could choose not to do this, or not to join this alliance when others form it, in which case you will loose your old server identity. At least you have a choice in this. When ANET created the linking system we have at the moment they ripped apart half the servers in the game - these became nomadic links with no control over where they were sent. We either had to stick it out or pay for transfers. Whether we liked it or not, ANET ruled that this was the way forwards, and to be fair it has meant that I see fewer empty maps now. The final version of Alliances is intended to allow ANET to make matches more evenly populated by using guilds as the main building blocks instead of massive log-in servers. This is, in fact, the solution to your "link servers better" demand.

I think you are still confusing the idea of "server" and "alliance". There won't be any fixed servers when Alliances goes live, and a single alliance of guilds won't replace them. Each world/team in WvW will be a one-off grouping made up of a mix of bigger and smaller groups. Some might be alliances of guilds, some might be single guilds, some might be individual players. These teams/groups will change over time. You can't "leave the servers alone" because they won't exist. Pugs will still exist, players will still play individually or in groups, but who you play alongside may change.

Why would you do this anyway? Both the alt guild accounts and the "main" guild accounts would only get 50% of the rewards they could get by playing full time. Who would play for half the reward? There would be no impact on server prestige (there are no servers) and no guarantee of where the two guilds would end up (they could even be on the same side!). Even the concept of using alt accounts for spying becomes less likely since you would have no guarantee where your alt account would end up unless you manage to sneak an alt into a rival guild... and I bet they would kick you quite quickly.

I'm sure guild claiming will work ok, just not 100% sure what the effect of swapping guilds would be, especially if the other guilds are on different matches. As long as I can stay in map while I swap back and forth I'll be happy.

I don't think it's just about not caring enough to manage the claiming rights. A couple of guilds I'm in give members the right to claim stuff, but as you suggest, claiming is a responsibility and I'll only change a claim if I know I'm the only one of us on a map.