[Rip my server this week]

4 hours ago, Xenesis.6389 said:

Also CD probably doesn't belong in T1, they should drop and let BG come up.

BG is tanking and so is SoS, so Tier 1 is probably not going to change.

[Mike Z. Interview: World Restructuring News]

@"Knighthonor.4061" said:What I don't understand is how will this Alliance system adjust on the fly between resets. Let's say something happens and the alliance I am on, it's top guild stops playing the game for another game before reset hits. How will Alliances adjust for that before server reset period can reorganize the Alliance build?

Well if they are nice they won't select a "WvW" guild and will just be put into a random world. No system is going to be perfect, there's always going to be people leaving and joining/coming back to the game that affect population.

[Potential Future Balance Update and Future Plans for Competitive]

@L A T I O N.8923 said: There is not punnishment for opening a tome, spam the skills and close the tome( most of the fights last shorter then bringing all Tomes+weapon skills on cooldown in most inconvinient wat

There's no punishment for it because that would be extremely poor play and would hurt your squad more than not spamming the skills.

[N/A Server Pairings - Constructive Feedback]

Every pairing other than the BG one has suffered. Anet is not going to do manual pairings, they've just got some basic automatic one that gives every server an activity number, then links the 24 servers together to make the activity numbers for each pairing as close as possible. It works fairly badly since it doesn't take into account coverage, and hasn't reduced the NA matchups to 3 tiers.

[Bridging the current state of the game with alliances - contracting tiers, eliminating links.]

I agree with reducing the tiers from 4 to 3, however I think deleting the link servers and moving everyone to the 9 "biggest" host servers would be problematic. First it would alienate a lot of long time WvW players who would probably just stop playing if they were suddenly stuck playing for a new server. But more significantly, what happens if one of those 9 servers, or 3 or 4 of them starts hemorrhaging players a month or two after the removal of links? It would be similar to what is happening now on some links, but without any hope for the next relinking to balance things a bit. Transfers are questionable with just 9 servers, IMO -- would you make a smaller host server medium or high so people could still move to a new server if they needed to? Would that cause a problem if one of the stronger new hosts got bandwagoned because it went open for 2 days one week? (and it would happen just like it has happened in the current system).

Anyway, basically I just think reducing the tiers to 3 is the simplest bandaid for WvW right now. Removing links and deleting servers is much more complex and would require a lot more work on Anet's part (thousands of development hours).

[Alliances will not bring players and guilds back to WvW]

@Stand The Wall.6987 said:

@Diku.2546 said:snips

i'm not going to read anything you say because of the way you write posts. I find it annoying.

Yes, we can tell from each of your posts you're just here to troll.

[Alliances will not bring players and guilds back to WvW]

Yea, like several other people have said, Alliances won't make any difference now. The alliance system needed to come out a year ago at least. If it comes out in 6 or 12 months it's just going to be like 1 tier in the current system.

[WvW has been very slow for me and now it's starting to bother me.]

System specs, CPU, GPU, RAM, internet connection.

[NA WvW is in freefall]

@DeadlySynz.3471 said:

Numbers aren't a problem, players refusal to play is.

Lol, yes you're right, it's shocking that people would play a game more on the weekend than during the week. I can't think of any rational reason that might happen ;)

[Suggestion: World Completion through Reward Tracks]

I oppose this idea because someone from BG posted it ;)

[guild rankings wvw]

@Ni In.6578 said:

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@Ni In.6578 said:Yep, we do this already since ANet can't/won't. See

https://saltybeavers.com/

.

I think he was looking for something objective but I could be wrong

It clearly is objective.

It isn't, and half the guilds on the list don't even exist anymore.

[Server Criterias]

YB isn't full at the moment btw, only BG, FA and SF are. I'm pretty sure whatever algorithm Anet uses to determine whether a server is full or not is based off total player hours divided by 24 (the total number of servers on NA). If your server has 5% of the total player hours, server is flagged Full, 4% -- Very High, 3% -- high, 2% -- Medium. Approximately anyway.

[Henge of Denravi, the commoner's server, needs you]

@wolfboy.8475 said:LFGuild on HoD (PvE/WvW, NZST, Casual/semihardcore)

Yo im already on HoD so it would be cool to have people to play with on durring the day time and later at night to early morn :D

You should check the Looking for guild forum probably, this thread is like years old.

[eotm needs more love. :/]

It's a terrible map.

[Should the Transfer System be fixed?]

@Dayra.7405 said:

The only solution to this is: Reanimate EotM (which can adapt the number of parallel played maps), add EB to it and shut-down WvW (as WvW has always 4 maps per tier at every time, 2h a day full, 22h a day empty).Reducing the number of tiers to say 1-2, may help a bit as well, but at the cost of queues-from-hell in primetime, as peole tend to spread of into of-time, when primetime has mega-queue.

I think at least half the WvW player-base would quit if Anet replaced the WvW maps with EoTM. You can't just add maps as one side gets more players because what if the other side doesn't have more players? Are you just going to create an instance with one side having 30 players and the other side having zero?

[Scourges Sand Savant needs to be reworked.]

@subversiontwo.7501 said:I've said it before and I'll say it again. The Scourge was designed to be a 900-range type of build but with the 300yd spread it works like a 1200-range build.

That's fine, but if it's a 1200 range build then it's 5 targets not 10 targets like this thread is about.

[Should the Transfer System be fixed?]

When you really dig down, transfers are not the core problem, they are how a portion of the WvW player-base responds to the problem. The core problem is that there are not enough players across most timezones to balance out the matchups in every tier. I think the best solution on the NA servers is probably to reduce the tiers from 4 to 3 (there are rarely queues outside of reset nowdays). But I don't know if Anet sees that as a positive move.

[Scourges Sand Savant needs to be reworked.]

Reaper does more damage than scourge in the types of fights you are talking about, they just don't strip boons as well.

[can we please not let scourge hit 10 targets anymore]

@Chaba.5410 said:

@XenesisII.1540 said:I didn't say not in the top five or even top three of damaging classes in wvw, there's a difference.

No you didn't say that but there's a reason... Hint: 10 targets

No better way to nerf their damage and area denial while keeping their boon corrupts intact. Hint: 10 targets.

Reapers can do more damage than scourge, but scourge is better because of the boon strips.

[WvW insane matchup]

@aspirine.6852 said:

@Liston.9708 said:Pve only players do not affect server status and have not for several years.

Perhaps Anet takes the WvW dailies into account :P

What part of player hours is confusing you?

[The problem of WvW is that there is no real simultaneous offense and defense large scale fights]

WvW is basically designed to be similar to Dark Age of Camelot (DAoC), a three sided battle on multiple maps. Alterac Valley is not WvW, it's just a big 40v40 battleground -- two sides, not three and only on one instanced map. Each side did not split into 2 groups, it was just two zergs smashing into each other until one pushed the other back and overwhelmed the other side (30-40 would barely be considered a zerg now, but that's another topic). People really do split up into smaller groups in WvW to be effective, but as someone else pointed out, the population has a hard time sustaining it -- often times there is no tag on any map, and maybe just a handful of roamers in certain timezones. The game-mode is sort of designed with a decent amount of players being online, multiple tags on different maps, some attacking, some defending, but instead you often get one side with 40, and 5-10 people defending.

[Please remove HoT requirement of shield generators]

Frankly, no one is going to buy the expansions to deploy/use shield gens, so they should make that available to everyone. The mounts and gliding I suppose might entice someone to purchase one or both of the expansions, so I could see Anet leaving that as is.

[LF NA Server that is relatively active in WvW around ~10pm - 01am EST]

10:00pm - 1:00am EST is 7-10pm PST, Nic usually tags up at like 9:30pm PST. Most of the host servers have NA guilds that run 7-10pm PST.

[WvW Core Swap - Revenants?]

You "sky is falling" people crack me up. It's one week, it will be OK.

[Good active server]

Some activity numbers (kills+deaths) for select NA servers:

4. Northern Shiverpeaks - Tier 4 NA 89914
5. Anvil Rock - Tier 2 NA 86364
6. Crystal Desert - Tier 2 NA 71666
7. Ferguson's Crossing - Tier 2 NA 70587
8. Yak's Bend - Tier 4 NA 70527
9. Henge of Denravi - Tier 3 NA 69764
10. Stormbluff Isle - Tier 3 NA 65747
11. Tarnished Coast - Tier 3 NA 65482
12. Blackgate - Tier 1 NA 64852
13. Sea of Sorrows - Tier 1 NA 64734
14. Fort Aspenwood - Tier 1 NA 59446
15. Dragonbrand - Tier 4 NA 49896

Tier 1 has literally the least activity of any tier, so most servers prefer to bounce around tier 2-3 (tier 4 is kind of bad since DB needs a bigger link). This thread was probably going to get locked eventually even if I didn't make this post :expressionless: