Lets start a WvW Idea Topic. Maybe Anet will read it.

[hadesgangster.1963]

Hey I have some change Ideas for WvW and I think there are alot good Ideas and WvW Players will agree.

 

1. Change the U-Buff in 3 Types for the Balance

Low Ubuff -> If a Server had 20 Players more on the Map you get a Low Ubuff -> Every Siege -> Arrow Carts, Canons and and .. make 10% more Dmg.

Middle Ubuff -> If a Server had 30 Players more on the Map you get a Middle Ubuff -> Every Siege -> 20% more Dmg

High Ubuff -> if a Server had 40 Players more on the Map you get a High Ubuff -> Every Siege -> 30% more Dmg

With this Ubuff System People start to Deffend again their Keeps, Towers bcs now we have the Point if u havnt enough player u cant deffend, so nobody try to deffend but to deffend and hold things was a important thing in WvW and European Servers had a lot different timezones and this new Ubuff would help.. Ubuff right now gives u magic find and another useless things, make a right Ubuff which help Servers with few Players on different timezones to Hold their things and not to get more Karma, Magic find and another useless things lol.

2. Change the Rewards

If you wanna bring People back to the Content you need to give them better Rewards as in PvE or PvP.

3. Higher Server Transfer costs.

Make the Transfers to another Server more expensiv +800 Dias for every Transfer more. So people wouldnt change so easily to the best Servers.

4. Bring the we are a Server feeling back. Try to give Servers which win better rewards like Titles , Symbols on the Head, better Magic find and more (for 1 Week)  -> before u do this u need to look at Point 3.

5. Again Events like the Tournament before some years, bcs Events like this bring alot new Players into WvW and some of them learning the Content. There are a lot Player which doenst know what WvW really is and maybe they will stay but this time before u bring Events like this dont let the people Transfer to the best Server. After the Announcement anyone which Transfer dont get rewards.

6. Close some European Servers like 6 Servers and remove Linksystem bcs (look at Point 4). If Servers get again High Population in WvW u can open again new Servers.

7. Alliancesystem never will work -> if you wanna make a System for change the Balance in WvW than make the Limit from Guilds to 100 People u can only choose a guild with 100 players for alliance if a guild had more than 100 players u cant choose it for alliance bcs with 500 People Guilds u will have again the same Problem like right now some strong Guilds which join into the best Server will join with this Alliancesystem to the best Guild and kill everyone. This System never change anything from WvW.

 

Anet.. WvW is one of the best Contents do right things for it and not useless things before one of the best Parts from the Game die.

 

Edited January 16, 2022 by hadesgangster.1963

[Telgum.6071]

Point 2 is already confirmed, just in queue after Alliances.

Points 3, 4 and 6 are irrelevant with Alliances + new reward system.

Point 7 is simply weird. It seems everyone on this subforum has a different approach to how WvW should be and somehow everyone thinks their approach is better than the system that has been asked for years and is finally on development.

[hadesgangster.1963]

11 minutes ago, Telgum.6071 said:

Point 2 is already confirmed, just in queue after Alliances.

Points 3, 4 and 6 are irrelevant with Alliances + new reward system.

Point 7 is simply weird. It seems everyone on this subforum has a different approach to how WvW should be and somehow everyone thinks their approach is better than the system that has been asked for years and is finally on development.

 

Alliancesystem will never work, thats why i am telling to change Guilds to 100 Members. The Problem of the Balance is that a lot Guilds change from Server to Server. How you wanna stop that if you have the same thing with Alliancesystem and 500 Players in 1 Guild? If Anet will keep this System they need to change the Limit if not we have the same thing again.

In the Beta right now we have 20 Randoms on Spawn which waiting for their Pips and only Guilds are fighting. Its WvW and not GvG.

And Point 1 to 6 are Ideas for right now not included the Alliancesystem (bcs in my eyes this System wouldnt change anything of the Balance) I think Anet got alot Stats and can see that alot People leave every Beta this Content.

Edited January 16, 2022 by hadesgangster.1963

[subversiontwo.7501]

Point 1 is simply your inexperience talking. Siege never filled the role that tower heroes have always hoped for. The main reason siege got nerfed had to do with how it shaped class- and build balance. It never impacted groups beyond forcing groups to be more selective about what they let in and how they organised. In short, it never stopped groups. It just made undertanked builds and classes (like Backliners or Staff Elementalists) less welcome in groups.

It is always amusing to see players complain about tanky well-organised groups also complaining about the strength of siege, since the stronger siege encouraged tanky well-organised groups and made them comparatively better to more casual and open groups at assaulting defended objectives. I'm sure you can see the logic in it when spelled out.

The more difficult you make assaulting defended objectives, the more exclusive you make it and the more favourable you make it to well-organised, well-supported and well-tanked groups that less organised players like to complain about. If only the "best" can take objectives, no one else will be able to and attemped sieges will just be fewer and tasked to specific groups when they play. Is that fun or the result you look for when you think about it? I'd guess no.

Edited January 16, 2022 by subversiontwo.7501

[Telgum.6071]

12 minutes ago, hadesgangster.1963 said:

In the Beta right now we have 20 Randoms on Spawn which waiting for their Pips and only Guilds are fighting. Its WvW and not GvG.

Nope, not "on the beta". On your server. On mine we have public tags, guilds and roamers.

12 minutes ago, hadesgangster.1963 said:

Alliancesystem will never work, thats why i am telling to change Guilds to 100 Members. The Problem of the Balance is that a lot Guilds change from Server to Server. How you wanna stop that if you have the same thing with Alliancesystem and 500 Players in 1 Guild? If Anet will keep this System they need to change the Limit if not we have the same thing again.

What won't work is trying to circumvent guilds like that. Why should we punish guilds with +100 members? What is the difference between a 500 men guild and five allied guilds with 100 members on each one? Why should we make server transfers more expensive while also reducing the guild member limit? I fail to see the benefit of this.

Edited January 16, 2022 by Telgum.6071

[hadesgangster.1963]

15 minutes ago, subversiontwo.7501 said:

Point 1 is simply your inexperience talking. Siege never filled the role that tower heroes have always hoped for. The main reason siege got nerfed had to do with how it shaped class- and build balance. It never impacted groups beyond forcing groups to be more selective about what they let in and how they organised. In short, it never stopped groups. It just made undertanked builds and classes (like Staff Elementalists) less welcome in groups.

It is always amusing to see players complain about tanky well-organised groups also complaining about the strength of siege, since the stronger siege encouraged tanky well-organised groups and made them comparatively better to more casual and open groups at assaulting defended objectives. I'm sure you can see the logic in it when spelled out.

So u wanna tell me that 5 players vs 25 Players if they get a Ubuff with 10% Siege dmg is to much ? or maybe u wanna just overrunning with your full server the Servers which have few Players? I think if you have few Players to get a Siege Buff for holding your things isnt to much for a Balance. People dont deffend if they see oh there is a 30+ Zerg and we are 5 Players lets go off why the f... i should hold this bcs they know they have no chance to hold their things if there is Zerg with 30 ppl more but if this Players get a Siege buff maybe they get a chance to deffend right. I am dont talking about Class and Build Balance i am talking about Servers where are nobody is there to give them few Player a Chance to hold things and not to think ohhh they are more than us just let it flip.

Edited January 16, 2022 by hadesgangster.1963

[subversiontwo.7501]

7 minutes ago, hadesgangster.1963 said:

So u wanna tell me that 5 players vs 25 Players if they get a Ubuff with 10% Siege dmg is to much ? or maybe u wanna just overrunning with your full server the Servers which have few Players? I think if you have few Players to get a Siege Buff for holding your things isnt to much for a Balance. People dont deffend if they see oh there is a 30+ Zerg and we are 5 Players lets go off why the f... i should hold this bcs they know they have no chance to hold their things if there are coming a Zerg with 30 ppl more but if this Players get a Siege buff maybe they get a chance to deffend right. I am dont talking about Class and Build Balance i am talking about Server where are nobody there to give them few Player a Chance to hold things and not to think ohhh they are more than us just let it flip.

I am saying that it wouldn't change anything or not change the specific thing you are hoping for it to change.

It would only change other things, if anything at all.

The truth is that depending on who you are and what you do, you are going to look at the opportunities of 5+tower versus 25 loosely organised players in very different ways.

Edited January 16, 2022 by subversiontwo.7501

[hadesgangster.1963]

14 minutes ago, Telgum.6071 said:

Nope, not "on the beta". On your server.

What won't work is trying to circumvent guilds like that. Why should we punish guilds with +100 members? What is the difference between a 500 men guild and five allied guilds with 100 members on each one? Why should we make server transfers more expensive while also reducing the guild member limit? I fail to see the benefit of this.

 

Yeah than on my Server. Maybe u got luck and got a better Server than me. I think u choose an Alliance. Play the Alliancesystem as a Random and look how WvW will be if u dont have a Alliance and that should bring new Players into this Content lmao.
If u have a 100 Members Guild u can do a better Balance as with a Guild where are 500 Players inside. Thats the different. If u talking about Balance and the same Guilds which change together the Server .. they will change it now again with Guilds/Alliancesystem so you cant talk about balancing anything.

[hadesgangster.1963]

15 minutes ago, subversiontwo.7501 said:

I am saying that it wouldn't change anything or not change the specific thing you are hoping for it to change.

It would only change other things, if anything at all.

The truth is that depending on who you are and what you do, you are going to look at the opportunities of 5+tower versus 25 loosely organised players in very different ways.

I dont say that this will change anything but it would help people more as a Ubuff with Karma, Magicfind and other sh...t. If trebs and other Sieges make more dmg u could remove enemy Sieges faster and hold things longer and maybe help will come. We have in this Game a Deffend Problem nobody try to hold something if the Enemy Zerg is bigger maybe that would change it a little bit.

Edited January 16, 2022 by hadesgangster.1963

[Telgum.6071]

16 minutes ago, hadesgangster.1963 said:

Yeah than on my Server. Maybe u got luck and got a better Server than me. I think u choose an Alliance. Play the Alliancesystem as a Random and look how WvW will be if u dont have a Alliance and that should bring new Players into this Content lmao.

Well yes, of course I picked a guild, why wouldn't I? You didn't? If you are a roamer, why wouldn't you roll with other roamers and risk being matched with an alliance of k-train players?

Truth is I didn't pick a guild on the previous beta and my experience was the same than now. 

16 minutes ago, hadesgangster.1963 said:

If u have a 100 Members Guild u can do a better Balance as with a Guild where are 500 Players inside.

How? There is no difference between a guild organizing 500 players and five guilds organizing 100 players to do the same. Honestly this sounds more like a rant against big guilds.

Edited January 16, 2022 by Telgum.6071

[hadesgangster.1963]

1 minute ago, Telgum.6071 said:

Well yes, of course I picked an guild, why wouldn't I? You didn't? If you are a roamer, why wouldn't you roll with other roamers and risk being matched with an alliance of k-train players?

Truth is I didn't pick a guild on the previous beta and my experience was the same than now. 

How? There is no difference between a guild organizing 500 players and five guilds organizing 100 players to do the same. Honestly this sounds more like a rant against big guilds.

 

The Problem is u just watching the Beta from your Point but u are not allone in this Beta. There are 1000 Randoms and 1000 New Players too which wanna play this Content too and they will never join into this Content if they get the same experience like me. I didnt choose a guild bcs i want to see Alliance as a Random and its horrible.
 

The difference is... the 5x 100 Player Guild dont play always together bcs Anet create the Balance but the 500 Player Guild you cant change anything there they will always play together if they are strong or not.

[subversiontwo.7501]

32 minutes ago, hadesgangster.1963 said:

I dont say that this will change anything but it would help people more as a Ubuff with Karma, Magicfind and other sh...t. If trebs and other Sieges make more dmg u could remove enemy Sieges faster and hold things longer and maybe help will come. We have in this Game a Deffend Problem nobody try to hold something if the Enemy Zerg is bigger maybe that would change it a little bit.

If you read what I wrote you'd learn that it is exactly the thing it wouldn't solve. It would not help the worse against the better or the smaller against the larger but it would make it more difficult for evenly sized, dedicated or matched groups to fight over objectives and it would make groups more careful about who they brought or what they did.

So you would create a problem without solving another, specifically solving the one you hope to. Siege is not a good way to attempt closing gaps in numbers, experience or dedication. You underestimate just how far ahead they push. You could double or tripple the siege damage and you would just cause problems without solving the one you hope.

Edited January 16, 2022 by subversiontwo.7501

[hadesgangster.1963]

33 minutes ago, subversiontwo.7501 said:

If you read what I wrote you'd learn that it is exactly the thing it wouldn't solve. It would not help the worse against the better or the smaller against the larger but it would make it more difficult for equally sized- or experienced groups to fight over objectives and it would make groups more careful about who they brought or what they did.

I am not on the same opinion like u bcs first u dont get Ubuff if there are alot players on your Server. And 2nd the equally sized- or experienced groups dont need the right classes if they are scared about more sieges dmg and havnt the right classes in the zerg they only need the right strategy to take keeps,tower. They are more People maybe attack from both sides or to use Sieges too to destroy deffender sieges to take keeps. At the Moment they just overrun everything and its easy Karmatrain vs Servers with few Players and thats bulls....t. I love to fight too but to deffend things is an important part of the Game which is dead and people just let everything fall when every commander stop to lead. If they change the Ubuff i am sure the last commander will build deff for the few Players and stop to lead and maybe they have a chance or not.

I agree with the Point that Anet nerfed Sieges bcs people used in fights Sieges or it was hard to get a Keep with Sieges and a Zerg inside or that People used in a Openfieldfight Sieges like Arrow Carts (*cough* Kodash *cough) in this Points, Sieges shouldnt make alot Dmg, but if a Server has few Players Anet should Buff Sieges (with Ubuff) to give them a Chance to hold things.

Edited January 16, 2022 by hadesgangster.1963

[subversiontwo.7501]

53 minutes ago, hadesgangster.1963 said:

They are more People maybe attack from both sides or to use Sieges too to destroy deffender sieges to take keeps. At the Moment they just overrun everything and its easy Karmatrain vs Servers with few Players and thats bulls....t. I love to fight too but to deffend things is an important part of the Game which is dead and people just let everything fall when every commander stop to lead. If they change the Ubuff i am sure the last commander will build deff for the few Players and stop to lead and maybe they have a chance or not.

So you assume the reason for these issues are that siege is not strong enough and/or that it could be solved by making siege 30% stronger when heavily outnumbered?

See, I'm starting to assume that you're not willing to listen and learn, but is the reasons perhaps not more that defending is impossible against a server that has better coverage and can take your objectives when they are not defended? Perhaps almost a decade of that being the case has made people less willing to defend and a result of that is that people are less knowledgable about defending? They assume simple suggestions to siege do or can do things they simply don't. Isn't that more plausible? Over near a decade of experience, years of decadence and splits - between self-minded public casuals unwilling to listen and private dedicated players who organise - there are major differences between what people can do and what people do. Balancing is about what you can do, not what you do, especially not if you are inexperienced or uninformed and even less so if you are unwilling to listen and learn.

Again, I'm not trying to say that you shouldn't be concerned about defending, numerical disadvantages, that players are prone to play musical karma chairs or other mini games because there are balance issues in the game. There are balance issues and people are not defending. I've just said from the get go that what you are proposing is not going to solve those issues that you want to solve. Your suggestion is just not going to do anything about it and I've tried telling you why. You solve population issues by balancing populations, you solve willingness to defend by balancing coverage and there is no larger balance issue between attacking and defending that needs to be adressed beyond players learning what is possible to do. Perhaps it is working as intended and changing the balance of it is more likely to imbalance it than balancing it better.

Edited January 16, 2022 by subversiontwo.7501

[Telgum.6071]

12 hours ago, hadesgangster.1963 said:

The Problem is u just watching the Beta from your Point but u are not allone in this Beta. There are 1000 Randoms and 1000 New Players too which wanna play this Content too and they will never join into this Content if they get the same experience like me. I didnt choose a guild bcs i want to see Alliance as a Random and its horrible.

But aren't you doing the same by saying that IN YOUR EXPERIENCE is horrible? 

12 hours ago, hadesgangster.1963 said:

The difference is... the 5x 100 Player Guild dont play always together bcs Anet create the Balance but the 500 Player Guild you cant change anything there they will always play together if they are strong or not.

I really don't understand what are you trying to say here, but I guarantee you, there is no difference.

[hadesgangster.1963]

On 1/16/2022 at 3:08 AM, subversiontwo.7501 said:

So you assume the reason for these issues are that siege is not strong enough and/or that it could be solved by making siege 30% stronger when heavily outnumbered?

See, I'm starting to assume that you're not willing to listen and learn, but is the reasons perhaps not more that defending is impossible against a server that has better coverage and can take your objectives when they are not defended? Perhaps almost a decade of that being the case has made people less willing to defend and a result of that is that people are less knowledgable about defending? They assume simple suggestions to siege do or can do things they simply don't. Isn't that more plausible? Over near a decade of experience, years of decadence and splits - between self-minded public casuals unwilling to listen and private dedicated players who organise - there are major differences between what people can do and what people do. Balancing is about what you can do, not what you do, especially not if you are inexperienced or uninformed and even less so if you are unwilling to listen and learn.

Again, I'm not trying to say that you shouldn't be concerned about defending, numerical disadvantages, that players are prone to play musical karma chairs or other mini games because there are balance issues in the game. There are balance issues and people are not defending. I've just said from the get go that what you are proposing is not going to solve those issues that you want to solve. Your suggestion is just not going to do anything about it and I've tried telling you why. You solve population issues by balancing populations, you solve willingness to defend by balancing coverage and there is no larger balance issue between attacking and defending that needs to be adressed beyond players learning what is possible to do. Perhaps it is working as intended and changing the balance of it is more likely to imbalance it than balancing it better.

 

Nop sorry but you are wrong. Before some years it wasnt the same and People Deffend the Keeps when we get Attacks from 70vs 30 we could hold things. Now its impossible. Anet pushed the Heal and Support of many classes and nerfed the Sieges and most of the time when Player enter your Keep its over, some good Zergs just staying inside without flipping and farming the few Player Servers which running and running and try to hold it without a Chance. That isnt a Player Problem because Player cant deffend. Everyone can learn it easily how they can deffend something but if you have no Chance you will never learn it. As i started with Gw2 and played WvW the People was trash too and nobody know how to deffend but there was some Players which started to learn it and People which helped them. I dont say that this will solve the Problem of Unbalancing but its a fact that one Part of WvW died, to deffend things and hold things. Look at the prices of Arrow Carts and u will understand.

Example: We build in Bay 3 Arrow Carts outside, which attack the Lordroom. There was a Zerg like 45-50. With 3 Arrow Carts + 20-25 Player we couldnt kill a good Zerg which just chilling in the Lordroom and killed us 4 times. So if I see a Fight like this, i only can watch how People Flip that sh** bcs the Heal and Support can tank easily this 3 Arrow Carts and the Damage of 20-30 People and now u wanna talk to me that this Gameplay is correct like this? Maybe it wouldnt change the Unbalancing but in Situations like this u dont look so helpless bcs if u get a Damage Buff for Sieges in this Moment they couldnt stay in lordroom like "i dont give a fu** about your 3 Arrow Carts just build more"

Edited January 18, 2022 by hadesgangster.1963

[hadesgangster.1963]

On 1/16/2022 at 2:34 PM, Telgum.6071 said:

I really don't understand what are you trying to say here, but I guarantee you, there is no difference.

 

Loook: If u got 20 x 100 Member Guilds or 4x 500 Guilds isnt the same because u can mix 20 Guilds better as 4 Guilds. If u get a strong 500 Member Guild u cant put the People out of it they will always play together but with 100 Member Guilds u cant build strong Guilds and can split them better. If the Alliancesystem stay like this with 500 Members in 1 Guild it wouldnt change the Problem of Unbalancing because Guilds which change together the Server and destroy the Balance will change together the Guild with Alliance. Same Sh** different Systems. Alliance will make more Problems bcs WvW will lose more Players. If a Random joins into WvW he wouldnt have fun and if he hasnt fun, he will never stay in WvW or wouldnt be a WvW Player. This Content need new Players and Alliance isnt a System for new Players. Its a System for Guilds which wanna play together without Transfercosts.

If Anet wanna to implement this System they need to change the Limit of Guilds or this System is useless like I said same sh** different names. Nothing will change.

[Stand The Wall.6987]

the problem with these kinds of posts is that people would rather poke holes in someone elses ideas rather then present their own.

[Sigmoid.7082]

1 hour ago, Stand The Wall.6987 said:

the problem with these kinds of posts is that people would rather poke holes in someone elses ideas rather then present their own.

These threads only go in one direction because people are so headstrong in the belief that their idea is "the" idea. Instead of "Ok, what are your ideas?" its "No, you're wrong for not liking what I propose and let me tell you why... / If these changes aren't made the game will fail". A lot of the time, despite the naming of the threads, I don't think people are looking for open discussion. People are not very open to criticism or disapproval of their ideas.

 

This one is a case of the above. It literally opens with "Hey I have some change Ideas for WvW and I think there are alot good Ideas and WvW Players will agree." and ends with  "Anet.. WvW is one of the best Contents do right things for it and not useless things". Or to paraphrase "everyone agrees with me, I am right, do as I say or fail."

 

This isn't a topic about general WvW ideas and collating info like its titled, its a topic about OPs WvW ideas and why they are right.

[Stand The Wall.6987]

1 hour ago, Sigmoid.7082 said:

These threads only go in one direction because people are so headstrong in the belief that their idea is "the" idea. Instead of "Ok, what are your ideas?" its "No, you're wrong for not liking what I propose and let me tell you why... / If these changes aren't made the game will fail". A lot of the time, despite the naming of the threads, I don't think people are looking for open discussion. People are not very open to criticism or disapproval of their ideas.

 

This one is a case of the above. It literally opens with "Hey I have some change Ideas for WvW and I think there are alot good Ideas and WvW Players will agree." and ends with  "Anet.. WvW is one of the best Contents do right things for it and not useless things". Or to paraphrase "everyone agrees with me, I am right, do as I say or fail."

 

This isn't a topic about general WvW ideas and collating info like its titled, its a topic about OPs WvW ideas and why they are right.

the title is lets start a wvw idea topic, yet no one is presenting any of their own ideas. only one person is even attempting to explain why the OPs ideas won't work. you don't have to play into someone being head strong at all anyway. thats not something you can control or ever expect to change, so why feed it? the topic can be about the title but people don't want it to be. you aren't forced to respond to something you think is wrong, but its easier to then to assert what you think is right.

[subversiontwo.7501]

7 hours ago, Stand The Wall.6987 said:

the title is lets start a wvw idea topic, yet no one is presenting any of their own ideas.

You're making the mistake of assuming that what he is providing are ideas when he is mostly just stating oppinions about things that have been discussed for the past 10 years. I'm not saying people have to keep up with everything that has ever been discussed here or be original at every turn. However, if what was presented was truly ideas, good ideas that were well put together and he had done even a smidge of reading before blurting the thread out then maybe people would be more constructive in their replies.

I had no interest in just shooting the guy down, I was mostly interested in helping him learn (against his wishes, it seems) so I overlooked most of his other points but if you adress them one by one briefly you can see a trend about raising transfer costs though I presume him never having transfered or understand the machinations behind why transfer cultures have developed. I can see him talk about bringing server communities back though I presume that he has never been active in organising and leading such communities. He suggests closing servers down but I can bet you a handful of coins that closing his own server down is not on the table for him. That is reinforced by his complaints about world restructuring because that would mean closing his server down.

So what suggestions do we have to talk about here? This thread just another tired rehash of the same thinly veiled complaints we've seen ramping up here that belong in r/ choosing beggars better than they do here. The main reason I keep posting here, against better judgement, is that I see having a forum that almost only has new players complaining about their own inadequacies reflects poorly on the game. I seem to care more about that than the devs do, so there is reason to back off often enough.

 

Edited January 19, 2022 by subversiontwo.7501

[hadesgangster.1963]

18 hours ago, Stand The Wall.6987 said:

the title is lets start a wvw idea topic, yet no one is presenting any of their own ideas. only one person is even attempting to explain why the OPs ideas won't work. you don't have to play into someone being head strong at all anyway. thats not something you can control or ever expect to change, so why feed it? the topic can be about the title but people don't want it to be. you aren't forced to respond to something you think is wrong, but its easier to then to assert what you think is right.

Thank you! But thats a hard WvW Problem. I was leading for 3 Years. I did a break from 6 Years and I started to play again with August 2021. I have in 3 Years a WvW Playtime from 5k hours. I am Commander and old Leader on a German Server. I asked and talked with a lot People which told me they dont wanna play WvW bcs the loot there is sh**, its better in PvE or PvP and yeah there are some People which play Contents for Loot (but everyone starts small and maybe they will be interested in this Content if they understand WvW). So I took the Opinion not from 1 Guy ... from many Guys. I decided to write this in German WvW Thread. The people there said: WvW dont need more Loot bcs the Guys flooding the Maps for Loot and we cant play. And I asked them which Players? After a break from 5 Years WvW looks dead as hell and we are 2 Servers atm and you wanna tell me if Anet bring better Loots for WvW the Maps get full? Wtf thats what I want man FULLL MAPS NOT EMPTY (and maybe they stay and like WvW and if not they are doing the same like now they stay on spawn for Pips). And now same Guys here. I asked for Ideas to make WvW better again and the Guys here just killing every Idea with their comments (or better to say they tried it). And this Guys are the same Guys which cry everyday about WvW why Anet doing anything for this Content.

If a Zerg from 40-50 Guys can stay into 3 Arrow Carts and 20-30 Player without moving and the Player here wanna tell me that People dont know how to deffend sorry but nothing to say about that. If Zergs stay into Towers and Keeps and dont killing the Lord bcs they waiting for farming the Players sorry nothing to say. Maybe the Guys here are right and the Ubuff with Damage Siege Buff wouldnt help but its better as you look helpless and they are chilling in your Keeps and Towers. Before u wanna make a Balance start to fix the simple things. Nerf the Support and Heal or push the Sieges Damage if you have few Player (give them a Chance to do anything if they start to deffend with this Buff or not its another question). Thats 1 of the simplest things which destroy at the Moment the Ingame Balance and why People give a f*** about holding or sometimes flipping things (bcs they only want Bags).
And that isnt the Hard Problems of this Content there are more of them. But if Player always say that doesnt help or this Idea doesnt help nothing will change. So Anet maybe read Threads or not and they see ohh everything is ok let the Content run without changes.
WvW Players play the same Meta like 4 Years now. I talked with my old Guildmates before 4 Years and they told me Healing Ball is new Meta everyone run on this atm. After this Message 3 Years gone, I am back and its the same Meta with small changes.
WvW before 5 Years there was caster, frontliner (which played offensive too), focus group and and and a lot different Guild Zergs and everyone play different some Guys/Guilds more on Dmg other Guys played deffensiv and and.. Now from 2018 to 2022 everyone play the same sh**. Why Anet sleep here if u see Heal and Support is to strong start to nerf it for different plays ingame. On every Content if something is to strong they Nerf it like Condi, Dmg or something else but only WvW they are doing nothing.4 Years same Meta really gg for the Guys, Servers and Guilds which play everyday same sh** without them getting bored.

 

And the biggest Fail is the WvW Community self. Nobody love WvW like before some Years. WvW changed to a "how can I be better". Server Feelings or to be proud of your Server get killed with Link Servers. But the biggest Problem is nobody is talking about. There are 2-3 Guys in WvW Forums and they try to kill every Idea but where are the other 99% of the WvW Community which doesnt like the WvW atm where are this Guys which everyday talking in Teamspeak with Ideas and changes or hating the Content bcs its dead. Here is the only way how we can reach Anet maybe and if nobody talking about the Problems and what they want or what changes they want for WvW. What should Anet do ? Nothing. If you dont like the Content then write it here. But to be silent and crying everyday ingame will not solve the WvW Problems and to hope that Anet will change everything right is wrong bcs you Guys are the Community not Anet. If you dont tell your Opinion bcs 2-3 Guys dont like your Ideas in Forum so nothing will changed. The complete WvW Community should tell Ideas and things here in this WvW Topics/Threads and maybe a lot Guys feel the same Ideas. And again I never talked about that my Ideas are the best or something but I talked as a Commander and a active WvW Player with Guys in WvW and brought the Voices of some of them and my Voice into this Thread and maybe Anet read it and will do something. I am telling you guys again if you dont like WvW right now write it here dont be silent - this is the only Way how u can tell your Ideas or your thoughts about this Content and maybe if Anet see it and see a lot Ideas and thoughts of everyone maybe they will start to change something. Tell your Opinion and be always ready to be able to argue why you wanna change this and this. Its easy to call everything sh** but not easy if someone can argue why. 

Edited January 19, 2022 by hadesgangster.1963

[kamikharzeeh.8016]

only point worth commenting is #1

 

the idea is not new, we had kinda discussion several times. variable buffs at outnumbered, maybe improving by difference of player amount %.

 

just, it is absurd to buff SIEGE with it. like why on earth would u do that? it has to buff player stats so they can defend, not the siege weapons.

 

literally all other points are "answered" by the basic plan for alliances.

 

the #2 also is mentioned in a lot of posts. yeah anet really should give us more/new/useful/better rewards for the big amounts of playtime we spend in Wvw. so it's kinda adequate for the spent time at least.

 

___

u mix a lot of stuff in there now. the Wvw meta is obvously not changing, how would it? i mean we changed a few builds adapting to the retal removing and due to the lower dmg in feb20, but otherwise, no real room for anything.

 

to have optional builds, there would be buffs of a ton of weapon skills and abilities necessary. u saw how a weapon skill buff can work @ dragonhunter longbow. i don't think any other weapon got the same treatment tho (engi rifle got better ok, that matters not for cleanse/heal scrapper tho)

[BloodRavenz.6084]

On 1/15/2022 at 6:57 PM, hadesgangster.1963 said:

 

7. Alliancesystem never will work -> if you wanna make a System for change the Balance in WvW than make the Limit from Guilds to 100 People u can only choose a guild with 100 players for alliance if a guild had more than 100 players u cant choose it for alliance bcs with 500 People Guilds u will have again the same Problem like right now some strong Guilds which join into the best Server will join with this Alliancesystem to the best Guild and kill everyone. This System never change anything from WvW.

 

 

this whole comment shows a lack of understanding about how those "big" alliances work.

 

you won't find say the top 5 WvW guilds all team up together to roll over anyone they run into.  That would not benefit them at all and would not be something they want.

 

Those strong guilds do not care that much about turning the map their color, or rolling over clouds of randoms.  That is boring as hell.

 

Those guilds want the fights and they want to fight good teams because that is interesting, that is fun to them.

IF anything this will spread things out more even so each matchup will have something like even numbers. instead of the current matchups where there is often 1 out of 3 servers that are horribly outmatched numbers wise and is not able to really compete 

 

[DanAlcedo.3281]

Buffs, buffs and even more buffs to everything that isn't Guard, Necro, Scrapper and Rev (Power). 

The power level gap between the meta classes/builds and the second best options is gigantic. 

We need way more viable builds in Wvw. 

Having basically the same meta since PoF release sucks butt. 

 

Revamp Heal Rev (Ventari) 

Buff Tempest to almost Firebrand level. 

Make Ele staff not kitten. 

Atleast pretend to care about Warrior. 

Soulbeast would be an amazing Wvw build with just the right weapon. You have the tec to change weapon skills per Trait. Just create a Trait that turns a weapon into one that is actually playable. 

 

I want options to play gosh darn it. 

Not playing the same 4 builds for 5 years straight.