April 9 WvW changes

[Svarty.8019]

@steki.1478 said:

Gates and walls have had their damage mitigation normalized to the damage levels done to tier 1 (wood). All walls and gates should now take the same amount of damage from a siege attack.

Finally a useful patch. No more turtling inside t3 objectives behind 20 siege for hours, no more struggling to damage the walls as a small group for hours.

This change empowers the powerful. That's been my main beef with a lot of Anet's changes in the past.

1. Supply from EotM? Empowers the powerful because GREEN USUALLY WINS EotM and green are usually the team that got relegated and thus are expected to win the current matchup!
2. Nerfing Arrow Carts? Empowers the powerful because the powerful are the ones doing the attacking.
3. Introducing siege bubble? Empowers the powerful because the powerful are the ones doing the attacking (it's crap for defending - the angles are awkward, you can't see where you want to put the bubble: it's just awful for defending objectives).
4. Nerfing T3 walls and gates? Empowers the powerful see point 2.

We desperately need some handicapping at off-peak times because the population disparity is greatest during those periods.

It could be that this wall thing is a great change, I'm not going to contest that, but there are other elements that are of some concern. Nobody wants this game to be about flipping empty towers back and forth... well... the old EotM guys did. Bah! Forget it.

[XenesisII.1540]

"Don't want to defend? then we'll cap it!""Back cap later but you lose ppt!""We'll even take your t3's!"....

I'm confused who's the real ppter now...

[Justine.6351]

@"XenesisII.1540" said:"We want to fight in the open field!""We want you to get out of your keep!""We want you to get off your siege!""We want to break into your keeps faster!"...Where did all the defenders go?"

Not that I disagree with the change, but be careful on what you wish for. While "fighters" like to farm defenders, defenders don't like being farmed and if this is all tilted too much it might just become a case of let it cap we'll just get it back when they leave. Player's who aren't fighters are not going to suddenly turn into fighters because of this change.

Ya it's a danger. But just like eotm (afaik) there will be ktrains but there will also be groups of people hunting the ktrain. I'm not really sure anything will even change ultimately.

[DeadlySynz.3471]

I like the change but this will hurt any of the flavor of the month bandwagon servers. A server who has strong coverage for short periods during the day who end up all logging on at once, steamrolling the maps, then vanishing for a couple days at a time will likely find themselves sitting back in T4.

Generally commanders or small group don't want anything to do with T3 structures; so what happens now when all the coverage vanishes from the bandwagon server? Small groups flip everything. Provided the other servers who at least have mediocre coverage throughout the day, can now flip everything when the bandwagon guilds log off. I can easily see these servers falling to T4 quite quickly. I havn't been in T4 for a while but from what I hear, the fights are basically non-existent. So whats a bandwagon server to do if they end up in T4 but typically only log on for 2-3hrs at a time every couple of days? Skirmishes you may have typically won because the other servers wouldn't dare try to flip the T3, well now all that changes.

This could shake things up quite a bit.

[Mokk.2397]

@steki.1478 said:

@Mokk.2397 said:Although I agree with the changes ,the implementation is premature .This for the time being will give over stacked servers even more advantage .Instead of concentrating on a single target they can now attack multiple targets at the same time yet still maintaining a numbers advantage.All be it smaller groups can take a target much quicker but against larger populated servers it will be harder for the smaller groups to defend .The argument that it brings the defending groups out into the battle field to fight is an inaccurate presumption .This will only allow large groups to bag farm small groups more successfully.I think this is might push less populated servers into their spawns without choice.I think the devs should have waited until the WvW restructuring before bringing this improvement in.Bad timing.

Servers who blob around commanders dont split their group most of the time. Otherwise there's no point of having a commander. Is it better for general ppt coverage? Yes. Is it needed? Not really.

This change doesn't need to bring defenders out, but it at least wont hold them in for hours. Defense should never be dominant in any aspect of the game, whether it's combat or objectives. If more populated servers are farming less populated ones then maybe they should just drop tiers where population is similar and not ppt 24/7 and expect miracles to happen when they get attacked.

Your assuming that things will remain unchanged. But as expected they are indeed splitting off small groups to take other targets while the main group keeps the smaller opposition engaged. Not to mention that getting a tower or keep to tier 2 or 3 is going to be next to impossible for smaller groups.This on its own will make upgrades pointless.And if a server is in a specific tier, then they earned that regardless of the legitimate method on which they achieved it.And over stacked servers that can run 24/7 are going to exploit the fact that some only have limited time coverage without even a small hope of defending .Just because a server is full does not mean that it will have a dominant WvW population 24/7 This is one issue was supposed to be addressed in up coming WvW restructuring .I simply pointed out the draw backs of bringing in this change before the population issue was fixed first.I like the idea of changing the defense of towers and keeps .It's just to soon.

[steki.1478]

@Mokk.2397 said:

@steki.1478 said:

@Mokk.2397 said:Although I agree with the changes ,the implementation is premature .This for the time being will give over stacked servers even more advantage .Instead of concentrating on a single target they can now attack multiple targets at the same time yet still maintaining a numbers advantage.All be it smaller groups can take a target much quicker but against larger populated servers it will be harder for the smaller groups to defend .The argument that it brings the defending groups out into the battle field to fight is an inaccurate presumption .This will only allow large groups to bag farm small groups more successfully.I think this is might push less populated servers into their spawns without choice.I think the devs should have waited until the WvW restructuring before bringing this improvement in.Bad timing.

Servers who blob around commanders dont split their group most of the time. Otherwise there's no point of having a commander. Is it better for general ppt coverage? Yes. Is it needed? Not really.

This change doesn't need to bring defenders out, but it at least wont hold them in for hours. Defense should never be dominant in any aspect of the game, whether it's combat or objectives. If more populated servers are farming less populated ones then maybe they should just drop tiers where population is similar and not ppt 24/7 and expect miracles to happen when they get attacked.

Your assuming that things will remain unchanged. But as expected they are indeed splitting off small groups to take other targets while the main group keeps the smaller opposition engaged. Not to mention that getting a tower or keep to tier 2 or 3 is going to be next to impossible for smaller groups.This on its own will make upgrades pointless.And if a server is in a specific tier, then they earned that regardless of the legitimate method on which they achieved it.And over stacked servers that can run 24/7 are going to exploit the fact that some only have limited time coverage without even a small hope of defending .Just because a server is full does not mean that it will have a dominant WvW population 24/7 This is one issue was supposed to be addressed in up coming WvW restructuring .I simply pointed out the draw backs of bringing in this change before the population issue was fixed first.I like the idea of changing the defense of towers and keeps .It's just to soon.

They did mention 8 hour skirmishes instead of 2 hour ones, but for some reason it's another long term change...

[DanAlcedo.3281]

@cobbah.3102 said:

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@cobbah.3102 said:Well another stroke of brilliance by the team , how to kill a game mode. Would have made sense if pvd was not an option but forward thinking is a thing of the past I guessInb4 "no one ever complained about T2/3 keeps"?

So now trebuchet should be deleted no longer required so blob servers have no need to treb from smc continually.

People on trebs in SN are 99% Pip Farmer who are afk.

[Dawdler.8521]

@Mokk.2397 said:I simply pointed out the draw backs of bringing in this change before the population issue was fixed first.I like the idea of changing the defense of towers and keeps .It's just to soon.I find that a ridiclous complaint.

Have people forgotten like... entire WvW for the last 4 or so years? The community have complained about the strenght of T2/T3 defenses ever since the guild halls came in and massivly boosted objectives. Anet was even forced to change siege cost and damage - it didnt help much, objectives where still overwhelmingly difficult to breach. Now they nerfed the armor - and people say it's too soon or that they cater to karma training or that it's all for PPTers.

This whole thread basicly epitomizes the damned if you do, damned if you dont relation of this community towards Anet. There is no way they can win.

Whats next? Anet introduces alliances and people on this forum throws a hissy fit because the server populations was never a problem and no one wanted to fix it, it just caters to PPTers?

[Mokk.2397]

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@Mokk.2397 said:I simply pointed out the draw backs of bringing in this change before the population issue was fixed first.I like the idea of changing the defense of towers and keeps .It's just to soon.I find that a ridiclous complaint.

Have people forgotten like...

entire WvW for the last 4 or so years

? The community have complained about the strenght of T2/T3 defenses ever since the guild halls came in and massivly boosted objectives. Anet was even forced to change siege cost and damage - it didnt help much, objectives where still overwhelmingly difficult to breach. Now they nerfed the armor - and people say it's too soon or that they cater to karma training or that it's all for PPTers.

This whole thread basicly epitomizes the damned if you do, damned if you dont relation of this community towards Anet. There is no way they can win.

Whats next? Anet introduces alliances and people on this forum throws a hissy fit because the server populations was never a problem and no one wanted to fix it, it just caters to PPTers?

Its not ridiculous .If your car has blown engine your not going to replace the tires.Fix the fricking engine ! The defensive issue is minor compared to the population imbalances.Throwing a wrench into the situation doesn't fix the problem it makes it worse because lower populated severs get steam rolled even worse than before.So people get pissed off with the game and quit? Use your freaking heads.

[Dawdler.8521]

@"Mokk.2397" said:Its not ridiculous .If your car has blown engine your not going to replace the tires.Fix the fricking engine !Except they didnt replace the tires, they took one long look at the car and went "yeah the car engine blew up because no, you cant improve performance by ducttaping 3 additional turbos on it and using Monster energy drinks as lubrication. We have taken that crap out." and the customer goes but but mah turbo?!?!?

[Aeolus.3615]

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@Aeolus.3615 said:

@Kylden Ar.3724 said:The march toward all of WvW being an EotM Ktrain continues...

Ktrains where anet and it’s player were having difficult to farm empty structures so anet decided to increase damage on structures to ktrain faster and with lesser effort...

Now they should make walls larger since it’s easy to kill players o walks... oh wait it’s a ktrain spam game.... defender can’t use walls to defend.

Your post makes me want to ask this: why do some people bother playing The game when they are so disillusioned?

Why just come into the forum with the singular intent of trashing the game?

I don’t get why people who don’t have fun, continue to play a

game

Sooooo... asking for a trade of, since ktrains get structures down faster is trashing the game......

GG typical gw2 player that wants to be carried and loves poor effort with peak performance results...

I play gw2 for the siege combat gameplay in defense and offense, so I don’t like Ktrain Pvd.

[Mokk.2397]

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@"Mokk.2397" said:Its not ridiculous .If your car has blown engine your not going to replace the tires.Fix the fricking engine !Except they didnt replace the tires, they took one long look at the car and went

"yeah the car engine blew up because no, you cant improve performance by ducttaping 3 additional turbos on it and using Monster energy drinks as lubrication. We have taken that kitten out."

and the customer goes

but but mah turbo?!?!?

Ya but they're not replacing the engine or fixing it .They add more band aids and more bells and whistles and expect it all to be better.

[Cristalyan.5728]

@"Dawdler.8521" said:

Have people forgotten like... entire WvW for the last 4 or so years? The community have complained about the strenght of T2/T3 defenses ever since the guild halls came in and massivly boosted objectives. Anet was even forced to change siege cost and damage - it didnt help much, objectives where still overwhelmingly difficult to breach. Now they nerfed the armor - and people say it's too soon or that they cater to karma training or that it's all for PPTers.

This whole thread basicly epitomizes the damned if you do, damned if you dont relation of this community towards Anet. There is no way they can win.

Whats next? Anet introduces alliances and people on this forum throws a hissy fit because the server populations was never a problem and no one wanted to fix it, it just caters to PPTers?

Trying to "fix" your errors is the best way to create even more problems. And it seems that this is ANet's way of work - first a problem is created with an 'innovation" nobody asked. Then they spend the rest of the eternity trying to repair the damage produced by the "innovation". And by this efforts creating even more damage. The reduced strength and HP for structures is another effort directed in the wrong way, trying to repair something already damaged by previous "repairing" activities.

This is why I don't think the Alliances will solve something. Because they designed the Alliances to work in a similar way the actual Server vs Server vs Server is working.

The way to solve the actual issues is not to try to repair the actual Server vs Server by changing the name to Alliance system, but to actually replace the issued system with something new, designed on another ideas, tested, accepted by most of the WvW playerbase. Continuing to "repair" something broken is a waste of time.

Also throwing changes without consulting the players is another wrong approach. Why? Even if only because it creates the idea that We, the developers are allknowing. We know better than you what is good for you. That this is FALSE is proven by the fact that now they beg the old players to come back to the game. The same game they left because something was not on their liking. In the end, if the changes are only agreed by the devs and not by the players also, the WvW will be played only by the devs.

@"Mokk.2397" said:

Its not ridiculous .If your car has blown engine your not going to replace the tires.Fix the fricking engine ! The defensive issue is minor compared to the population imbalances.Throwing a wrench into the situation doesn't fix the problem it makes it worse because lower populated severs get steam rolled even worse than before.So people get pissed off with the game and quit? Use your freaking heads.

I completely agree. In a WvW world without population imbalance, the strenght of the walls/doors is not a great issue. It is the same for all. In the actual imbalanced WvW world, by reducing the strength and HP you basically give an advantage to the most populated server.

As a conclusion - By watching what the developers sayd about their plans for WvW - I mean the part with the devs further favorizing attack over defense- I don't expect major changes in the future. But more and more "repairs" helping the most populated servers (Alliances in the future). To the point nobody will bother defending an objective.

HM =). I already feel the smell of EoTM. This time with the name changed in WvWvW =)

[JoEWas.1409]

WELCOME TO THE KTRAIN META BOYS NO FIGHTS ON THESE TRACKS

[nthmetal.9652]

@JoEWas.1409 said:WELCOME TO THE KTRAIN META BOYS NO FIGHTS ON THESE TRACKS

Cannot confirm. I can confirm, that objectives break easier, so it's easier to get in. So it will be harder to keep objectives without defenders present and you need quick response teams or objectives will flip faster.I'd not be unhappy if this means, objective would become stronger in the meta, and more focus be put on them instead of hunting down enemy zergs, but such things are hgihly a matter of personal taste. IMO fights should happen because of objectives, not for the sake of fighting the enemy itself.

Also throwing changes without consulting the players is another wrong approach. Why? Even if only because it creates the idea that We, the developers are allknowing. We know better than you what is good for you.

Good luck getting a proper player consultation from official channels like the forum. Every time something is changed, a vocal part of the community whines about the changes. If you ask players, you often get a highly subjective viewpoint and surely not a unified one. See my statement above about the importance of WvW objectives vs zerg fights. See the countless discussions about class balance, or meta builds and their acceptance in squads. Raids. Even abandoning dungeons isn't something players really agree upon. I don't actually think the player base knows better than the devs.

Yes, our devs make bad decisions sometimes, and they make good decision. But they definitely have more data available than we do, and know more about the inner workings and designs of the game overall, so they are definitely in a qualified position to make decisions. And educated guesses. Which sometimes pay off. (For example the Warclaw? I think it was a great idea. The implementation in WvW was well done; how you get it, what it does, how you level it up. ) And sometimes it doesn't. That's life.

All in all I think we have a great MMO, maybe the best there is on the market, and all this was done without player consultation.

[Cristalyan.5728]

@"nthmetal.9652" said:

Good luck getting a proper player consultation from official channels like the forum. Every time something is changed, a vocal part of the community whines about the changes. If you ask players, you often get a highly subjective viewpoint and surely not a unified one. See my statement above about the importance of WvW objectives vs zerg fights. See the countless discussions about class balance, or meta builds and their acceptance in squads. Raids. Even abandoning dungeons isn't something players really agree upon. I don't actually think the player base knows better than the devs.

If they ask something and the result is a chaos of mixed answers, that means they don't know how to ask. I have no doubts about the professional skill of the developers. But I wonder if their communication skills are on an acceptable level? By the activity of the devs. on the ANet official forum I'm inclined to think NO. Also, the arrogance is true (we know better .... ). Because even if they cannot communicate by themselves they don't ask a qualified person to do this for them. Why? Because they know everything.

Yes, our devs make bad decisions sometimes, and they make good decision. But they definitely have more data available than we do, and know more about the inner workings and designs of the game overall, so they are definitely in a qualified position to make decisions. And educated guesses. Which sometimes pay off. (For example the Warclaw? I think it was a great idea. The implementation in WvW was well done; how you get it, what it does, how you level it up. ) And sometimes it doesn't. That's life.

All in all I think we have a great MMO, maybe the best there is on the market, and all this was done without player consultation.

Having more data is not a mandatory condition for good decision. Knowing to interpret the data is important. And by the fact they have all the data but (according to your agreement) they still make bad decision that means the skill of interpreting these data is not very high. This is why I suggested them to ask the help of the players. Because even if the players don't have the data you spoke, they have the only parameter important for the relation between Anet and its clients: The degree of satisfaction they have by playing (with other words - how much fun they have).

What you consider the "best MMO from the market" lost a lot of players. This is a fact admitted even by ANet by the campaign of trying to bring them back. Do you think that loosing players to the point where even the all knowing and all mighty developers acknowledged that is a sign of a string of good decision?

[nthmetal.9652]

I don't think the loss of players has so much to do with the quality of the game. Sure things could be better - see this very discussion - but if I look at the alternatives, I see only games, which are way worse. To me WoW, despite its stellar marketing, feels outdated. TERA (and quite some other asia MMOs) have combat systems, which I'd say are even better than GW2s, but overall they don't manage to create a better overall MMO. Good quests, events and nice variance in activities go a long way, and here GW2 hits the spot.

Overall the GW2 community is maybe the best I've ever encountered. There is some salt here and there, but generally the mixture and communication is very good, players are welcoming and helpful.

I think the loss of players has more to do with the age of the game. Any long-running game is bound to lose players over time. The current campaign isn't only about "welcome back", but also about "welcome" - they are not adressing players, who dove into GW2 before, but generally players, who are currently not playing the game.Just look at this landing page, accompanying the current marketing campaign:https://welcome.guildwars2.com/en/play-guild-wars-2Does this look as if they were adressing returning players only?

[Dawdler.8521]

@Mokk.2397 said:

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@Mokk.2397 said:Its not ridiculous .If your car has blown engine your not going to replace the tires.Fix the fricking engine !Except they didnt replace the tires, they took one long look at the car and went

"yeah the car engine blew up because no, you cant improve performance by ducttaping 3 additional turbos on it and using Monster energy drinks as lubrication. We have taken that kitten out."

and the customer goes

but but mah turbo?!?!?

Ya but they're not replacing the engine or fixing it .They add more band aids and more bells and whistles and expect it all to be better.Removing the armor isnt intended as a kitten "engine replacement" anyway. People are complaining that about something that is a tiny, but effective change. Its more like

pulling off

a bandaid if you want keep comparing silly things.

• It reduces the armor of T3 - people wanted this, because too strong T3 is a crutch for defenders already having tactivators/EWP/ACs etc
• It reduces the armor of T2 by a lesser degree - people wanted this too, like above
• It reduces the repair effiency of T2/T3 - again, this was a crutch for servers already having well supplied high tier objectives
• It encourages smaller forces (<30) to siege and drain T2/T3, due to above effiency increases - people have claimed they want to split up zergs since the dawn of zergs

Ultimately the effect of it is that it leaves more time for fights both inside and outside objectives.

How is any of this the wrong direction in which the game should move, whether it be a small change or "engine fix"?

Or do people disagree with me, we need stronger objectives again, more borderzergs that can overcome such objectives and overall more static sieges at walls/doors and less fights inside/outside?

[Sleepwalker.1398]

@Kylden Ar.3724 said:

That's a bingo. They will port back to spawn and wait for the zerg to get bored and leave. This will not make the non-fight guilds into them suddenly.

The next complain will be for Anet to allow zergs to get into spawn area and remove the legendary defenders cos they can't get fights and no one wants to come out and fight that 50+ blob with 10 players.

[Kylden Ar.3724]

@"Dawdler.8521" said:Or do people disagree with me, we need stronger objectives again, more borderzergs that can overcome such objectives and overall more static sieges at walls/doors and less fights inside/outside?

Some people do disagree, and some people do not. Some people even partially agree.

That's the problem. Unlike PvP, which has clear rules and direction, WvW has been the Endgame Sandbox for the whole game life. The various worlds made their own styles of play up. And those styles are all over the place.

Prior to links, some guild and people naturally gravitated toward the world(s) that had their playstyles. The ones that wanted huge fights all the time gravitated toward the T1-T3 worlds. People that liked a mix of Zerg and Small Scale would aim toward T4-T6. People that liked roaming and little if any zergs aimed T7 or lower.

Were there 'population issues'? Sure, but most of the time they only came into play when due to the wonky way matchups worked, a T7 server suddenly found itself T5, or a T2 down in T4, where the population imbalances were more drastically shown.

Then links happened, and the people that liked the action in T5 to T8 ranges suddenly lost that option entirely. Zerg folks that didn't want to transfer to get it got it, but the population that liked small scale almost lost that option entirely.

Then add in other things, do people want links or not? My last poll showed that a thin majority no, but still a thin majority.

Desert BL? It won, barely, but it's there. Some folks love it and others hate it. (I'm in the, "liked it after they took out the stupid barricades and middle event, but they still need to make it just a BIT smaller so not so much dead space in the middle" camp)

PvP Amulets, no amulets, or a mix (I'd like to see an all stats system with one amulet for Weapon, one for Armor, and one for Trinket, so you can still mix and match and any infusion slots still give bonus)? No one really agrees there either.

Problem with polls here, is that they are self selecting. It would only be the portion of people that both play WvW AND use these forums, which is frankly not many. Any poll here has self selection bias. Only ANet has a full population data set, by seeing who plays when and how. Only that data can give clear pictures of an even 51% simple majority of the population, assuming they are doing their data mining right.

But nothing they do for the mode (mounts, walls, maps, scoring, alliances) will matter until they do something to address balance and power creep. That issue alone is what pretty much killed my guild. The last 3 regular WvW players logged off a week ago and have not been back after we were part of a 3::1 odds fight in our favor vs a bunch of Scourges and Scrappers, and could not do kitten thru all the AoE.

None of it matters at all if they don't address the AoE and powercreep imbalance that simply makes it unfun to play. Period. That will bleed more population than any other factor, and @Ben Phongluangtham.1065 needs to move QUICKLY on that issue.

I can only hope he is, because he really does seem to care about trying to help the mode.

[Strider Pj.2193]

@Aeolus.3615 said:

@Strider Pj.2193 said:

@Aeolus.3615 said:

@Kylden Ar.3724 said:The march toward all of WvW being an EotM Ktrain continues...

Ktrains where anet and it’s player were having difficult to farm empty structures so anet decided to increase damage on structures to ktrain faster and with lesser effort...

Now they should make walls larger since it’s easy to kill players o walks... oh wait it’s a ktrain spam game.... defender can’t use walls to defend.

Your post makes me want to ask this: why do some people bother playing The game when they are so disillusioned?

Why just come into the forum with the singular intent of trashing the game?

I don’t get why people who don’t have fun, continue to play a

game

Sooooo... asking for a trade of, since ktrains get structures down faster is trashing the game......

GG typical gw2 player that wants to be carried and loves poor effort with peak performance results...

I play gw2 for the siege combat gameplay in defense and offense, so I don’t like Ktrain Pvd.

Find me a post where you have said anything positive about the game. Period. Anything.. crickets

Yeah... I won’t hold my breath.

My comment had nothing to do with siege. Nor ktrains.

You didn’t ask for a trade off. You blasted the way it is. And again, gave the same old tired trope of : GW2 carries players, ktrains and so on.

At least be original?

Insert something actually constructive? Maybe?

Well, you do you. If PvF is what you enjoy, have at it. ?

[Arda.2490]

I can sell my 243 superior arrow carts now, they became useless..

[Svarty.8019]

@"steki.1478" said:They did mention 8 hour skirmishes instead of 2 hour ones, but for some reason it's another long term change...

If it's just a matter of changing a number from 2 to 8 on their side, it would be great to have an "8 Hour Skirmish Week" and see if it's better. I doubt it's so simple, though. if it helps, I can tell you that 8 in hex is also 8. Endianised it's probably something like 08 00 00 00.

[Deaeira.2651]

@Strider Pj.2193 said:Your post makes me want to ask this: why do some people bother playing The game when they are so disillusioned?Why just come into the forum with the singular intent of trashing the game?I don’t get why people who don’t have fun, continue to play a game

Tbh I lost the last bits of fun after the warclaw changes and my WvW time went from 95% to 5%... it's just boring and I can't find any fun in it anymore. I'm grinding aurora right now, I'll give it another go after that.

[Strider Pj.2193]

@Deaeira.2651 said:

@Strider Pj.2193 said:Your post makes me want to ask this: why do some people bother playing The game when they are so disillusioned?Why just come into the forum with the singular intent of trashing the game?I don’t get why people who don’t have fun, continue to play a

game

Tbh I lost the last bits of fun after the warclaw changes and my WvW time went from 95% to 5%... it's just boring and I can't find any fun in it anymore. I'm grinding aurora right now, I'll give it another go after that.

Oh I get that.

The poster I responded to has used the same old tired tropes and memes for the past three years.... until he gets a temp ban, then waits his sentence and returns and does the same thing.

I just figure people would rather spend their time doing something either constructive or enjoyable.