clone wars.9568

It is possible to get it from reward track doing EoTM however everything in EoTM has been nerfed inc track reward XP to 50% less than what you'd get in wvw. On top of that theres no pips in EoTM which meant 95% stopped going to EoTM to farm. So even if you do do EoTM to get it you'd be waiting a LONG time to flip things like gens because you will prob be the only one flipping them, with no one flipping them back you will have nothing to cap. So all and all you will be finishing track rewards 50%+ faster in wvw.

> @"Glass Hand.7306" said:

> How is that? The only time there is anything like real numbers running on NSP is the first two hours after weekly reset. It's been in T4 for months.

>

> The idea that it is full is simply ludicrous.

The problem is servers "FULL" status is NOT purely based on how many players are on that server it based on how many hours each account plays in wvw per week on avg. This failed logic is one of the biggest reasons the game mode is dying and balance is never going to happen in wvw. Anet doesn't like to admit when they're wrong and certainly not quick to fix MASSIVE issues even if it's killing the game mode and losing them thousands of players cutting into their profits. People don't play the exact same amount of hours each week so a servers "full" status should never have been based on last weeks/months/years play hours. My server, for example, has on/off been locked for over a year only open few a few hours in that time. Anet publically admitted BG lacks people however play hours of our players is higher than other which is why they don't allow more to join the server. So we have dead maps on reset and outnumbered buff during the week (before the ET link). Instead of anet finally admitting this system is adding to the servers balancing issues not helping it they have already stated they will carry this system over to the "new worlds". So yet again we will see "full" worlds that have 500 people and full worlds that only have 250 people (but on avg play longer). And because of this the "NEW" coming system has already failed and will be the end of this game mode for many vets.

> @"saye.9304" said:

> what is maximum wvw rank?? i am currently 350, i want to know haw far i can increase my rank. is there cap or is it endless??

It used to be unlimited but ANet reduced it to a cap of 10K per account now. You will continue to get level up chests after 10K but will no longer get increased rank or WvW ability points. if you want to get a high rank then I suggest you join a wvw based guild that offers extra WXW Xp guild booster & recommend (when it's available) the Candy Corn Gobbler (Halloween gemstore item 300gems) that can give you 50% buff to track rewards and wvw XP. There's also +10% WXP inscription you can buy for amulets. And you'll struggle to get ranks roaming or scouting so best to join your commander+zerg at peak times to get increased ranks from kills/caps.

wvw needs a dedicated team that LISTEN to the REAL wvw players, which it's become clear will never happen. three man "team" working on the "new" ally system which is already set to fail because worlds will not have the same amount of players on each. And the fact anet is pushing everyone to just blob, marked and increased capping circle times (which anet never pointed out in patch notes) and power creep as well as in balance between classes has almost completely killed this gamemode for roamers. Solo guilds can no longer make banners or claim towers/camps/keeps.

More WXP & Karma gain or higher MF while in wvw. They really need to decrease the turning time of trebs/cats/mortars etc but its probably fairer not to link this to rank and ability tabs and instead roll out that update to all. Apart from that then may siege skins like the ability to fire presents are xmas on catas, currently, you can only do this if you don't have cata master. Higher chance or ascended drops? I'm sure they'll add more with the 2019 xpac, unlikely anything we want though.

> @"Fish.2769" said:

> Quick rundown of the situation:-

>

> Been back a few days after a couple months off GW2, started roaming on Core Warrior again because some of the changes are fun and i've never really been a fan of Spellbreaker for roaming. After a few 1v1s and being ganked by zergs, 1vX etc we all know how it is.

>

> Anyway, i came across a Ranger that i'd killed a few times until i got outnumbered and he/she + friends killed me. So i run into him again and PM'd him the good ol' BM of "Are you going to fight me alone or call for friends again?" The reply i got which amused me to no end was along the lines of, "No, you're cheating. You came out of stealth on me." Now anyone who knows how Warriors work knows we don't have access to Stealth without other classes, i tried explaining this to them and after a while they told me to stop searching for excuses, he/she knows i'm cheating.

>

> Please ANet, nerf Warrior again so we don't have access to Stealth, thanks!

>

> No names or servers mentioned because it would be unfair and probably be removed. :)

Did you happen to fight him near a supply camp you own?

Reason I ask is that if you were then it was possible you became stealthed and didn't even notice. The female pistol npc at camps casts black powder if you used a leap skill which axe using spellbreakers have access to then that combo will stealth you for a few seconds.

> @"Swagger.1459" said:

> > @"clone wars.9568" said:

> > "Yes, we only use play hours in WvW when doing the population calculations."

> >

> > This on its own guarantee this new structuring will be a failure. You should NEVER base calc of server pops based on old player hours, it should be based on wvw population regardless of how much they play. Your failed system has already been proven to not work. 100vs100vs100 not 50vs100v70. Peoples play times will go up and down based on the time of year and personal/work life changes. It should be based on EQUAL numbers only. This is one of the KEY reasons wvw is dying on its feet. WvW needs BALANCE. That mean REAL effort to get FAIR numbers per side. REAL skill and pro balance. Fixing the bugs that have been reported for years.

> >

> > Ally system failed in GW1 because one guild falls apart normally means all ally will fail apart, add that to this game mode and lock people into worlds for 3 months = even worse for the player base when an ally falls apart. Do people have to wait 3 months to reorganize anew ally? For these reasons alone your ideas are not going to help wvw, they're going to finally kill the game more complete.

> >

> > All that was needed was ppl really working on wvw skill balancing and bottom tier servers deleted and players added to the other servers to get fairer numbers on each server. Instead as always anet have taken the more complex idea that has already been proven not to work hype it up and keep us waiting for years.

> >

> > Waiting for the new system that I already am well aware will kill this game mode is like waiting for the grim reaper....

>

>

> There will be population caps for Alliances, as noted...

>

> https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/26547/world-restructuring

>

> “Our current plans for alliance size are somewhere between 500-1000 members, and we are still considering the technical and match-making ramifications of the number that we settle upon.”

>

> https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/45856/world-restructuring-update-1

> “Alliance size

> We are currently leaning toward alliance size being 500. This is technically easier, as we already support groups of this size (guilds), and it gives us more flexibility to make the worlds even.”

>

> This..."Yes, we only use play hours in WvW when doing the population calculations.".. is for matchmaking purposes.

>

>

You missed the point. Alliance number cap has nothing to do with WORLD caps which ARE based on playing hours. A world will not only have people in an alliance it will also include people who are not part of any wvw guild or ally so an Ally cap is irrelevant to the point.

So the point is anet will be basing when to cap a world's population based on players playing hours. Meaning there'll be zero balance and worlds will have a completely different amount of players and world caps.

When we have a system that will cap a worlds pop to 2k players and another capped at 4k players who play less the system is already broken and unbalanced. So I say again unless there are REAL changes to the issue of balance then anet is just bringing the same unbalance to the new system and thus it has 100% chance to be a failure.

"Yes, we only use play hours in WvW when doing the population calculations."

This on its own guarantee this new structuring will be a failure. You should NEVER base calc of server pops based on old player hours, it should be based on wvw population regardless of how much they play. Your failed system has already been proven to not work. 100vs100vs100 not 50vs100v70. Peoples play times will go up and down based on the time of year and personal/work life changes. It should be based on EQUAL numbers only. This is one of the KEY reasons wvw is dying on its feet. WvW needs BALANCE. That mean REAL effort to get FAIR numbers per side. REAL skill and pro balance. Fixing the bugs that have been reported for years.

Ally system failed in GW1 because one guild falls apart normally means all ally will fail apart, add that to this game mode and lock people into worlds for 3 months = even worse for the player base when an ally falls apart. Do people have to wait 3 months to reorganize anew ally? For these reasons alone your ideas are not going to help wvw, they're going to finally kill the game more complete.

All that was needed was ppl really working on wvw skill balancing and bottom tier servers deleted and players added to the other servers to get fairer numbers on each server. Instead as always anet have taken the more complex idea that has already been proven not to work hype it up and keep us waiting for years.

Waiting for the new system that I already am well aware will kill this game mode is like waiting for the grim reaper....

> @"TyPin.9860" said:

> Since the release of GW2 I have been reading about how *"WvW is dying"*... But what are the actual numbers on that? What is the percentage of players playing WvW? What are the absolute numbers?

>

> Just interested. Not trying to make a statement.

Anet will NEVER reveal the numbers for each server because they're not equal. They have admitted that one "full" server can have a lower amount of players on the server vs other "full" servers. This is because of the way anet calculate the wvw populations of each servers NOT based on player number or server numbers but in fact, are based on the amount each player plays wvw. So a heavy wvw user will equal to 2-3 people on the server (a crazy system I know). So one person that plays a lot will take up 3 slots. On another server people who are play wvw a few hours, a week will only be classed as one person. The problem with this is if the heavy users stop playing or reduce the amount they play the server will still not be opened up for new players to join the server. This failed system will carry over to the new system of "worlds" when we get allies in wvw in the coming big wvw patch (and probably last wvw major update).

This is one reason anet say they won't open up BG or pair them with other servers not because they have more people, in fact, anet revealed BG had at the time far fewer people on the server, they simply had people who played longer. Until anet look again at real ways to balance the game mode then we'll only be waiting for this hype train that is the "new world system" for years simply to be disappointed.

A few reasons.

1. New player.

2. Trolling in general

3. Noticed who you are and they don't like you.

4. Trying to slow down the cap/ trolling circle to prevent cap and has allies inc?

5. testing new build against outnumbered fights.

I have been known to block people that killed me. But only when they did something underhand like exploiting, ganking u semi-afk or while in another form like candy corn etc or after you waved at them. Normally I block them so If I see them again I know not to let them even cap a sentry without me attacking them. Like today someone did something they shouldn't have been able to (not going into details because we're not allowed to list exploits). But what they did helped them stop me take a tower which i was capping at the time. He managed to get up to me and contest while his group ran to help him. That guy was blocked ASAP and i see him again he's gonna get ganked time and time again. But then again I block a lot of people. When anet secretly reduced the blocklist numbers from unlimited to a set amount, I was still over the set blocklist amount meaning I couldn't block anyone else until after I'd removed ppl from my blocklist. That became impossible because opening up my blocklist crashed the client each time i tried. Support/Zendesk, in the end, had to remove 1000s of people from my blocklist for me one by one. I remember the support guy emailing me after letting me know he now has blisters on his fingers after spending 3 hrs removing people from my BL XD

> @"Knighthonor.4061" said:

> https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/26547/world-restructuring

>

> I don't believe Alliances alone will fix the WvW problem. The gameplay needs to be changed to be more fun for Casuals and Core WvW players. I made some suggestions a while ago.

This is correct Alliance as anet knows full well are hype and will fail as they did in gw1. One GL falls out with another over egos and the whole ally falls apart not just killing the ally but the guilds themselves with all the new issues and drama. People are stuck together for 3 months at a time even after an ally collapses meaning no one will do anything until after a new ally is formed. This messes the whole game up for everyone else in the world and will kill wvw faster than anything else would have. I still have no idea why they didn't simple delete the bottom tier and merge the servers permanently. Which would help with balance and not remove the reason most ppl care to win (server pride). An idea that should have at least been tried before deleting everything. Linking is not the same because it wasn't permanent ppl didn't have server pride from linked servers and lacked voice comms etc.

Anet seem to like the hype train with promises of something better that is normally 10x worse idea and takes 10x longer to implement...

FIX auto targetting.

Currently, the priority of Autotarget targets NPC, pets, Doors, walls, Seige before real players? Or targets people that are out of range and completely ignores the person standing right next to you killing you. I'm still unclear why auto target even targets walls since you can't even damage them.

Give us an option to HIDE wvw ranks which are used to gank people and pick out the drivers more.

Stop eles from being able to mistform into towers/keeps while in the downed state.

Allow us to pick something other than tomes in rank up chests or make tomes spammable.

Fix the servers.

Fix the code.

Start listening to the real wvw and not the bandwagoners.

Scrub the new world idea and simply delete the lower end servers and merge them perma to the others.

Stop doing nothing for years then having a REALLY REALLY BAD IDEA (and ignoring correct & neg feedback) and then keep us waiting years more before you add that idea to the game hoping hype alone will increase wvw numbers (It won't).

Stop basing wvw pop on the number of hours players play and instead keep it to numbers only, you've increased the balance issues with your bad system.

> @"Swamurabi.7890" said:

> Server pride lasts until that one large guild jumps to another server.

It was guilds that destroyed SoR for example, one large guild left and 5 other guilds followed after than imploding the server from t1 to t5 in months. It was people loyal to those guilds that killed the server and not those loyal to the server who stayed and tried to help it. The same will happen with "worlds" when one big ally starts to fall apart because of in-fighting between guild leaders and their egos which is going to happen. Then they, in turn, will destroy the guilds in the ally who don't want drama and then the worlds themselves. You will see new worlds born every 3 months and half-built allies in a lot of them after one ally has collapsed due to infighting. Then people spending weeks trying to form new allies and getting up voicecomms again. This will repeat every 3 months. And this affects everyone in the world not just the ally or guilds but roamers also. Ally system put too much power into a groups hands which can destroy the whole game mode for everyone. A worlds ally falls apart and the whole world falls apart and everyone gives up, this guild support is going to be the death of this game mode.

Badly timed poll after anet announced they'll be replacing the server system in favour of worlds. Asked the same question two years ago and you've seen the results flipped in favour of servers. People who vote for guild over server will be thanked by their guilds by being kicked if inactive for longer than 1-2wks under the new system, because of the guild/ally limits anet will impose. And enjoy trying to communicate with 10+ different voice-comms being used per world.

> @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > @"clone wars.9568" said:

> > And the new coming changes to wvw are not going to save it, the idea of a world every 3months then getting deleted and no more servers is 100% doomed to fail. Again anet didn't listen to the right people, so they will spend 1year+ developing the new system instead of really fixing wvw issues and will have wasted all that time on updates that don't even work on paper...

>

> Alliances will actually provide some stability. Is it perfect? Young cats no. But it will allow a somewhat better ability to balance populations.

>

> EOTM style with colors would never allow you to consistently be with your guild or people you want to play with. Queue up with a squad? Yeah, no. Still can’t queue up with more than two people in sPvP, and there is no thought that it could work with 20-50 queueing up together.

>

> Those that prefer to play solo, it won’t change a thing. You just will have different commanders to get used to every two months.

As I've said before this idea WILL fail. It puts off new players, forces guilds to kick members more often for being inactive for fewer amounts of time (because of the ally caps). It forces guilds that were pvx to be only wvw and prevents their members from being in any other guilds. It completely removes server pride which even solo roamers care about. Not sure if you have been in allies before in other games or gw1 but I've seen the ally system COMPLETELY destroy a guild because of limits and in-fighting that an ally can create and in the end everything falls apart first the guild then the ally. This doesn't currently happen but certainly will once allies are a thing, you will see guild leaders fighting each other and wanting different things I guarantee it. We have already lost 50% of the old wvw community and new players are few and far between.

So to sum up.

1. Forcing guilds to a choice between 100% pve or 100% wvw is less fun overall for everyone.

2. They will be limiting players to ONE guild membership only, so people will have to leave friends guilds making it more likely people will quit the game in the long-term.

3. They will be removing server pride that alone cant be replaced by "ally pride".

4. solo roamers will be less likely to bother since they mostly won't be part of an ally and no more server pride.

5. ally system will create new issues that will, in the end, destroy itself with in-fighting. In gw1 i never saw a successful ally last longer than a few months before the in-fighting started and destroyed not only the ally but some guilds.

6. doesn't fix population (if you look at the details of how anet will be placing people), doesn't fix communication issues, doesn't fix profession balances, will reduce but not completely stop alt account tag watchers.

So overall it doesn't fix the current issues that have seen us lose 50% of the community and will create new issues that will kill the gamemode completely for more people.

> @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > @"clone wars.9568" said:

> > Don't forget you need to be a certain rank to be able to buy the ascended armor that you need to be able to convert to legendary. I think it's about wvw rank 1200?

>

> Only for the glowy legendary (mistforged). Don’t need it for legendary itself.

Ah ok, not so bad then for new players.

Don't forget you need to be a certain rank to be able to buy the ascended armor that you need to be able to convert to legendary. I think it's about wvw rank 1200?

People were complaining about EOTM for months claiming that EOTM was the reason less fewer people were playing on the real wvw maps. Which of course was complete fake news and EOTM wasn't the reason wvw was dying on its feet, it was because of too many servers bad balancing of the professions, lack of support or interest for years by anet was the real reason. But in any case, people complained so anet first nerfed all eotm rewards by 50%, 50% less wxp, 50% title rank xp, 50% less karma etc. Then anet removed XP in wvw completely, instead of giving tomes 1 per wvw rank. So all the uplevels left eotm and switched to using their 80s to get tomes and then use them on their uplevels. Meaning no one played on their uplevels in eotm anymore. So all the troll guilds that used to come to eotm on their 80s simply to farm uplevels also quit. Then anet added pips and legendary armor to the gamemode but they didn't add the pip system to EOTM only in wvw. That was the nail in the coffin for eotm map. Again ANET listened to the wrong people and not only killed real wvw they've killed EOTM as well. And the new coming changes to wvw are not going to save it, the idea of a world every 3months then getting deleted and no more servers is 100% doomed to fail. Again anet didn't listen to the right people, so they will spend 1year+ developing the new system instead of really fixing wvw issues and will have wasted all that time on updates that don't even work on paper...

> @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> Well, define an ‘Alt’.

>

> Most aren’t linked to primary accounts making it effectively a moot point for Anet from an enforcement standpoint.

This is currently incorrect. Anet is now linking accounts by users IP addresses & those indirectly linked to credit card info (from gemstore purchases). So if you're found to be exploiting etc they can ban all the alt accounts as well as the personal main accounts. Unless of course they never registered the alt account under the same name, never used the same card to buy the game or gemstore purchases and never used the same IP address to access the account. I've seen 1000s of alt accounts in wvw over the years being used to pull tracts, waste supply, seige cap, tag watch/spy, troll etc. It's not that anet cant ban all those peoples accounts. They log all the necessary info and have done for years to help link all those peoples alt accounts to their main one/s. It's more like in most cases they won't, not that they cant.

> @"Yuffi.2430" said:

> You need something to motivate players, and closing their server in favour of keeping others does not do this. Before linking many servers tended to bob up and down the tiers as player groups came and went. Sometimes this was good and others it wasn't. Linking removed the server identity from the lowest servers at a fixed point in time. It's no surprise to me that many players stopped or cut down after this - after all why should you work hard to benefit a different server knowing you will get moved on in a couple of months? This has all been discussed, in much detail. Why suggest closing the bottom tier servers this time? Why not close the top tier ones and spread their players round the remaining servers? If you feel upset by this idea then you really haven't grasped the idea that ALL servers will be gone when Alliances are launched.

>

> Alliances will have a fixed population limit - 1500 I think is max for 3 guilds. I don't know what the population limit is for a server at the moment but I suspect it is much larger in terms of the total number of players, even for WvW. Having smaller units (guilds and alliances) to combine will definitely allow ANET to match the sizes of the opposing groups more easily and to adjust this at intervals, so the Alliance system will allow more even match making when it is introduced. The question is when will that be, and will the new model be enough to motivate players, new and old?

"Why suggest closing the bottom tier servers this time? Why not close the top tier ones and spread their players round the remaining servers?" That makes no sense, the top tiers already have better organization in place like more wvw guilds, websites, voicecomms and of course more people. Split them all up and place the across bottom dead servers? How does that make ANY sense? Makes a lot more sense to place the few in the dead servers to more bigger organized servers. Its better for all and doesn't make 1000s more people have to start over.

Don't forget about the CANDY CORN GOBBLER available around Halloween time in gemstore for 300gems well worth it. It gives 50% buffs to all titles XP inc WXP. 1 hr of spamming it can result in 4-5hrs of the double wxp buff. Has had a lot of nerfs to the buffs lately but still well worth it. I've maxed 3 accounts wvw ranks with it. If you don't have the item yet buy it before it's gone for another year.

> @"Frozen Peace.4930" said:

> > @"clone wars.9568" said:

> > > @"akm.9738" said:

> > > I feel we should combine our dead WvW servers into one server; i.e. Jade Quarry and Maguuma becoming one. But that's just my personal opinion.

> >

> > I've been saying this for FIVE YEARS! Anet made too many servers, to begin with, because they were guessing how popular the game would be. That's fine but once you know the numbers and they should be re-organizing them. At the same time, the lower wvw servers were falling apart increasingly. All Anet had to do was delete 1 server per wvw tier to help wvw game mode. Instead of taking this simple solution Anet dragged their feet for 5 years+. 50% of the main wvw pop has vanished and not being replaced with new players purely because of Anets bad management skills on server numbers. It's clear ANET want to push people to PVP or PVE and close down wvw game mode. This idea has cost the ten of thousands of players who do not and will not go to pve/pvp instead of wvw, Which in turn will have cost ANET a lot of money in gemsales.

>

> Like Crius said, people and guilds transfer for many different reasons. Thus, deleting servers will somewhat help population situation at the beginning but actually exacerbate the situation later because you will end up with several full or very high pop servers and some dead servers; and there is no way to balance the situation.

>

> On the other hand, having numerous servers gives Anet at least some leverage to balance the WvW every 2 months since there are people who will not leave their home servers to bandwagon. We could change it to 3 tiers instead of 4, but we could probably see crazy que numbers and people won't be able play WvW when they want to.

>

> Having said that, I think the upcoming alliance system offers most flexibility and leverage to Anet in regards to balancing WvW population situation.

Complete rubbish! If they had done what I said (delete the bottom server 1 per tier) then we would have had a far more balanced situation. Granted if all went well reset night would be packed. But even then that could make it more exciting not knowing which guilds/people could get in the maps for each side. Most of the issues were not reset nights anyways, its coverage weekdays that lacked players. Taking out the bottom tiers WOULD have 100% solved that issue (of numbers). Anet could have at least tired that idea out, instead the choice to go with "pairing" which never worked. Because it wasn't a perma situation servers didn't even bother working together when n the same teams no sharing of voice comms for the most part they stayed on their servers own voice comms and acted independently. FAIL.

Now again ANET going to try another option instead of perma servers they want worlds which I will tell you right now is 100% doomed to fail. It will not only remove the server pride and the main reason a lot of people played the game mode in the first place. It will, in the end, restrict guilds to A. only being wvw guilds B. having to kick members who have been inactive for shorter time periods (because of reduced ally membership numbers allowed). C. It will also prevent people from playing with their guilds at peak times in the world (again because of total ally members allowed in one map). So it will kill guilds as well. The SIMPLE solution is normally always the best (deleting bottom servers and merging) But yet again this will not be the path anet takes. Already lost 50% of the active wvw players, expect to see this be the death of wvw.

Bit pointless if you don't care about the server then you don't care about defending in which case you're only there for fights then you might as well go PVP. And would never work with randoms unless anet started paying for a built-in voice comm service free to users (which will never happen).

> @"akm.9738" said:

> I feel we should combine our dead WvW servers into one server; i.e. Jade Quarry and Maguuma becoming one. But that's just my personal opinion.

I've been saying this for FIVE YEARS! Anet made too many servers, to begin with, because they were guessing how popular the game would be. That's fine but once you know the numbers and they should be re-organizing them. At the same time, the lower wvw servers were falling apart increasingly. All Anet had to do was delete 1 server per wvw tier to help wvw game mode. Instead of taking this simple solution Anet dragged their feet for 5 years+. 50% of the main wvw pop has vanished and not being replaced with new players purely because of Anets bad management skills on server numbers. It's clear ANET want to push people to PVP or PVE and close down wvw game mode. This idea has cost the ten of thousands of players who do not and will not go to pve/pvp instead of wvw, Which in turn will have cost ANET a lot of money in gemsales.