subversiontwo.7501

> @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > @"Ubi.4136" said: > > No matter what people wont be happy with the implementation of alliances or alliance battles. I think this will be particularly hard on people who did not play GW: Factions, and don't know what "alliance battles" are. Sure, they introduced the idea with 3 way WvW in mind, but with the way the game is going, I think when they deliver Cantha (which is the earliest anyone could hope for "alliances") people should at least brace for the fact that it may mean the end of WvWvW and the beginning of Kurzick vs Luxon 2 way "alliance battles". > > Unfortunately that wouldn’t surprise me. I don't know Ubi, I mean, I guess it wouldn't surprise me either at this point, but that is more because we've learnt Anets erratic behaviour with this stuff over the years. So it's more a question of not ruling anything out than it would make sense for that to appear. It doesn't make much sense to put in such changes beyond some sort of thematic conformity over the games. If we're looking at gameplay and gameplay design alone the 3-way system has stood the test of time (even if we can debate how healthy the mode is, but 8 years of general neglect certainly has more to do with that than the ups and downs of the 3-way split). I'm not even saying that KvL would be bad, it could be a nice addition to the game if it is well made. However, it's certainly not as strong in theory as a perpetual content mode or a superior replacement of WvW as we know it.

> @"Ronin.4501" said: It really makes me think that Anet has lost control (or the will) to deal with these issues at this point, which doesn't leave me with a lot of hope going forward that things in WvW are ever going to improve (and I can only imagine that when the next expansion comes along it will only get worse). > That is certainly the problem or even more amply put: They've never had that kind of control (or at least not since 2014) because they have never had insight or understood their own mode (after the initial WvW devs left and never got replaced by WvW-minded devs). It can be difficult to decide if you should listen to people who play- or do not play the mode, or, if you should listen to people who play the mode in contrast to people who play the mode on the backs of other players. If you have insight it is not difficult to define those things, to make informed decisions on which focus group is important for what changes or be iterative enough to follow up on the results of your choices. After 2014 they have never really done those things and have been prone to listen to players who do not play the mode (errenously assuming they would play the mode and assume productive control of the mode if listened to) or they have listened to players who play on the back of other players (errenously assuming that majority is generally important and overlooking, for example, that many of those players just leave if there are no tags up, etc.).¨ If you have time to kill and want to get a bit nerdy about it, the devs at EVE wrote and spoke of this stuff publically alot around the time when GW2 had first released (2013-2015). The sort of underlying design principles for it from a developer standpoint and what would guide their direction forward from there. They also did some other pretty funny stuff around that same time that relates to GW2 like trying out "sagas" (using shorter cadence) and comming to the conclusion that expansions were better or talking about the importance of cross-mode development. All of the pitfalls GW2 fell into were already readily described by a fore-runner and competitor (with a special connection to WvW). There are devblogs still online and 90min TED-style talks still floating about Youtube on it etc.

Your idea or comment, like many similar ideas and comments that critique Alliances, overlooks where commanders "come from" and that this mode is inherently a PvP mode even if structures are not players. It isn't as simple as just finding more superficial carrots for people to put a tag up even if I am not one of those people who would disregard that "pay them" could be a superficial carrot and have some limited value as a small part of a larger whole. For example, albeit being a balance nightmare, it could motivate more people to put a tag up but it does not motivate them to keep it up or deal with the fallout of being oblierated over and over by a group that did more than just put a tag up. Commanders also already get more pips and nothing stops you from paying them (same as nothing stops you from paying the support in your party or other people who help out with duties in the squad). That is already here.

It is much easier to just lock the pvp modes for unverified or unpaid accounts. I mentioned it on Reddit before: I see no point in having either sPvP or WvW open to F2P accounts when core specs are rarely competetive anyway and they do next to nothing else to manage the entry and exit of players to- and from the modes. It doesn't do anything tangible on its own and they probably lose more players both on entry and exit due to servers being full than they get anything positive out of F2P. If they are very weary about keeping an illusion of "free" while they milk the modes to death in other ways they could at least require any accounts that want to enter to be verified and phone-protected so they can ban associated phone numbers. Those are easy and effective ways to get to the bottom of the problem. As with everything else WvW and sPvP they simply do not care enough to do something about it. There are simple solutions for anyone with their head above their shoulders.

> @"vier.1327" said: > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > Agreed. Just drop us a note, maybe a little nod to yay or nay... until then, we will continue to enjoy discussing this topic on this discussion forum! > > > > > > @"vier.1327" > > > > There are posters on this forum that consistently try to troll, and perform this function poorly. Don’t get pulled in..... > > > > Wise words Well, yeah, the way stuff is managed it just invites and feeds feigned ignorance, hyperbole and general trolling. Trolls thrive when only flames get smacked. At the same time it doesn't really matter, it's a discussion forum and when we post we do it for the benefit of anyone who cares to read, not just whoever we choose to respond to. At one point there was a guy in one of my own guilds trolling around here who then went "is that you?" "lulul, made you post" and I just shrugged it off as it wasn't like I wouldn't be posting anyway, right. It's a discussion forum, it's made to post on. I take these forums for what they are and sometimes you may feel like its a waste of time but most of the time you know full well it is falling on deaf ears, above people's heads or gets lost in bleet and noise - but this still is the only official communication with some permanence so your posts will always sit around here for someone to read and occassionally what you say may help someone get some information or learn a thing or two. That's really the only reason I spend time here now and then, pretending so be some sort of voice of reason or representative for playergroups who have generally never used this place much or who are becomming exceedingly rare overall. It can be a healthy perspective to dab into every once in a while.

> @"Cuks.8241" said: > There is a middle ground between gw2 style blobs and no blobs. WvW is meant to be large scale war and that is great and why we play it. But I wouldn't mind if there were better strategies than stack as many people as possible at one spot (maybe exaggeration but not by much). > I have played mmos that did it better in a way that you had frontlines with heavy plates, backlines with nukers and healers and havoc groups that tried to circumvent frontline to harras backline. And coordination between groups was crucial. I understand that there is a bunch of noise in this topic, so I guess I'll repeat myself from page one: Keep in mind that there is a big difference between what **can** be done and what **is** done. GW2 as a game can do all the things that you mention. Many of those things used to be done. Balance or other changes can to a small degree explain why they're not done to the same extent anymore. However, to a much larger extent it is still very possible and it is other things that have reshaped behaviour more. If you look at the stuff you mentioned you should be able to connect the dots between what would constitute a middle ground (scale, content), what would constitute a division into subgroups of different roles (heavy, backline, nuke, harrassment, etc.). All of this can still be done. All of this is still done. However all of that requires a higher level of organisation and groups with that ambition (either at their own scale, or the ambition to build complexity into a larger community) are either gone, very rare or are just going through the motions now. The big thing here is that the developer has just set the bar that insanely low. They don't care so the players don't care. Many of the groups that would fill out a diversity in scale (5-10-15-20-25-30 etc.) and variety of content (roaming, havoc, focus, defense, forward-op, etc.), they have all left. Many of those groups are the most sensitive to the developer showing no interest, giving no attention or failing to address issues they are more impacted by (eg., when people first got tired of complaining about nightcapping and the broken scoring, many guilds who primarily tended to structures just packed up and left). **So, to sum that up**, many of the things that you mention can be done and are still done but they are done by very few groups to very small degrees because they require more from the players to achieve. The groups that can and do are becomming more and more rare. Soon they will be almost mythical, doing things most people would genuinely think impossible. However, it is much less about balance or possibility and much more about lack of caring and trying. _Ed. I dug up an example for you_ Here is a focus party from the late vanilla 25-meta (that had both havoc- and backline specific parties): A pretty cookie-cutter comp at the time would be: 3x Melee parties: Double Guard, Necro for rips and two Warrior builds, one for CC and one for damage. 1x Range party: Five Eles usually 1x Focus party: Mesmers and Thieves Engineers and Rangers were usually not played (even if they are played by both sides in the video) and Revenants did not exist. I could easily find you more examples but it is getting late here. Suffice to say, there is much more that you can do in WvW than what usually is being done. There are many things that are still better than just stacking in one place (it is just rare to pull that level of organisation off at 50-man scale and it is rare to see good zerg-busting groups or good focus groups around pickups). They are just too difficult for the typical player to do or too ambitous for the typical pickup commander to lead without help or some scaffolding. This seeps through everything in the game mode from how server communities are built and communicate, to what guilds do to how people look upon classes and builds.

> @"lare.5129" said: > > @"subversiontwo.7501" said: > > Gunnar's Hold? It is currently in T1, you are listing an old leaderboard that has no links listed. > > Here's the reference point: http://gw2stats.com/matchups / https://wvwstats.com/eu > blacktide. nice and fun server. Adn I don't see any tie to wvw content and place .We have wvw mmr system, so it ok always. > > > completely blind to both the effort of maintaining that and the plights of other servers. > "maintaining that and the plights of other servers" ?? we talk in English ? Oh, Blacktide? It has been linked to different main servers for over a year. It is more or less a dead server on its own. In late 2019 it was linked to Deso, in 2020 it has been linked every relink (to Piken, JS, Dzago, Piken again, Gandara, Piken a third time and now to SFR). Prior to that it was host to the Vabbi nomad community and prior to that it was either dead or a link to someone else. If Blacktide was to lose its link you would get to experience the wonders of T5 death :).

> @"lare.5129" said: > > If you fall down to EU T5 that may be a reality in certain matchups already today. > t5? I am on T9, if look info from https://leaderboards.guildwars2.com/en/eu/wvw > feel good. > > >When WSR had its shed-transfer and was emptied out there were even times when the other servers had problems letting their players keep their pips up because WSR was so empty that it didn't even flip back camps. > so why I am on T9 don't feel that "big trouble" ?? > > > You may be happy with that while the players who want Alliances will consider that "dead". > don't try mix players who will consider and real situation. Gunnar's Hold? It is currently in T1, you are listing an old leaderboard that has no links listed. Here's the reference point: http://gw2stats.com/matchups / https://wvwstats.com/eu The leaderboard same as the rank listings are just some score-evolution that means little since they hop all over the place with the linkings that have been around since 2016. The tiers are the actual matchups themselves (1-5 in EU and 1-4 in NA). I understand that it can be confusing. A better ruler for size and activity is just looking at the kill and death totals. A small server like WSR has about 3k each of kills and deaths. Gunnars Hold by comparison has 17k kills and 22k deaths. The K/D ratio is unimportant here since it only suggests how a matchup is going. However, the total numbers suggests that Gunnars is somewhere around 7x the general content production of WSR this week. Sadly, the system (or neither system) does not track the flip of objectives, only the points from holding them so it says very little about PPT activity (only success and relative point-distribution from it). Overall, Gunnar's has been a rather stable server throughout 2019-2020 as far as I can remember (though if I'm not mistaken, several of the guilds now on RoS used to be on GH). It can very well be a server where there still is an organisation of guilds that produces and shares content, leaving those not involved with that completely blind to both the effort of maintaining that and the plights of other servers.

> @"lare.5129" said: > > @"subversiontwo.7501" said: > > I am referring to the primary pickup commanders on those servers and the closed groups capable of creating-, taking on- and/or dominating matchups (eg., controlling a map). > ?? > who care that commanders and they mutchup per perime time 2 evenings per week? > for many wvw players they a like npc, no more. And no absolutely care that they think. I mean they opinion is same as other ANY participation member in wvw. So 2 roamers who take same camp have 2x bigger value that extra-super comm. Then you are making my case. You seem very happy with a situation where there are no guilds, commanders or any level of content that promotes building community. If you fall down to EU T5 that may be a reality in certain matchups already today. When WSR had its shed-transfer and was emptied out there were even times when the other servers had problems letting their players keep their pips up because WSR was so empty that it didn't even flip back camps. You may be happy with that while the players who want Alliances will consider that "dead".

> @"lare.5129" said: > > @"subversiontwo.7501" said: > > You'll also find that most people who actually create content on their servers want Alliances whereas those who ride the coattails may not. > "actually create content on their servers " ?? Or they think that they "actually create content on their servers "?? This is 2 big differences. I am sure that probably this is 2th. I am referring to the primary pickup commanders on those servers and the closed groups capable of creating-, taking on- and/or dominating matchups (eg., controlling a map). None of those think that they do, they do.

> @"lare.5129" said: > why we some post whit Alliance? > can we ask some public investigate the ip's that messages come? For me it looks suspicion. Is some side haters spam it? Or some another mmo game? > As wvw player I am absolutistly not interested in Alliance, opposite, I not like that. I'm sure that if you stay a while (and listen) you will find that the people who update this thread with somewhat effortless posts are the same people who regularily post with far more effort on this forum as a whole. You'll also find that most people who actually create content on their servers want Alliances whereas those who ride the coattails may not. A perhaps more accurate description would be to say that those who have been in guilds for most of their time in this game tend to want it and those who do no interact in/with guilds may not. Those two things are usually mutually intelligable. Alliances can also be seen as a fork in the road in that sense. It relates to how you define the health of the mode or how alive it is. If people are happy with the content levels we see at the lower tiers today, with few organized tags, few guilds, the occassional pure grab-bag pickup tag that rarely achieves much headway and struggles to match up to guild groups or more organized pickups. For some players that may be their ideal. For other players that is how they define a dead server. That is the realistic divide of the playerbase. Then you also have the unrealistic divide of players who are on servers that may not have fallen to that point yet but are also not apart of the organization of their servers. Those servers may only be a guild or two leaving- or a trip to full+unlinked T5 away from collapsing to the same level as other servers, but they have still not experienced that or have not experienced their own social group being split over different servers (while that group is not a primary content creator, engaged with interacting with other servers' counterparts). Those players live in their own bubble and tend to be players who want servers to stay or take very naive views on other players who have transfered, etc. A very glaring example of that was a year or so ago, when there were some players that were all "Piken pride" and when the guild KISS left the server it sharply turned into "Piken dead". We've seen more recent examples where players on Gandara ask themselves why they are still full and unlinked after a couple of guilds left or how players here and elsewhere grossly overestimate the size of Whiteside Ridge (who are realistically only two-three guilds now, with some of them shrinking in size too, while most outside players, including people I like and respect, errenously estimate them as several times larger).

The foremost thing has already been mentioned several times over by now: bags, WXP however much people claim it isn't important for WvW, it does seem to motivate people. Then there are a number of socially driven issues tied to how important stab is: * Players may resent you for the attention a commander gives your class/build * Players may not own up to their own mistakes and may be prone to blame you for their own losses * It may many times feel unthankful to play support if no one else steps up to form a pairing or if players do not let themselves be helped as you try Things like that quickly takes the fun out of playing something selfless and makes you more prone to bring something self-reliant next time (or just farm your bags like everyone else who cares little). Many of these socially driven issues are interesting in a larger context as they seem to have grown larger in recent years as many guilds with very experienced players leave and drop off and as many pickup squads have established norms of carrying their players around more than before. Very experienced players are less prone to take you for granted, rely on you or navigate the balance between making plays and taking plays better. Midtier players seem more prone to bully inexperienced players and the loss of many experienced players has hit the inexperienced players dually in that sense since there are fewer players around to set or statuate examples for both the lower- and mid tiers (ie., promote good examples and smack poor examples into their place). Some of that makes it understandable why it may seem daunting for new players to pick the class up (even though it is very well suited to learn WvW on for a number of reasons from weight to calls) and why it may be difficult to motivate players to pick it up beyond donating your bags to the greater good. Ed. I'm not sure if I would call it unpopular, like others have said, it is fairly popular but these things at least puts some light on why it may be hard for commanders to motivate players into picking up the class and why some servers always seem to struggle to fill their support spots even if those roles are proven powerful.

> @"Ronin.4501" said: > I'm going to guess you haven't been playing this game for more than a few years if you truly believe that allowing players to create alliances will balance out WvW populations. First, it's the players (and guilds) that have been causing the population imbalances and server stacking from the very start. I still remember when War Machine left SBI and literally 97% of the active WvW population followed. For a few months thereafter, SBI would be lucky to see 5-10 players across all borderlands (we still had Bannok/Djixie pugmanding in EBG). Guilds leaving a server and creating population imbalances has occurred regularly in the 8+ years that the game has been in existence. The only major difference now, which leads me to my second point, is that there really aren't that many WvW guilds left. The WvW population is largely built on pugs these days, with a few large guilds and slightly more medium and small guilds sprinkled about. The notion that all these random players are going to somehow form cohesive alliances that balance out the population is simply inconceivable. And even if you were able to manage to cobble together a few decent alliances, you'd still be leaving a much larger portion of the population to then put together the remaining alliances which would be anything but an alliance. I think Anet realized that Alliances was a bad idea from the start, which is why we haven't heard anymore about it for years. For me it is quite surprising that you are able to piece all those things together and still can not understand the sum of what they amount to. The fact that all these players who do not build community can obstruct the players who do want to build community is what is driving the guilds and players in them away. It is what is driving the commanders away and that is why we will just see more and more players clinging to fewer and fewer commanders until everything that is left amounts to "anything but an alliance". That is what we have now or head to. What you describe, as some players being able to form communities while others are not, is a good thing. It means that at least someone can have/do something (and it suggests to those who do not try that they should try). It means that anyone can try because there are no arbitrary obstacles in the way of trying (like having to give Anet your money just to try to do something for their game). The "anything but an alliance" will at least be a recruitment pool, something you can build a community from since all those players without guilds or alliances then are free to recruit among. This way new communities can be born. If they do not want to be recruited into anything then they do not deserve to be apart of something and they can stay in "anything but an alliance" for all they like, it becomes their choice. All of this is the reason guilds quit but it is also the reason why guilds transfer. You say that guilds have always transferred but guilds have always transfered to A) match up B ) escape dead weight on their own server and C) avoid matching up with dead-weight servers. They do all that to get and create content. You can look at the servers today and make up your own mind about if they are successful or not. Now, I'm not overly familiar with NA, but if this War Machine left SBI, it is quite likely that what made him leave was to get away from players who felt entitled to his content and stood in the way of him being able to form squads with his friends, get on maps with his friends or let them come to his server. If 97% of the population followed him that only reaffirms that. I don't know, but your description makes it sound like he left to get away from the likes of you. War Machine probably didn't want 97% of the server to follow him around anymore than other popular players want 97% of their servers to follow them around when they transfer away from them. However, under the current system they can not stop them. They can just transfer again when things get bad, so they do. They can be toxic to drive them away, so they are. They can be exclusive to keep them out, so they close and they can just stop caring and ride the wave out like ArenaNet and the "anything but an alliance"-players they funnel into the mode, so here we are. "Alliances won't fix anything" sounds like "anything but an alliance" to me.

Friend, I'm gonna be honest with you, that you put new lines for every sentence or sometimes even every clause is very annoying. It makes people not want to read your post and even if they do makes them prone to miss things that you say that could be important. I too have only brushed over most of what you came to say so I can only respond in very general terms. Like others have already pointed out to you: There is nothing in WvW that promotes zerging over anything else beside possibly bag- and WXP grind. Most objectives are soloable even if that is not what they were designed for, while groups of 5 is the bottom line that they were designed for and most objectives are relatively smoothly capturable with a party of 5. That is also often where the best class-class balance is. In the strategic layer it is still arguably better to run 10x5 groups rather than 50x1 for PPT. The same goes for quite alot of the player-player interaction. It is grossly underestimated what you can achieve with a group of 5, 10 or 15. It is also often overestimated what the size of the few remaining capable groups are. It is just that much better to build a proper team that those groups succeed in doing alot of things and that in turn makes whatever they represent seem that much larger and powerful. Those groups may sometimes appear as if disconnected from their larger communities but they are ingrained in what is behind those communities. The real reason we see alot of zergs and the real kicker to this discussion is that players in this mode are no longer acustomed to playing with their friends, building their own groups and forming their own content. Zergs are easy and low effort, it is an effective mean to spread content to as many players as possible with as low demand on them as possible yet still staying somewhat receptive to content that is produced (ie., able to match up and take on). That's what zergs, blobs and their meta are. As always, you have ArenaNet to blame for that as they have done nothing for 8 years to ensure that friends in WvW can play together on the same maps and servers or in any other way promote the formation of player-groups (MMO) or variety in the content that is in their demand. That's it, nothing else. This, same as everything else, is due to full servers, queues, transfer fees, population imbalance, broken scoring and never any proper delivery on in-demand guild-level content like GvG. Everything is rooted in that. It was an issue in 2012 and it is an issue in 2020. Also @op, if you can't think of any names in any guild (whether they solo, play in fives, tens, fifteens or twenties) that is a you-thing and not a mode-thing. Most of us who regularily play this mode are aware of what groups have earnt at least some repute. Many players in those groups are also involved with sPvP, social media content creation or as mentioned earlier equated with the reputation of their server. You would notice them if you had intergrated into the mode. Anything else is like any other tourist not knowing enough about domestic popularity.

The prophet has spoken. Some day the prodigal son shall return, in the meantime we will celebrate Winter's day.

> @"ASP.8093" said: > This is very old (2011), very handwavy, and a lot of the commentary is premised on the idea that making it *easier* to achieve a set of strategic goals (the "rules") makes for a better game, which is a very faulty premise for evaluating or understanding games. > > To pick one of the points as an example, > > > 4. Know your enemy and know yourself and in 100 battles, you will never be in peril. > > In most situations in all three games, it's really more important to know yourself, your players, and the tendencies of the PUG's within your group (if you have any). However, WoW and DAOC actually trump GW 2 in this regard because there is NO rotation of enemies which means you can actually get to know your enemy. There is rotation for arenas in WoW, but I'm fairly certain you'll face a rotation of teams in GW 2 arena fights as well. Pre-Lich King WoW and DAOC had you pitted against rivals that you got to know and hate over time. Real rivalries could spring up (and you could get to know your enemies' tendencies). The one downside to rotating who you fight against in WvW for GW 2 is that your enemy never stays the same. Though WvW rotation is superior in many ways to RvR in DAOC, in this one way, it is inferior. > > It's true: introducing a variety of opponents is an impediment to your "know your enemy" strategy (whatever that really means). Hm, that's an interesting take on it. I rather find that it is much less a problem with the qoute and more with a faulty interpretation of it because the author does not understand the context. I think avid players of GW2 WvW has a general understanding of the entire (or majorly) ladder being the theatre of war. A matchup is only a battle or series of related battles. Rotating matchups does not contradict the quote as a result. Any matchup we get we often get a general understanding of, oh, it's server X, home to guild(s) Y, commanded by player(s) Z. That is a concept of interaction that is as easily understood by solidiers of the chinese warring states era as it is to players of GW2 WvW.

This is the best advice that I can give you: 1. www.gw2skills.net (Not updated to the current balance patch but to the last one; still a useful tool to save time and effort; if it falls out of date just compensate for that and do not rely on it for details, use it for broad strokes and playing around with combinations). 2. Get the gear and play the builds that you craft, practise is better than theory when you go from overview to detail, it's expensive but it is the "endgame" in more senses than one (especially if you aim to aquire a broad understanding; good crafters are multiclassers and swappers). 3. Learn how to segment the data and keep focus on what you are looking to theory craft (eg., understand that the stats go into a build, a build goes into a role, a role goes into a comp and comps go into tactics; those tactics, comps, roles and builds will change based on what you want to do) 4. Understand your relationship to the tags and players in general, you tend to often end up inbetween discussions that transpire and few people will appreciate your efforts, that just comes with the territory and you better just accept it early on - people tend to be more receptive in a guild or if you are a leader (guild, tag etc.) at the same time. In fact, also keep those things in mind (which players on these forums struggle quite alot to fathom) that meta for pickups is mostly based on what makes things smooth for the tag when herding cats alone. There are alot of things that are not being done because they are ambitious or demanding of others.

The likelyhood that those guilds read here is still low. I'd strongly suggest running through some server community discords (and/or the EU roaming discord if it still exists, I know there was one, but I never joined it myself and from what I have heard it is quite the aquired taste of the salty kind). Server community discords are a good place to start though. I think Roy made a list of them on Reddit a while back so if you browse u/Roile you can probably find it rather quickly. How many of them are still up to date is another question though, but again, it is a good place to start. Good luck!

I'll chime in with Zape here above by qouting myself from another recent thread on the same page as this: > @"subversiontwo.7501" said: > I'd say it's more a reflection of the times Kaherdin. > > The two servers you've just been on are certainly not "GvG" servers, either of them. It's more so that content is dwindling so you are not going to find the same amount of pickup content as there used to be, anywhere. There may possibly be one or two examples of servers that are better covered than others but it's not like there is anything leaps and bounds above everything else. It also tends to change as players move or drop in and out. There tends to be more motion among players that tag. > > So you can expect some servers to have better prime pickup coverage than Gandara or SFR, but do not expect them to be much better. Expect things to shift, look at server discords before hopping around to at least get some indication of pickup tag amounts and hours and expect some servers that may be doing alright to not be super keen on being mentioned here because that might turn them full and scrooged by the system. Not that it will stop people from talking, but I'm sure there are a couple of players here who might have one or two suggestions in mind that they are not listing here out of curtesy (and I don't mean the nomad wagons of current flavour).

I'd say it's more a reflection of the times Kaherdin. The two servers you've just been on are certainly not "GvG" servers, either of them. It's more so that content is dwindling so you are not going to find the same amount of pickup content as there used to be, anywhere. There may possibly be one or two examples of servers that are better covered than others but it's not like there is anything leaps and bounds above everything else. It also tends to change as players move or drop in and out. There tends to be more motion among players that tag. So you can expect some servers to have better prime pickup coverage than Gandara or SFR, but do not expect them to be much better. Expect things to shift, look at server discords before hopping around to at least get some indication of pickup tag amounts and hours and expect some servers that may be doing alright to not be super keen on being mentioned here because that might turn them full and scrooged by the system. Not that it will stop people from talking, but I'm sure there are a couple of players here who might have one or two suggestions in mind that they are not listing here out of curtesy (and I don't mean the nomad wagons of current flavour).

It feels like this is one of those threads where things do not have to be mutually exclusive. The immob spam that exists shouldn't exist. I can't find a reasonable excuse for it (even as someone who enjoys to dabble in Ranger builds). The current condi spam is obviously also over the top and it was surprising that the most recent patch came with more power nerfs while leaving condi intact (I would have assumed that this would have been "the condi patch"). At the same time, like others have said, there are some ways to deal with the build. There are other condi builds that are even more ridiculous at the moment and the Ele as a class has it far from the worst against all those condi builds since Ele has a pretty fair amount of ways to deal with condi overall. So the over-the-top tone isn't necessary but the game would clearly be better without builds that can spam immob like that.

> @"Tharnaron.2967" said: > Granted an opinion thing here but it was not overpowered.. you could see and you could dodge out of it... now it is absolutely useless as an offensive tactic... the idea of being stationary is ridiculous.. I don't think they believed it was overpowered. I think they were unhappy with how it panned out, making the Spellbreaker even more of just a bubble. I think the change back is a first step to try to find a better role for the class. On the other hand, they are never going to find a better role until they find a better balance between melee and range at large scale gameplay.

>**Transitioning to this System** >This system is going to take time to make. As mentioned in the WvW FAQ, part of the reason we did World Linking was because it utilized a lot of existing tech and did not require a considerable amount of time. This allowed us to address the growing population issue quickly, while also being able to address other WvW issues. This new system is going to take considerably more time to make. We do not have a release date, but this is going to require several **months** of work and it will share resources with any other WvW changes that we work on. Is it several months yet? :3

> @"MatyrGustav.6210" said: > The mode is crawling at the bottom for a reason, more of the same would be something they cannot afford, in all honesty. We need a map that's maybe similar to what modern games are offering. We already have current Conquest with like 5 maps, and something new would only benefit the game in my eyes. Honestly a Constant WvW War where its a 3 Server Team Deathmatch competing for kill score for the month would be amazing, and cater to the players that like to roam around. I vote YES, we need some update to current WvW or a completely different style of WvW War for the next map. > > I want new ways to compete with other servers, and not just conquest for every map. maybe its just me. Um, let's clear up a few things: [Conquest](https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Conquest) is the CTF-mode in sPvP. The mode is surely at the bottom for a reason, but not because the concept isn't appealing to people. The concept is actually good, proven and still has general following throughout the MMO world. You see similar arguments with MMO at large. Some people are suggesting that it is a dying genre when the reality is that the market is shit and that is proven by the traction any half-decent project gets (for example, Peon's interest-piece for Ashes alone has 2m views). It's also proven by the fact that essentially any MMO that launches have a mode similar to WvW and many of them launch with that being marketed (though GW2 is far from the only game when that is later underdeveloped). It's also proven by the (arguable) truth that GW2 has the best mode of that type and the best gameplay for that type of mode on the market today. It is obviously hard to keep bias out of it when going from game to game but if you look outside of this game GW2 WvW has a pretty decent reputation (more than what can be said about the game as a whole). GW2 should also not chase something more ambitious because what they have works on the concept level and more ambitous projects come with their own issues. Especially considering that WvW has always kind of been "too much" for ArenaNet. So the reason it is at the bottom is much more that it shipped broken and has been kept broken for 8 years. It is much less that "all the kids wants to play the most popular trend right now". That should also be indicative of why every attempt ArenaNet have made to chase trends has blown up in their face. Any game tend to do well when it expands on what it excels at. The important bit there is what it actually excels at and not what its developers tell themselves that they excel at. **Part two** As far as getting a TDM-mode, you are not going to get any complaints from me. For the past 8 years two things have been the recurring requests of this community: Population balance (aka. Alliances) and TDM support (aka. OS, GH-A, EotM-A, Customs, like GW1, the failed replacements like Stronghold or any other incomplete project like the current Bigger sPvP initative). If that is what you are asking, that is fine, but it is also no different from what everyone wants and what has merely been jabbed at. For unknown reasons Anet have done lacklustre attempts at that for 8 years and failed or pulled the plug half-way through every time. The same goes for Alliances. Ray's Alliances is just the latest incarnation of SCW's Alliances and Colin's Alliances, EotM and GW1's Alliances. They have just never been shipped or just shipped as a testbed that never got iteration. I think that serves to be underlined: There isn't necessarily any inherent problems with EotM and Stronghold at their backend. The problems came with the elements introduced to their maps or surface gameplay. That simply made the majority leave them. They have not appealed to the outside through any minority and has as a result been abadoned both by players and developers. However, it's not like the developers had to abandon them because their underlying systems may still be useful. People hated the bridge-design of EotM and they hated the moba-elements of Stronghold. Their underlying systems (even if not perfect) actually showed promise and can be salvaged. With that I don't mean to give EotM better rewards than the standard mode to give spoiled PvE tourists better WvW rewards than the core WvW playerbase again. I mean making a better map for WvW content and exploring ways to further the systems and diverse it into more ways that appeal to the playerbase and could appeal to a potential customer base through the content created by the existing base. I've exemplified that before, you only need to click my name here to see it. I've pointed out a bunch of stuff they could do to create different types of content with existing mechanics, if only they were smart enough to subvert their own design for that gameplay. Then, you may see some players come in and say that they like bridges, the exploration or PvE elements, but again, that has been proven not to appeal to the existing community overall or appeal to a potential outside customer base (and quite frankly, it is going to be hard to sell something that does not appeal to the existing players to an outside potential because it gets no positive showcase). I got a bit carried away there, sorry, but it's a decent enough read if you can power through it.

Also, I mostly just linked this thread up as light-hearted thing, but if we are going to start speculating let's look at a few plausibles: The most likely reason for this is simply that ArenaNet are being ArenaNet. It likely took Wooden Potatoes making fun of them in a recent video to snap out of the echo chamber and blurt something out in haste or make a token gesture. I would not be the least surprised if that is it. Either that or that the statistics are showing something. It's a question of the alarm needing to pass a certain point way beyond what is healthy to pass through the bubble. Two other related possibilities is that this is some sort of re-organisational / damage control preparation. Assuming that EoD will come with little to nothing for PvP as a whole this may be another attempt to fill holes and mend fences by making new promises for something post-launch. Out of the 3 faces we know to publically do some work on competetive in the current era/cycle of projects and organisation (BenP, Ray and Cal), none of them seem to be on the move (based on linkedin etc., so far) and none of their past titles would suggest they would fit into this position. In fact, if anything, it may be a position made for Cal to apply to, should he want to. Ray isn't design (and above this), Ben is design (but above this). However, I'm more fearful that this is to slate over disappointment with EoD and the possibility of Alliances getting canned, if it isn't the things above. Those would be 4 plausible reasons with some interconnectivity. The gloomy gut feeling with all of this mostly comes from that what the position describes is not necessarily something that WvW needs or should need right now. The design and direction they have is good. Both the big projects they have had piplined for 2-3 years now look good on paper, given what we have been shown. It is the delivery that is the problem. In fact, it has always been the delivery that has been the problem from EotM to today. It would possibly be something for after those systems have been implemented, to go forward. However, I am far too jaded at this point to be _that_ positive for EoD. If this is for someone to take over what's needed next after Alliances and Bigger sPvP, then I am going to be quite blown away.