joneirikb.7506

I make certain I don't put any Wxp into any siege engines, and say "no mastery", and let someone else do it.

Only way I've found to automate the Ram AA yet.

Was about to post something but then Shroud.2307 said most of it. Basically "It's the players."

Love it, good to see someone spreading the holiday spirit.

I don't think increasing the target limit is a silver bullet. I think it could be a part of a larger change to the "Outnumbered" effect, if it got a complete overhaul.

Linking target limit to the ruins/bloodlust strikes me as a very bad idea. I can only see whichever server is dominating at the time, sending people to claim it, and run big zerg with + target limit. While the majority of players doesn't even know why/how, as most doesn't bother to find out or learn.

So let me get this straight, your poll is basically:

* Yes if you want any change.

* No if you don't want any change.

If so, that would basically boil down to:

Do you want to get rich?

* Yes!

* No!

The poll itself becomes meaningless, and this should have been a thread just asking for what changes people want to see.

An interesting potential for later on, is to have an option to set Tactics to "Alliance only", same way we got guild only now. (You know, somewhere in 20 years or so).

I still like the idea.

* Would open the arena for more use between more servers.

* Would actually put everyone that goes into OS into a single map for the JP, so you potentially could find an opponent in there (to make it pvp, and not pure pve like now)

> @"Tuna Bandit.3786" said:

> Give us ACTUAL rewards that are usefull and valuable.

Just to point out the problem with this, since it depends entirely upon what each individual consider to be useful and valuable. Personally I can't think of a single thing in the game I'd find to be either atm, neither in wvw, pvp nor pve.

And if rewards is the answer, then the game just stops whenever people have had enough rewards to lose interest in it.

WvW always worked because of the gameplay, the players that stuck around and played for long periods of time never stuck with it for the rewards. So focusing on the rewards will only give short term players, and won't actually solve the long term issues.

> @"Shiyo.3578" said:

> > @"ollbirtan.2915" said:

> > Please no. Don't ruin the game. There are plenty of other MMORPGs out there where you can trot around in a bikini/miniskirt/[insert any other ridiculous piece of clothing that totally ruins the game atmosphere here]

>

> Then turn on standard models if it bothers you so much. Do not deny a developer of free money they will make off swimsuits and bikinis.

>

> I want swimsuits, bikinis, and other asian-themed outfits like Yukatas, Kimonos, REAL shrine maiden outfit(Miko), etc.

Oh, have they finally made it so we can use Standard Models in PVE/Entire game? I've been wanting for that for years, so I can shut off infusions, backpacks, and all the horrible eye cancer people call "fashion" in this game!

I liked monthly, and disliked (and still dislike) daily system. I'd much rather have a system I could work at at my own pace, and do it batches here and there when I wanted to instead of feeling forced to log in each day etc (Which I've personally solved by just stopping caring about rewards).

But from a business perspective I can definitively see why they stuck with daily and rather focused on that. MMo players are notoriously reward driven, and if the best way to gain rewards is log in and do a task every day, they'll do just that. This keeps players logging in to the game every day, keeps them somewhat active with social ties they might have in the game (making them more likely to stay around in the game), and also exposes them to the gem-store constantly. Retention rate, keeps people checking in, which sometimes results in them using something on the gem-store.

So yeah, can't stand it personally, but I know it won't change.

Really, when you think about it, if they made a own separate server (well, set of map instances really) to put f2p players only on them, that would practically accomplish this. So a system where they made 3 specific servers for only f2p would create a own population ecosystem with people that would play in a world only with other f2p accounts, and thus play more or less identical to the old style gw2 from between 230615 and hot launch (about a month later).

Could still share the TP/Economy, and you'd keep all the qol changes etc over the years. It wouldn't be a pure "classic version", but to be completely honest I wouldn't want to lose those anyways.

I certainly wouldn't recommend this, I don't think it would benefit ANet at all, and splitting the player-base is pretty much the stereotypical "bad thing". As others have pointed out, the business model certainly doesn't fit into it as well as Blizzard's subscription for both system does.

Well to start with another bummer first, it would require all new maps, none of the current ones would work with 5 teams no matter how much they hacked at them. And if we ignore the lag and issues around the servers etc.

But on the pure design space of 5 player vs 3 player. I'd say it would work about as well, it doesn't change the actual design of the mode all that much, just more opportunistic and even harder to actually defend/hold something as it's potential 4 vs 1 odds if they decide to take something rather than just 2 vs 1.

It would require reducing the map caps by quite a lot, if we currently got approx 80 per side for 240 total, say 250/5= 50 per side, but with more sides in general I suspect the servers going to lag more, so might have to reduce that to 40 (200 total).

Said it before, but designating entire tiers (read: servers) as a specific play style, is a bad idea. And is only going to frustrate and annoy other players that get in "the wrong place" as it annoys you now. The best way to solve it would be to give players for any server a way to do the play-style they want/enjoy.

And this is where I'm going to give a TLDR of my usual rant about them using maps to solve this:

* Make specific roamer maps for each tier/server. Set lower total population, small objectives you don't need to zerg, but instant swords on anything more than 5 players in the same spot (everyone hears you etc), possibly even add some mechanics that gives disadvantages to large groups etc.

That way everyone, no matter what server, can still roam, without having to transfer down to whichever server is "T6" this week.

No point bringing that back until they solve a bunch of other things, like potentially the alliance system, depending on how it turns out.

Basically there is no point bringing back tournaments to the current server-stack-system, people would just stack whatever they predict woudl be the biggest link, and crush the entire tournament with numbers/coverage.

It would actually work better if they had a tournament that was somewhat based on personal performance, rather than who can just blob hardest. But no idea how they'd manage that.

This would cheapen legendaries, by removing one of the biggest time sinks in the creation. Would lessen any prestige or value many people see in legendaries. Many would see it as much less "epic" I guess.

Personally I don't really care one way or another, since I've never cared about legendaries, and even threw away the one Gift of Exploration I got.

The main thing here is that Hearts are optional content, you don't have to do it, it's your own choice to do it. Thus Gift of Exploration, and thus Legendary weapons are all optional content. As such I really can't get annoyed at this one way or another.

Legendaries main purpose (design/content wise) is long term project, so removing the largest time sink from them would be counter intuitive from a design perspective.

And you always have the option to buy the G1 legendaries on the TP, to bypass the entire problem. So I'd say it's optional with optional ways of getting or bypassing, I can't really complain about that.

I do miss parts of the old town clothes system, largely that you could select pieces of them and mix together. On the other hand I also like the outfit system so they doesn't go away every time you take damage etc. Still miss GW1's system of enabling them and hat separate for combat/city areas. Basically I find good and bad with all versions.

A reward for winning, would just make players stack servers even more. We saw it clearly during the seasons, and we've seen it often enough with human nature as it is. There is a reason why they went with personal reward when they updated wvw rewards, instead of realm-rewards. Besides you already get extra bonus chests for winning, any more, and people would start aiming for it (aka transfer and try to stack).

I'd just be happy with more realistic looking heavy armour. The "Heavy Plate" is about the only one in the game, and I've pretty much been using those leggings for 8 years now, since it's the only plate armour looking legs without a skirt. Personally never been a fan of spikes and horns etc, I just want something that looks practical to fight in.

While I personally would have enjoyed that, as I still don't like any of the elite specializations. I understand that ANet just couldn't do that, simply because they would be taking a way to play a class away from those that likes them (and those people might only like playing the class because of that elite etc).

That said, I'd love to see it, and would be curious how the balance would work out between the mode with just core specs. Like how well core guard zerg support still holds up or not etc without FB.

But the arguments against it are pretty damning:

* They'd basically flat out have to admit that they couldn't manage to balance their own game, and abandon all elite specs. Wouldn't create a very good image.

* They'd basically tell all the ones that likes/loves the elite specs to GTFO of WvW, and I'm afraid that isn't a small number.

I could see it as a week event, just barely, and I'd love it.

Again, I think this might have worked better as a separate map with own rules.

One idea I saw last time this topic was brought up, that I think looked interesting:

* Start with the camps, you need to take 1 or 2 associated camps to make a structure vulnerable.

* Then a tower, once you take a tower, then the associated keep(s) becomes vulnerable.

* Then go for the Keep (or castle, as SMC shouldn't be locked behind another keep).

Thus:

* This both creates a frontline, in that you can see which buildings goes vulnerable.

* This also usually forces defenders to guess, as most of the time 2 different targets will unlock.

* This gives roamers, havoc, scouts, defenders something to do, taking camps making towers vulnerable, so others have to go check for zergs/attacks.

I think it's a system that could work. It doesn't fix all the underlying issues with the game/mode, but it would likely be popular with some people, especially those that enjoy big fights.

Personally I've always thought that this would make for an interesting stand-alone map, where the entire map resolved around pushing the frontline (territory) back and forth on two fronts (against each other server). I can imagine some people would love it, and others would hate it. But it might work out better to give people different maps for their play style, rather than trying to force everyone into the same.

The practical effects of this, would just be that 99% of players wait out the event. With a few roamers standing around wondering why the game is even emptier than usual.

I can see the amusement in the idea, but it really wouldn't do anything interesting to the game mode. The majority of players in this game mode are either people that enjoy "mass combat" or are just there to farm Gift of battle anyways, and both would just go "Nope!" to this and go do something else instead.

It would make more sense to have specific areas on the map, or specific map states that triggered this, so it became more uncertain/surprising. But I really don't see how they'd add that, or really why.

----

My old short list for how to utterly ruin wvw:

* Enable friendly fire

* Enable body block

* Make AC do +2% damage per target it hits

* edit: Don't scale rewards, divide them equally between all friendlies nearby

Regarding the idea of the no mount/flying zones, and separating it from the JP part:

One option could be to make the actual JP into a instance, even a public instance. That way they could set the rule for no mount/flying in the entire instance. And you'd have to chose to enter it, thus the no mount/fly zone wouldn't extend to the OW map. This means that anyone could use mount/gliding to go and explore any part of the JP area in the OW map, but wouldn't be able to get the daily completion/chest/achivement etc for it. But it would also be a good way for people to practise at parts they find difficult, and just mount/glide back to try again.

> @"Fricken.3819" said:

> > @"joneirikb.7506" said:

> > You're nostalgic about a specific time of the game history that you enjoyed, more than for the system. Removing tiers now wouldn't bring that back, it would just further show the problems with the game mode, and expose just how empty some of the tiers would be, and how way out of whack the population of the servers would be.

> >

> > Also, just like you don't choose which server you're linked with, you never chossed who to be on a server with. To accomplish some sort of control over that, we'll have to see how the Alliance system (eventually) turns out.

> >

> > ---

> >

> > Regarding choosing what sort of gameplay you want to play, I think they could accomplish that better by making separate maps for different modes, rather than artificially splitting people for it. Or just make the game mode relevant enough that people actually want to play the game mode in all it's different ways, since that would be the most efficient way for winning a match-up. So the problem is closer related to the fact that most doesn't care if they win/lose, rather than the population.

>

> Yes, I was there for that time, but I was also there when everyone left wvw because of Red BL being the only bl with bad mechs. etc. yes 7 tiers may be too much, but linking (beta) is not better than the old system, and waiting on alliances is a dead meme. Cutting everyone one down to even 5-6 servers would be healthier for the mode than linking is for the game until the "next big thing they won't finish" comes out.

And why do you think that deleting some servers and force those players into other servers are better than linking ?

You'd completely ruin any last semblance of the "server culture/community" that way, and kill off the last ones. You'd force even more people to play somewhere else and thus give them even less control over where they play with who.

The server communities was pretty much dying from the start, and keep dying. Especially the MegaServer was a strong blow to the whole server-community, and at the point where they introduced linking I'd have to completely agree that server-community wasn't a large enough thing to warrant much consideration.

It isn't perfect, not by a far shot, but it's better than merging servers and forcing people to get stuck with each others permanently if they want to or not.

The move towards alliance is the best shot they have, simply because guilds are the last bastion of community in the game, after MegaServer destroyed the server-community.

----

For more varied play styles, I DO NOT want that locked to tiers, I don't want to have to transfer each time I want to play something different in WvW.

I'd rather they split it off to own maps, or even EotM style maps independent off the match-up, that focus on specific play styles. Like a small scale/roaming map for example.

Some people like playing multiple ways and sizes, and some have friends or guilds they play some ways with, and other ways with others or alone etc. At this point I'd rather have a linking system that at least can put me in a blob match for 2 months, and then roaming-lands the next. Rather than being stuck in one forever.

----

> @"DeWolfe.2174" said:

> > @"joneirikb.7506" said:

> > we'll have to see how the Alliance system (eventually) turns out.

>

> It's going to turn out badly! Simply for the fact that the game mode should be based around a large open community of equal players like Worlds, not a guilds. If not then I'd rather just have an EOTM color scheme and no guild tags flown at all.

>

> For tiers, there should be just 3 designed around population and play style as PPT / Fight / Roaming. The world populations need to be raised way up again as it was at launch. There should be more freedom of movement as the Worlds should be free or extremely low cost for transfers. The game mode needs to be freed from all these constraints and manipulation of the developers. We can all see these world population labels, locks, and links, are bogus and the injustice of it all enrages the players.

You want wvw to be focused around server-communities, and then say we should be free to transfer around, and basically bunch all servers more or less together into as few servers as possible. And then split up the different type of gameplay ?

I must admit I find your suggestions very conflicting, like you're trying to first mash all the servers together, and then rip them appart again, and in the meantime make sure to rip appart the last bit of server-community.

----

Personally I see guilds as the last bastion of community in this game, as MegaServers and bandwagon/server-transferring has watered our or just ran over what little was left of the old server communities. I honestly don't see much left to salvage there, and neither do I see new communities build up around a system of frequent moving in/out (even without linking). So the only thing left where I see communities build are guilds.

Guilds are also one of the few things in the game where you can control who you want to play with, by invite/kick or just join/leave the guild with people you like. If you're going to try to build a community, you need a way to actually build it the way you want it, including a way to deny people that would be disrruptive for that community. Guild does that, Servers doesn't (just ask any server that been bandwagoned).

----

Regarding splitting play styles to specific tiers, that would be an even more band-aid solution than linking. Suddenly a server get designated as "roaming" and a bunch of the loyal players that stuck on the server through thick and thin, that might prefer a more zerg gameplay, might just give up and feel they they've been betrayed by the system. It would go very much against ANet's philosophy of "play as you like".

Similarly trying to cram all this into 3 tiers, would certainly overcrowd the game, and I really can't imagine how you want a "roaming" tier, if you're going to cram like 3 servers into 1 for it ? Roaming with 20 players ?

And also by opening for more transferring through free or cheaper transferring you'll just encourage the final blow to what little server communities remain (and also the deathblow to any remote chance for competition and population balance in the game mode), as should be pretty obvious at this point of the game that humans are going to use that in all the wrong ways to screw up balance/population/communities, all for personal gain/pride.

----

About splitting playstyles:

I do agree that we should have ways to play different play styles, but I don't agree that we have to move servers to do so, or split communities to do so. You argue that everyone should be able to play what they like, and that they should focus on server communities, but then your suggestion seems designed to destroy just those aspects.

As I've suggested before (in this thread and elsewhere), I'd rather see them making own maps for different play styles, so we could have a own "roaming map", a own "fighting map" etc (ebg already work quite well as the ppt/zerg map). This could either be added to the existing map selection, or added as an extra map through a EotM system and removed from ppt (alternatively).

That way people could look up the play styles they wanted without having to leave their communities, ability to play with their guilds, and without having to transfer back and forth constantly.

A "roaming" map could for example have no building larger than towers, and only a few of them, lots of small objectives, lots of small roads that would be cumbersome to walk with 6+ players, add in signals that automatically show large consentrations of players on the map etc.

You're nostalgic about a specific time of the game history that you enjoyed, more than for the system. Removing tiers now wouldn't bring that back, it would just further show the problems with the game mode, and expose just how empty some of the tiers would be, and how way out of whack the population of the servers would be.

Also, just like you don't choose which server you're linked with, you never chossed who to be on a server with. To accomplish some sort of control over that, we'll have to see how the Alliance system (eventually) turns out.

---

Regarding choosing what sort of gameplay you want to play, I think they could accomplish that better by making separate maps for different modes, rather than artificially splitting people for it. Or just make the game mode relevant enough that people actually want to play the game mode in all it's different ways, since that would be the most efficient way for winning a match-up. So the problem is closer related to the fact that most doesn't care if they win/lose, rather than the population.

+1 kiri.1476

Also the spacebar is usually the more imprecise button on the keyboard (1 or 2 switches placed under a long button), I'd recommend to map jump to another button, for more precise control over jumping.