ReaverKane.7598 Posted January 29, 2018 Share Posted January 29, 2018 > @"Thustlewhumber.7416" said: > EOTM's Megaserver resulted in 1) green server constantly rolling blue and red, or 2) just rotating keeps over and over. Turning all of WvW into EOTM isn't the answer, and you would LOSE players... not gain them. That's a problem with the map, not the teams. > @"Aenaos.8160" said: > Yeah... that's exactly what WvW needs,taking away what little is left of servers ,and turning it into EotM 2.0 with pips. > Make bandvagoning from a thing that it is now,to the only thing. > I'd rather if they allowed people to gain pips in EotM,so you can farm your pips,and we can at least enjoy WvW proper. > Even in it's current state WvW is 100 times better than EotM or ESO's bs of a campaign. You're assuming that bandwagoning would even be possible? This kind of change would actually make it possible to reset all WvW populations and create proper measures to avoid bandwagoning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strider Pj.2193 Posted January 29, 2018 Share Posted January 29, 2018 > @"ReaverKane.7598" said: > > @"Thustlewhumber.7416" said: > > EOTM's Megaserver resulted in 1) green server constantly rolling blue and red, or 2) just rotating keeps over and over. Turning all of WvW into EOTM isn't the answer, and you would LOSE players... not gain them. > > That's a problem with the map, not the teams. > > > @"Aenaos.8160" said: > > Yeah... that's exactly what WvW needs,taking away what little is left of servers ,and turning it into EotM 2.0 with pips. > > Make bandvagoning from a thing that it is now,to the only thing. > > I'd rather if they allowed people to gain pips in EotM,so you can farm your pips,and we can at least enjoy WvW proper. > > Even in it's current state WvW is 100 times better than EotM or ESO's bs of a campaign. > You're assuming that bandwagoning would even be possible? > This kind of change would actually make it possible to reset all WvW populations and create proper measures to avoid bandwagoning. There is some possible truth to that. My problem with most of the proposals that have been floated by players is that it would be guild centric. Not player centric. No priority should be given to guilds if we go to this system. Guilds that want it, have yet to truly note why. Fights can currently be accomplished in EOTM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReaverKane.7598 Posted January 29, 2018 Share Posted January 29, 2018 > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > @"ReaverKane.7598" said: > > > @"Thustlewhumber.7416" said: > > > EOTM's Megaserver resulted in 1) green server constantly rolling blue and red, or 2) just rotating keeps over and over. Turning all of WvW into EOTM isn't the answer, and you would LOSE players... not gain them. > > > > That's a problem with the map, not the teams. > > > > > @"Aenaos.8160" said: > > > Yeah... that's exactly what WvW needs,taking away what little is left of servers ,and turning it into EotM 2.0 with pips. > > > Make bandvagoning from a thing that it is now,to the only thing. > > > I'd rather if they allowed people to gain pips in EotM,so you can farm your pips,and we can at least enjoy WvW proper. > > > Even in it's current state WvW is 100 times better than EotM or ESO's bs of a campaign. > > You're assuming that bandwagoning would even be possible? > > This kind of change would actually make it possible to reset all WvW populations and create proper measures to avoid bandwagoning. > > There is some possible truth to that. > > My problem with most of the proposals that have been floated by players is that it would be guild centric. Not player centric. No priority should be given to guilds if we go to this system. > > Guilds that want it, have yet to truly note why. Fights can currently be accomplished in EOTM. Well, in case you didn't notice WvW is **already** guild-centric. Only guilds can claim stuff, and having a claimed keep increases it's power by a lot. So it will always be somewhat guild-centric. Now the option to have teams based on the guild would have to be binding to the guild, but not entirely to the player. But a choice **has** to be given to the player to join the Team their main guild is on. I don't think this system would replace GvG in any way. But WvW always has been very guild-centric, but not guild exclusive, and the Mega-server solution isn't either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strider Pj.2193 Posted January 29, 2018 Share Posted January 29, 2018 > @"ReaverKane.7598" said: > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > @"ReaverKane.7598" said: > > > > @"Thustlewhumber.7416" said: > > > > EOTM's Megaserver resulted in 1) green server constantly rolling blue and red, or 2) just rotating keeps over and over. Turning all of WvW into EOTM isn't the answer, and you would LOSE players... not gain them. > > > > > > That's a problem with the map, not the teams. > > > > > > > @"Aenaos.8160" said: > > > > Yeah... that's exactly what WvW needs,taking away what little is left of servers ,and turning it into EotM 2.0 with pips. > > > > Make bandvagoning from a thing that it is now,to the only thing. > > > > I'd rather if they allowed people to gain pips in EotM,so you can farm your pips,and we can at least enjoy WvW proper. > > > > Even in it's current state WvW is 100 times better than EotM or ESO's bs of a campaign. > > > You're assuming that bandwagoning would even be possible? > > > This kind of change would actually make it possible to reset all WvW populations and create proper measures to avoid bandwagoning. > > > > There is some possible truth to that. > > > > My problem with most of the proposals that have been floated by players is that it would be guild centric. Not player centric. No priority should be given to guilds if we go to this system. > > > > Guilds that want it, have yet to truly note why. Fights can currently be accomplished in EOTM. > > Well, in case you didn't notice WvW is **already** guild-centric. Only guilds can claim stuff, and having a claimed keep increases it's power by a lot. > So it will always be somewhat guild-centric. > Now the option to have teams based on the guild would have to be binding to the guild, but not entirely to the player. But a choice **has** to be given to the player to join the Team their main guild is on. > > I don't think this system would replace GvG in any way. But WvW always has been very guild-centric, but not guild exclusive, and the Mega-server solution isn't either. However, what many people have advocated for is guilds choosing where they want to go and pugs being the 'full ins' on the other servers/groups. That would be the deathknell. And no, the choice DOESNT have to be given to the player to go where their guild is. That would just lead to more stacking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReaverKane.7598 Posted January 29, 2018 Share Posted January 29, 2018 > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > @"ReaverKane.7598" said: > > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > > @"ReaverKane.7598" said: > > > > > @"Thustlewhumber.7416" said: > > > > > EOTM's Megaserver resulted in 1) green server constantly rolling blue and red, or 2) just rotating keeps over and over. Turning all of WvW into EOTM isn't the answer, and you would LOSE players... not gain them. > > > > > > > > That's a problem with the map, not the teams. > > > > > > > > > @"Aenaos.8160" said: > > > > > Yeah... that's exactly what WvW needs,taking away what little is left of servers ,and turning it into EotM 2.0 with pips. > > > > > Make bandvagoning from a thing that it is now,to the only thing. > > > > > I'd rather if they allowed people to gain pips in EotM,so you can farm your pips,and we can at least enjoy WvW proper. > > > > > Even in it's current state WvW is 100 times better than EotM or ESO's bs of a campaign. > > > > You're assuming that bandwagoning would even be possible? > > > > This kind of change would actually make it possible to reset all WvW populations and create proper measures to avoid bandwagoning. > > > > > > There is some possible truth to that. > > > > > > My problem with most of the proposals that have been floated by players is that it would be guild centric. Not player centric. No priority should be given to guilds if we go to this system. > > > > > > Guilds that want it, have yet to truly note why. Fights can currently be accomplished in EOTM. > > > > Well, in case you didn't notice WvW is **already** guild-centric. Only guilds can claim stuff, and having a claimed keep increases it's power by a lot. > > So it will always be somewhat guild-centric. > > Now the option to have teams based on the guild would have to be binding to the guild, but not entirely to the player. But a choice **has** to be given to the player to join the Team their main guild is on. > > > > I don't think this system would replace GvG in any way. But WvW always has been very guild-centric, but not guild exclusive, and the Mega-server solution isn't either. > > However, what many people have advocated for is guilds choosing where they want to go and pugs being the 'full ins' on the other servers/groups. That would be the deathknell. > > And no, the choice DOESNT have to be given to the player to go where their guild is. That would just lead to more stacking. Actually, since it's group content, it shouldn't cater to the anti-social. And yes they should allow people to go to where their guild is, of course. BUT, only in the period after the switch. Plus bandwagoning would actually be detrimental to players with this mode... With mega-servers and only 3 teams, a lot more people would be queuing per team. But how WvW works, there would have to be a minimum of players on each team queued for the system to create a new instance. So imagine a new map would be created when each team has 50+ ppl queued. If too many people bandwagon to a single team, what would end up happening is that team having 100++ people queued when the others don't have enough to start a new instance. So the system itself would punish bandwagoning, and people would naturally disperse to be able to queue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirnale.5914 Posted January 29, 2018 Share Posted January 29, 2018 WvW is **community**-centric and guilds are part of that community. While guilds carry the server (by leads and fighting power), they can't do everything alone. Without the randoms, you won't be able to hold your ground for long. And sometimes, the randoms can be really good. Our server consists roughly about 50/50 of guilds/randoms. Ofc you can suddenly decide on one server like Vabbi does and all transfer there. But it usually isn't the case. Also, some guilds exists for the community alone. Also joining the team their guild is on is flawed as it can be. Image 500 people guilds can all go into one team. Now multiply that by the amounts of these guilds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mogrey.3891 Posted January 29, 2018 Share Posted January 29, 2018 i don't see how anet can save/fix/whatever wvw when community don't know what it wants :/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strider Pj.2193 Posted January 29, 2018 Share Posted January 29, 2018 > @"ReaverKane.7598" said: > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > @"ReaverKane.7598" said: > > > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > > > @"ReaverKane.7598" said: > > > > > > @"Thustlewhumber.7416" said: > > > > > > EOTM's Megaserver resulted in 1) green server constantly rolling blue and red, or 2) just rotating keeps over and over. Turning all of WvW into EOTM isn't the answer, and you would LOSE players... not gain them. > > > > > > > > > > That's a problem with the map, not the teams. > > > > > > > > > > > @"Aenaos.8160" said: > > > > > > Yeah... that's exactly what WvW needs,taking away what little is left of servers ,and turning it into EotM 2.0 with pips. > > > > > > Make bandvagoning from a thing that it is now,to the only thing. > > > > > > I'd rather if they allowed people to gain pips in EotM,so you can farm your pips,and we can at least enjoy WvW proper. > > > > > > Even in it's current state WvW is 100 times better than EotM or ESO's bs of a campaign. > > > > > You're assuming that bandwagoning would even be possible? > > > > > This kind of change would actually make it possible to reset all WvW populations and create proper measures to avoid bandwagoning. > > > > > > > > There is some possible truth to that. > > > > > > > > My problem with most of the proposals that have been floated by players is that it would be guild centric. Not player centric. No priority should be given to guilds if we go to this system. > > > > > > > > Guilds that want it, have yet to truly note why. Fights can currently be accomplished in EOTM. > > > > > > Well, in case you didn't notice WvW is **already** guild-centric. Only guilds can claim stuff, and having a claimed keep increases it's power by a lot. > > > So it will always be somewhat guild-centric. > > > Now the option to have teams based on the guild would have to be binding to the guild, but not entirely to the player. But a choice **has** to be given to the player to join the Team their main guild is on. > > > > > > I don't think this system would replace GvG in any way. But WvW always has been very guild-centric, but not guild exclusive, and the Mega-server solution isn't either. > > > > However, what many people have advocated for is guilds choosing where they want to go and pugs being the 'full ins' on the other servers/groups. That would be the deathknell. > > > > And no, the choice DOESNT have to be given to the player to go where their guild is. That would just lead to more stacking. > > Actually, since it's group content, it shouldn't cater to the anti-social. And yes they should allow people to go to where their guild is, of course. > BUT, only in the period after the switch. > > Plus bandwagoning would actually be detrimental to players with this mode... > With mega-servers and only 3 teams, a lot more people would be queuing per team. But how WvW works, there would have to be a minimum of players on each team queued for the system to create a new instance. > So imagine a new map would be created when each team has 50+ ppl queued. If too many people bandwagon to a single team, what would end up happening is that team having 100++ people queued when the others don't have enough to start a new instance. So the system itself would punish bandwagoning, and people would naturally disperse to be able to queue. Again, this is currently in EOTM. People don't go there now, and guilds don't go there. Pugs and ransoms aren't anti social. Lmao.. a better case could be against the guilds who only run closed being anti social and this would only incentivize it more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReaverKane.7598 Posted January 29, 2018 Share Posted January 29, 2018 > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > @"ReaverKane.7598" said: > > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > > @"ReaverKane.7598" said: > > > > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > > > > @"ReaverKane.7598" said: > > > > > > > @"Thustlewhumber.7416" said: > > > > > > > EOTM's Megaserver resulted in 1) green server constantly rolling blue and red, or 2) just rotating keeps over and over. Turning all of WvW into EOTM isn't the answer, and you would LOSE players... not gain them. > > > > > > > > > > > > That's a problem with the map, not the teams. > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Aenaos.8160" said: > > > > > > > Yeah... that's exactly what WvW needs,taking away what little is left of servers ,and turning it into EotM 2.0 with pips. > > > > > > > Make bandvagoning from a thing that it is now,to the only thing. > > > > > > > I'd rather if they allowed people to gain pips in EotM,so you can farm your pips,and we can at least enjoy WvW proper. > > > > > > > Even in it's current state WvW is 100 times better than EotM or ESO's bs of a campaign. > > > > > > You're assuming that bandwagoning would even be possible? > > > > > > This kind of change would actually make it possible to reset all WvW populations and create proper measures to avoid bandwagoning. > > > > > > > > > > There is some possible truth to that. > > > > > > > > > > My problem with most of the proposals that have been floated by players is that it would be guild centric. Not player centric. No priority should be given to guilds if we go to this system. > > > > > > > > > > Guilds that want it, have yet to truly note why. Fights can currently be accomplished in EOTM. > > > > > > > > Well, in case you didn't notice WvW is **already** guild-centric. Only guilds can claim stuff, and having a claimed keep increases it's power by a lot. > > > > So it will always be somewhat guild-centric. > > > > Now the option to have teams based on the guild would have to be binding to the guild, but not entirely to the player. But a choice **has** to be given to the player to join the Team their main guild is on. > > > > > > > > I don't think this system would replace GvG in any way. But WvW always has been very guild-centric, but not guild exclusive, and the Mega-server solution isn't either. > > > > > > However, what many people have advocated for is guilds choosing where they want to go and pugs being the 'full ins' on the other servers/groups. That would be the deathknell. > > > > > > And no, the choice DOESNT have to be given to the player to go where their guild is. That would just lead to more stacking. > > > > Actually, since it's group content, it shouldn't cater to the anti-social. And yes they should allow people to go to where their guild is, of course. > > BUT, only in the period after the switch. > > > > Plus bandwagoning would actually be detrimental to players with this mode... > > With mega-servers and only 3 teams, a lot more people would be queuing per team. But how WvW works, there would have to be a minimum of players on each team queued for the system to create a new instance. > > So imagine a new map would be created when each team has 50+ ppl queued. If too many people bandwagon to a single team, what would end up happening is that team having 100++ people queued when the others don't have enough to start a new instance. So the system itself would punish bandwagoning, and people would naturally disperse to be able to queue. > > Again, this is currently in EOTM. People don't go there now, and guilds don't go there. > > Pugs and ransoms aren't anti social. Lmao.. a better case could be against the guilds who only run closed being anti social and this would only incentivize it more. LOL... So a social group is anti-social, but people that run alone with minimal interaction are the social ones. Fun. And no that's not EoTM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strider Pj.2193 Posted January 29, 2018 Share Posted January 29, 2018 > @"ReaverKane.7598" said: > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > @"ReaverKane.7598" said: > > > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > > > @"ReaverKane.7598" said: > > > > > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > > > > > @"ReaverKane.7598" said: > > > > > > > > @"Thustlewhumber.7416" said: > > > > > > > > EOTM's Megaserver resulted in 1) green server constantly rolling blue and red, or 2) just rotating keeps over and over. Turning all of WvW into EOTM isn't the answer, and you would LOSE players... not gain them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's a problem with the map, not the teams. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Aenaos.8160" said: > > > > > > > > Yeah... that's exactly what WvW needs,taking away what little is left of servers ,and turning it into EotM 2.0 with pips. > > > > > > > > Make bandvagoning from a thing that it is now,to the only thing. > > > > > > > > I'd rather if they allowed people to gain pips in EotM,so you can farm your pips,and we can at least enjoy WvW proper. > > > > > > > > Even in it's current state WvW is 100 times better than EotM or ESO's bs of a campaign. > > > > > > > You're assuming that bandwagoning would even be possible? > > > > > > > This kind of change would actually make it possible to reset all WvW populations and create proper measures to avoid bandwagoning. > > > > > > > > > > > > There is some possible truth to that. > > > > > > > > > > > > My problem with most of the proposals that have been floated by players is that it would be guild centric. Not player centric. No priority should be given to guilds if we go to this system. > > > > > > > > > > > > Guilds that want it, have yet to truly note why. Fights can currently be accomplished in EOTM. > > > > > > > > > > Well, in case you didn't notice WvW is **already** guild-centric. Only guilds can claim stuff, and having a claimed keep increases it's power by a lot. > > > > > So it will always be somewhat guild-centric. > > > > > Now the option to have teams based on the guild would have to be binding to the guild, but not entirely to the player. But a choice **has** to be given to the player to join the Team their main guild is on. > > > > > > > > > > I don't think this system would replace GvG in any way. But WvW always has been very guild-centric, but not guild exclusive, and the Mega-server solution isn't either. > > > > > > > > However, what many people have advocated for is guilds choosing where they want to go and pugs being the 'full ins' on the other servers/groups. That would be the deathknell. > > > > > > > > And no, the choice DOESNT have to be given to the player to go where their guild is. That would just lead to more stacking. > > > > > > Actually, since it's group content, it shouldn't cater to the anti-social. And yes they should allow people to go to where their guild is, of course. > > > BUT, only in the period after the switch. > > > > > > Plus bandwagoning would actually be detrimental to players with this mode... > > > With mega-servers and only 3 teams, a lot more people would be queuing per team. But how WvW works, there would have to be a minimum of players on each team queued for the system to create a new instance. > > > So imagine a new map would be created when each team has 50+ ppl queued. If too many people bandwagon to a single team, what would end up happening is that team having 100++ people queued when the others don't have enough to start a new instance. So the system itself would punish bandwagoning, and people would naturally disperse to be able to queue. > > > > Again, this is currently in EOTM. People don't go there now, and guilds don't go there. > > > > Pugs and ransoms aren't anti social. Lmao.. a better case could be against the guilds who only run closed being anti social and this would only incentivize it more. > > LOL... So a social group is anti-social, but people that run alone with minimal interaction are the social ones. Fun. > And no that's not EoTM. So, I guess you've never gone into WvW without your guild, because that makes you a PUG. And I take it your guild has never run closed. You are calling the roamers/pugs/ransoms anti social. Not I. And I am calling guilds who (by all rights it is their choice) that run closed anti social. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sovereign.1093 Posted January 29, 2018 Share Posted January 29, 2018 > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > @"Sovereign.1093" said: > > Anet can always test this idea to see if it will work. And if people don't like it. Lessen the servers. ^O^ And in the least return to status quo > > They have tested it. they must test it again with us like pre hot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zinkz.7045 Posted January 29, 2018 Share Posted January 29, 2018 > @"ReaverKane.7598" said: > LOL... So a social group is anti-social, but people that run alone with minimal interaction are the social ones. Fun. Rather depends, within the context of a video game, some of the most anti-social people are those who for example play with the same four friends in their own little guild, and barely interact with anyone else, where as some people not in guilds can be some of them chattiest people in map chat, actually meet and interact with other people because they pug fractals, etc, rather than play with the same 4 people, so really it depends on the person, being in a guild or not doesn't really mean anything. And then in a broader context, someone who sits in a room, alone, playing a video game for thousands of hours with their guild "friends" would frankly be mocked by most of society if they claimed they were sociable, where as one of the reasons some people don't do the guild thing, is they actually have this thing called a life, with actual friends, work, other interests, etc so they only play the game a limited amount of time, which on the whole is not conducive to being part of most sorts of guild, but is conducive to having an actual social life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArchonWing.9480 Posted January 29, 2018 Share Posted January 29, 2018 > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > @"ReaverKane.7598" said: > > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > > @"ReaverKane.7598" said: > > > > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > > > > @"ReaverKane.7598" said: > > > > > > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > > > > > > @"ReaverKane.7598" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Thustlewhumber.7416" said: > > > > > > > > > EOTM's Megaserver resulted in 1) green server constantly rolling blue and red, or 2) just rotating keeps over and over. Turning all of WvW into EOTM isn't the answer, and you would LOSE players... not gain them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's a problem with the map, not the teams. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Aenaos.8160" said: > > > > > > > > > Yeah... that's exactly what WvW needs,taking away what little is left of servers ,and turning it into EotM 2.0 with pips. > > > > > > > > > Make bandvagoning from a thing that it is now,to the only thing. > > > > > > > > > I'd rather if they allowed people to gain pips in EotM,so you can farm your pips,and we can at least enjoy WvW proper. > > > > > > > > > Even in it's current state WvW is 100 times better than EotM or ESO's bs of a campaign. > > > > > > > > You're assuming that bandwagoning would even be possible? > > > > > > > > This kind of change would actually make it possible to reset all WvW populations and create proper measures to avoid bandwagoning. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is some possible truth to that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My problem with most of the proposals that have been floated by players is that it would be guild centric. Not player centric. No priority should be given to guilds if we go to this system. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Guilds that want it, have yet to truly note why. Fights can currently be accomplished in EOTM. > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, in case you didn't notice WvW is **already** guild-centric. Only guilds can claim stuff, and having a claimed keep increases it's power by a lot. > > > > > > So it will always be somewhat guild-centric. > > > > > > Now the option to have teams based on the guild would have to be binding to the guild, but not entirely to the player. But a choice **has** to be given to the player to join the Team their main guild is on. > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think this system would replace GvG in any way. But WvW always has been very guild-centric, but not guild exclusive, and the Mega-server solution isn't either. > > > > > > > > > > However, what many people have advocated for is guilds choosing where they want to go and pugs being the 'full ins' on the other servers/groups. That would be the deathknell. > > > > > > > > > > And no, the choice DOESNT have to be given to the player to go where their guild is. That would just lead to more stacking. > > > > > > > > Actually, since it's group content, it shouldn't cater to the anti-social. And yes they should allow people to go to where their guild is, of course. > > > > BUT, only in the period after the switch. > > > > > > > > Plus bandwagoning would actually be detrimental to players with this mode... > > > > With mega-servers and only 3 teams, a lot more people would be queuing per team. But how WvW works, there would have to be a minimum of players on each team queued for the system to create a new instance. > > > > So imagine a new map would be created when each team has 50+ ppl queued. If too many people bandwagon to a single team, what would end up happening is that team having 100++ people queued when the others don't have enough to start a new instance. So the system itself would punish bandwagoning, and people would naturally disperse to be able to queue. > > > > > > Again, this is currently in EOTM. People don't go there now, and guilds don't go there. > > > > > > Pugs and ransoms aren't anti social. Lmao.. a better case could be against the guilds who only run closed being anti social and this would only incentivize it more. > > > > LOL... So a social group is anti-social, but people that run alone with minimal interaction are the social ones. Fun. > > And no that's not EoTM. > > So, I guess you've never gone into WvW without your guild, because that makes you a PUG. And I take it your guild has never run closed. > > You are calling the roamers/pugs/ransoms anti social. Not I. And I am calling guilds who (by all rights it is their choice) that run closed anti social. And not to mention common anti-social behaviors like some groups demanding the map be their personal playground especially when there's a queue. Regardless of which end people come from it boils down to "I'm more important than other people" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sovereign.1093 Posted January 29, 2018 Share Posted January 29, 2018 there is skill in teamwork because it is not easy. those who dont understand that needs to wake up =) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norbe.7630 Posted January 29, 2018 Share Posted January 29, 2018 Why would there will be someone that insists megaserver if theres already one (EoTM), the linking is already on its way to be like one. Why not make guild halls a battle ground instead of requesting OS as an instance like PvP. Your guild hall can be attacked and your guild can also attack other guild halls, setting like a PvP season would be good and guild ratings a record. Tournament burnout would be obsolete........ As a guild in PvE you go adventures together As a guild in GvG you fight and defend together As a guild in WvW you die alot together https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ou4OoD49Etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReaverKane.7598 Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 > @"Norbe.7630" said: > Why would there will be someone that insists megaserver if theres already one (EoTM), the linking is already on its way to be like one. > Why not make guild halls a battle ground instead of requesting OS as an instance like PvP. > Your guild hall can be attacked and your guild can also attack other guild halls, setting like a PvP season would be good and guild ratings a record. > Tournament burnout would be obsolete........ > > As a guild in PvE you go adventures together > As a guild in GvG you fight and defend together > As a guild in WvW you die alot together > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ou4OoD49Etc Actually that would be awesome GvG! The best games i've played GvG in had pretty much the same style of play (GW1, Perfect World, Runes of Magic), your Guild Hall would be your battleground and you'd attack the enemies and defend yours. Well, MegaServers with only 3 teams in WvW would arguably be a fix for WvW, i've never mentioned GvG in any post, because as far as i'm concerned GW2 has no such thing. I mentioned guilds simply because when shuffling players into random teams for that sort of rework, there should be a grace period where people can reshuffle themselves to get on the same server as their WvW guild. And then be locked in afterwards with the same system for changing servers/teams as we have today. What would megaservers fix: - Map capacity could be reduced, lowering latency, and FPS losses. - Lowering map capacity might lead to less reliance in numbers, and allow for better more strategic play. - A reset and reshufle of everyone would solve current overpopulated servers. - A "loyalty" bonus could be added to WvW rewards to keep people from moving to the strongest team. - Lower map caps and only 3 teams would lead to more people queueing, which although fixed by adding more instances of the map, would also punish overpopulated maps, because in order to keep balance there would have to be a quorum in every team, which without a well dispersed population would punish the team with too many people. - Possibility of bringing back the WvW bonuses, but this time geared towards the team you're representing. - Nightcapping wouldn't be such a big issue. - Outnumbered would also be less of an issue, especially if there's enforced balance. The downside to this would be that objectives would have to be reworked because of the impermanence of the servers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SugarCayne.3098 Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 Ill never understand people wanting to make WvW into EoTM, when they already have EoTM. If this was the optimal choice, why not just play it instead of trying to force on those who don’t care for it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SugarCayne.3098 Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 > @"ReaverKane.7598" said: > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > @"ReaverKane.7598" said: > > > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > > > @"ReaverKane.7598" said: > > > > > > @"Thustlewhumber.7416" said: > > > > > > EOTM's Megaserver resulted in 1) green server constantly rolling blue and red, or 2) just rotating keeps over and over. Turning all of WvW into EOTM isn't the answer, and you would LOSE players... not gain them. > > > > > > > > > > That's a problem with the map, not the teams. > > > > > > > > > > > @"Aenaos.8160" said: > > > > > > Yeah... that's exactly what WvW needs,taking away what little is left of servers ,and turning it into EotM 2.0 with pips. > > > > > > Make bandvagoning from a thing that it is now,to the only thing. > > > > > > I'd rather if they allowed people to gain pips in EotM,so you can farm your pips,and we can at least enjoy WvW proper. > > > > > > Even in it's current state WvW is 100 times better than EotM or ESO's bs of a campaign. > > > > > You're assuming that bandwagoning would even be possible? > > > > > This kind of change would actually make it possible to reset all WvW populations and create proper measures to avoid bandwagoning. > > > > > > > > There is some possible truth to that. > > > > > > > > My problem with most of the proposals that have been floated by players is that it would be guild centric. Not player centric. No priority should be given to guilds if we go to this system. > > > > > > > > Guilds that want it, have yet to truly note why. Fights can currently be accomplished in EOTM. > > > > > > Well, in case you didn't notice WvW is **already** guild-centric. Only guilds can claim stuff, and having a claimed keep increases it's power by a lot. > > > So it will always be somewhat guild-centric. > > > Now the option to have teams based on the guild would have to be binding to the guild, but not entirely to the player. But a choice **has** to be given to the player to join the Team their main guild is on. > > > > > > I don't think this system would replace GvG in any way. But WvW always has been very guild-centric, but not guild exclusive, and the Mega-server solution isn't either. > > > > However, what many people have advocated for is guilds choosing where they want to go and pugs being the 'full ins' on the other servers/groups. That would be the deathknell. > > > > And no, the choice DOESNT have to be given to the player to go where their guild is. That would just lead to more stacking. > > Actually, since it's group content, it shouldn't cater to the anti-social. And yes they should allow people to go to where their guild is, of course. > BUT, only in the period after the switch. > > Plus bandwagoning would actually be detrimental to players with this mode... > With mega-servers and only 3 teams, a lot more people would be queuing per team. But how WvW works, there would have to be a minimum of players on each team queued for the system to create a new instance. > So imagine a new map would be created when each team has 50+ ppl queued. If too many people bandwagon to a single team, what would end up happening is that team having 100++ people queued when the others don't have enough to start a new instance. So the system itself would punish bandwagoning, and people would naturally disperse to be able to queue. I’m going to assume you’re relatively new to WvW to make the above statements. Otherwise you’d recognize that some like to blob, others don’t, and both contribute to the map. Lose one group or another and you’ll see even emptier maps. WvW is a microcosm that relies on cooperative gameplay. That includes multiple styles of play. To indicate otherwise lacks foresight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeadlySynz.3471 Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 > @"SugarCayne.3098" said: > > @"ReaverKane.7598" said: > > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > > @"ReaverKane.7598" said: > > > > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > > > > @"ReaverKane.7598" said: > > > > > > > @"Thustlewhumber.7416" said: > > > > > > > EOTM's Megaserver resulted in 1) green server constantly rolling blue and red, or 2) just rotating keeps over and over. Turning all of WvW into EOTM isn't the answer, and you would LOSE players... not gain them. > > > > > > > > > > > > That's a problem with the map, not the teams. > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Aenaos.8160" said: > > > > > > > Yeah... that's exactly what WvW needs,taking away what little is left of servers ,and turning it into EotM 2.0 with pips. > > > > > > > Make bandvagoning from a thing that it is now,to the only thing. > > > > > > > I'd rather if they allowed people to gain pips in EotM,so you can farm your pips,and we can at least enjoy WvW proper. > > > > > > > Even in it's current state WvW is 100 times better than EotM or ESO's bs of a campaign. > > > > > > You're assuming that bandwagoning would even be possible? > > > > > > This kind of change would actually make it possible to reset all WvW populations and create proper measures to avoid bandwagoning. > > > > > > > > > > There is some possible truth to that. > > > > > > > > > > My problem with most of the proposals that have been floated by players is that it would be guild centric. Not player centric. No priority should be given to guilds if we go to this system. > > > > > > > > > > Guilds that want it, have yet to truly note why. Fights can currently be accomplished in EOTM. > > > > > > > > Well, in case you didn't notice WvW is **already** guild-centric. Only guilds can claim stuff, and having a claimed keep increases it's power by a lot. > > > > So it will always be somewhat guild-centric. > > > > Now the option to have teams based on the guild would have to be binding to the guild, but not entirely to the player. But a choice **has** to be given to the player to join the Team their main guild is on. > > > > > > > > I don't think this system would replace GvG in any way. But WvW always has been very guild-centric, but not guild exclusive, and the Mega-server solution isn't either. > > > > > > However, what many people have advocated for is guilds choosing where they want to go and pugs being the 'full ins' on the other servers/groups. That would be the deathknell. > > > > > > And no, the choice DOESNT have to be given to the player to go where their guild is. That would just lead to more stacking. > > > > Actually, since it's group content, it shouldn't cater to the anti-social. And yes they should allow people to go to where their guild is, of course. > > BUT, only in the period after the switch. > > > > Plus bandwagoning would actually be detrimental to players with this mode... > > With mega-servers and only 3 teams, a lot more people would be queuing per team. But how WvW works, there would have to be a minimum of players on each team queued for the system to create a new instance. > > So imagine a new map would be created when each team has 50+ ppl queued. If too many people bandwagon to a single team, what would end up happening is that team having 100++ people queued when the others don't have enough to start a new instance. So the system itself would punish bandwagoning, and people would naturally disperse to be able to queue. > > I’m going to assume you’re relatively new to WvW to make the above statements. Otherwise you’d recognize that some like to blob, others don’t, and both contribute to the map. Lose one group or another and you’ll see even emptier maps. WvW is a microcosm that relies on cooperative gameplay. That includes multiple styles of play. To indicate otherwise lacks foresight. There is no cooperative game play when there is no semblance of population balance. You can easily have one larger uncoordinated group running over a smaller coordinated group with ease. Population balance needs to be had above anything else first and foremost and that is exactly what the mega server fixes. So unless the populace as a whole can agree to disperse themselves evenly among all the servers (which we know is never going to happen), balance should simply be imposed on WvW before people get bored and walk out of the game either from having no competition or being rolled continuously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReaverKane.7598 Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 > @"SugarCayne.3098" said: > > @"ReaverKane.7598" said: > > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > > @"ReaverKane.7598" said: > > > > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > > > > > @"ReaverKane.7598" said: > > > > > > > @"Thustlewhumber.7416" said: > > > > > > > EOTM's Megaserver resulted in 1) green server constantly rolling blue and red, or 2) just rotating keeps over and over. Turning all of WvW into EOTM isn't the answer, and you would LOSE players... not gain them. > > > > > > > > > > > > That's a problem with the map, not the teams. > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Aenaos.8160" said: > > > > > > > Yeah... that's exactly what WvW needs,taking away what little is left of servers ,and turning it into EotM 2.0 with pips. > > > > > > > Make bandvagoning from a thing that it is now,to the only thing. > > > > > > > I'd rather if they allowed people to gain pips in EotM,so you can farm your pips,and we can at least enjoy WvW proper. > > > > > > > Even in it's current state WvW is 100 times better than EotM or ESO's bs of a campaign. > > > > > > You're assuming that bandwagoning would even be possible? > > > > > > This kind of change would actually make it possible to reset all WvW populations and create proper measures to avoid bandwagoning. > > > > > > > > > > There is some possible truth to that. > > > > > > > > > > My problem with most of the proposals that have been floated by players is that it would be guild centric. Not player centric. No priority should be given to guilds if we go to this system. > > > > > > > > > > Guilds that want it, have yet to truly note why. Fights can currently be accomplished in EOTM. > > > > > > > > Well, in case you didn't notice WvW is **already** guild-centric. Only guilds can claim stuff, and having a claimed keep increases it's power by a lot. > > > > So it will always be somewhat guild-centric. > > > > Now the option to have teams based on the guild would have to be binding to the guild, but not entirely to the player. But a choice **has** to be given to the player to join the Team their main guild is on. > > > > > > > > I don't think this system would replace GvG in any way. But WvW always has been very guild-centric, but not guild exclusive, and the Mega-server solution isn't either. > > > > > > However, what many people have advocated for is guilds choosing where they want to go and pugs being the 'full ins' on the other servers/groups. That would be the deathknell. > > > > > > And no, the choice DOESNT have to be given to the player to go where their guild is. That would just lead to more stacking. > > > > Actually, since it's group content, it shouldn't cater to the anti-social. And yes they should allow people to go to where their guild is, of course. > > BUT, only in the period after the switch. > > > > Plus bandwagoning would actually be detrimental to players with this mode... > > With mega-servers and only 3 teams, a lot more people would be queuing per team. But how WvW works, there would have to be a minimum of players on each team queued for the system to create a new instance. > > So imagine a new map would be created when each team has 50+ ppl queued. If too many people bandwagon to a single team, what would end up happening is that team having 100++ people queued when the others don't have enough to start a new instance. So the system itself would punish bandwagoning, and people would naturally disperse to be able to queue. > > I’m going to assume you’re relatively new to WvW to make the above statements. Otherwise you’d recognize that some like to blob, others don’t, and both contribute to the map. Lose one group or another and you’ll see even emptier maps. WvW is a microcosm that relies on cooperative gameplay. That includes multiple styles of play. To indicate otherwise lacks foresight. Blobs are mostly people just blindly following one person, it's not cooperation it's delegation of responsibility. I've been playing WvW since there is a GW2. And i had the opportunity to play it before zergs/blobs became a staple of the game. When people would divide into smaller groups to capture individual points simultaneously. Emptier maps compared to what? Have you ever played WvW on a map where a com just jumped maps? That's a freaking desert. Also, funny enough you actually quoted a post where i never mentioned blobs or zergs... Or maybe you don't understand the concept of bandwagoning, as in moving to the winning server to reap easy rewards, which leads to huge population imbalances? > @"SugarCayne.3098" said: > Ill never understand people wanting to make WvW into EoTM, when they already have EoTM. > > If this was the optimal choice, why not just play it instead of trying to force on those who don’t care for it? EoTM doesn't work because it's estranged from the rest of the game mode, its not integral to it, and the map itself sux. That's the problem with EoTM. It doesn't mean that 3 global factions isn't better than individual servers, because the only actual difference between EoTM and a mega-server type system with 3 teams, is that there would be some less persistence of objectives (to be fair, there's people advocating that they reset with each skirmish) if a Mega-server goes too low and is closed. All else is improved, you'd have less queue times if all servers are balanced, which would incentivize people to spread out more evenly instead of all jumping to the winning server, would remove the issue with night capping, and would allow map capacity to be more flexible, since they wouldn't have to worry about queues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norbe.7630 Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 PvE is Fashion Wars 2 pls dun make WvW a Faction Wars too :/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SugarCayne.3098 Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 > @"ReaverKane.7598" said: > EoTM doesn't work because it's estranged from the rest of the game mode, its not integral to it, and the map itself sux. That's the problem with EoTM. So if Anet took devs away from working on WvW and created a new EoTM map you'd be happy and not want to make WvW into another EoTM? Ok that clears things up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strider Pj.2193 Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 > @"SugarCayne.3098" said: > > @"ReaverKane.7598" said: > > EoTM doesn't work because it's estranged from the rest of the game mode, its not integral to it, and the map itself sux. That's the problem with EoTM. > > So if Anet took devs away from working on WvW and created a new EoTM map you'd be happy and not want to make WvW into another EoTM? > > Ok that clears things up. > And of course winning doesn't matter nor does rewards so... It should fix things for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReaverKane.7598 Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 > @"Norbe.7630" said: > PvE is Fashion Wars 2 > pls dun make WvW a Faction Wars too :/ It already is? > @"SugarCayne.3098" said: > > @"ReaverKane.7598" said: > > EoTM doesn't work because it's estranged from the rest of the game mode, its not integral to it, and the map itself sux. That's the problem with EoTM. > > So if Anet took devs away from working on WvW and created a new EoTM map you'd be happy and not want to make WvW into another EoTM? > > Ok that clears things up. > Did i say that? Actually never have i mentioned EoTM before others did. EoTM doesn't work because it's an isolated mechanic that doesn't bring anything to the rest. Having 3 factions with instantiated maps, would. It's not the same thing as Edge of the Mists. And the fact that Edge of the Mists didn't work has no bearing on this suggestion since the similarities start and end with there being factions in it. > @"Strider Pj.2193" said: > > @"SugarCayne.3098" said: > > > @"ReaverKane.7598" said: > > > EoTM doesn't work because it's estranged from the rest of the game mode, its not integral to it, and the map itself sux. That's the problem with EoTM. > > > > So if Anet took devs away from working on WvW and created a new EoTM map you'd be happy and not want to make WvW into another EoTM? > > > > Ok that clears things up. > > > > And of course winning doesn't matter nor does rewards so... It should fix things for them. 1) Again, didn't say that. 2) In the Height of WvW people actually **had to play pve to fund WvW** the rewards were pretty much non-existant, and people still played it. Now that they added rewards, it's arguably much, much worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoon.1524 Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 #serverpride2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now