This game mode is not all inclusive

[Caliburn.1845]

So I'm curious, what do you guys think would be the most productive ways to revive WvW communities(or create new ones) and sustain those communities?

 

All this talk of exclusion or inclusion, Alliances working or not working, servers or guilds working or not working. If its all so obvious, what good improvements can be made to foster communities?

[steki.1478]

> @"Caliburn.1845" said:

> So I'm curious, what do you guys think would be the most productive ways to revive WvW communities(or create new ones) and sustain those communities?

>

> All this talk of exclusion or inclusion, Alliances working or not working, servers or guilds working or not working. If its all so obvious, what good improvements can be made to foster communities?

 

It's never gonna happen. Pvp is supposed to be competitive. Gw2 is casual game. Those two just don't go together.

 

The only thing that keeps hardcore players in game is great combat system. Raids, fractals, spvp and wvw are never gonna get better/attract more dedicated players. They can only be turned into loot trains so casuals get to experience every part of the game because they still make the majority of population and majority of income.

[Israel.7056]

> @"Caliburn.1845" said:

> So I'm curious, what do you guys think would be the most productive ways to revive WvW communities(or create new ones) and sustain those communities?

>

> All this talk of exclusion or inclusion, Alliances working or not working, servers or guilds working or not working. If its all so obvious, what good improvements can be made to foster communities?

 

More work than i think they're willing to do.

[Shining One.1635]

Good / experienced players will always outperform bad / inexperienced players. Introducing mechanics to bridge the gap between the two is an exercise in futility. Instead, the talent should be incentivized to spread out rather than conglomerate. I don't know how to accomplish that on this scale though.

[shiri.4257]

> @"Israel.7056" said:

> > @"Caliburn.1845" said:

> > So I'm curious, what do you guys think would be the most productive ways to revive WvW communities(or create new ones) and sustain those communities?

> >

> > All this talk of exclusion or inclusion, Alliances working or not working, servers or guilds working or not working. If its all so obvious, what good improvements can be made to foster communities?

>

> More work than i think they're willing to do.

 

This guy gets it.

[Blockhead Magee.3092]

I submit that the downturn started with the mega servers when you could no longer stop in LA and do a call out. New players who would say "what?" could get pulled in for some fantastic wvw battles and potentially get into the game mode. Now, people just sort of wander in and get ganked by a more experienced player. Not the best way to get introduced to the game mode.

 

Getting new blood into wvw now takes gimmicks and shiny trinkets. Inclusiveness makes no bit of difference.

[trueanimus.4085]

every class should have the same potential to defend or kill... but the game is so unbalanced right now its pathetic actually. You can be the end all of end all bunker builds and a stealthier will just sneak up on you.. BAM .. one shot and your dead while they run away laughing and no one can even catch them.

 

There is no real "roaming" in the game anymore unless you are a mesmer or a thief.

 

As long as they allow stealth classes (who are already OP with stealth) to have 1 shot kill abilities, or classes that run a ton of healing (like firebrands) and still output tons of damage, the game will be unbalanced.

 

I know they have always tried to say that this game was the exception to the rule and there is no trinity here for every class, meaning you can play any class as either tank dps or heals or a combination of any of the above.... but some classes, like necro, have no real healing spec, no real burst, no stab, no real avoidance.

 

Some of the most fun classes in the game, as you may have already guessed... necro is my favorite, always get nerfed just because a lot of people ran it in WVW. It isnt nor has it ever been an OP class... yet they get the hammer every time. Its gotten so bad its to the point where you cant roam with one at all anymore.

 

Also.. someone explain to me why necro, the disease spreader... the dark mage of of the dead and putrid arts.... is now forced to run power builds.. ?? This makes no sense to me at all.

 

Meanwhile... tons of mesmers who can stealth, kill you in 1 shot and run 3000 yards in 1 second abound.... deadeyes that can evade everything, go stealth and 1 shot a "tank build" for 30k and every other class that has 1500 range and can blink or wisp away from any danger are allowed in this game mode.

 

 

[trueanimus.4085]

> @"Blockhead Magee.3092" said:

> I submit that the downturn started with the mega servers when you could no longer stop in LA and do a call out. New players who would say "what?" could get pulled in for some fantastic wvw battles and potentially get into the game mode. Now, people just sort of wander in and get ganked by a more experienced player. Not the best way to get introduced to the game mode.

>

> Getting new blood into wvw now takes gimmicks and shiny trinkets. Inclusiveness makes no bit of difference.

 

Nah they just add a reward track and the afkers jump in the que to stand in spawn or keep... the reward tracks were an awesome idea.. but they need to do something about afkers just getting pips for attacking one thing or building siege no one needs in keep etc.

[Limodriver.4106]

they dumb down this game mode for casual players but casual players are not buying it so maybe its time to make it hardcore and reward those whos been playing for long time?

[Israel.7056]

> @"Limodriver.4106" said:

> they dumb down this game mode for casual players but casual players are not buying it so maybe its time to make it hardcore and reward those whos been playing for long time?

 

Seems like their business model centers more around selling existing players fluff than it does selling more copies of the game or it's expansions to new players. I would wager "hardcore" wvw players are no more likely to purchase the next set of mount skins or gathering tool skins or novelty item etc than are "casual" pvers.

[Shazmataz.1423]

> @"gebrechen.5643" said:

> As someone who play both on NA and EU I can at least confirm that this is mainly an NA problem. You NA guys broke that game mode over the years with your transfering and stacking of servers by getting paid for transfers or driving your weird "we go there for the fights - agenda" that never applied to your wvw environment. In the beginning guilds transfered for a gvg vs. some other guild as far as I remember, but after that no one really cared for good fights. You wanted to enjoy the superiority of your "group" or "prove something to someone" which needed no proof or wasn't even important enough.

> If any guild would ever have "searched" for fights they could have stayed at their home servers and waited for matchups to happen. There was always enough to fight before you started stacking your NA timezones with "all the fight guilds". There are so many examples out there, choose your own. I mostly choose Maguuma for this, because it's the most obvious one next to Malvolents "alliance" stuff that left two or three servers in ruins by drawing players from one server to the next.

> The alliance system won't change any of that until you don't change your behaviour.

> Does really anyone think what didn't work in the last six years on NA suddenly starts working in year seven?

> Maguuma, Tarnished Coast, Jade Quarry, HoD, Dragonbrand, Blackgate are dead, the new experiments Crystal Desert, SoS, *SoR are dead again too.

>

> My expectation for the "soon" coming alliances is that one alliance, most likely the Kaineng one, will dominate over what's now FA and the rest will be unhappy lootbags. Prove me wrong. Right, you won't.

>

>

 

This post is so on point! You have encapsulated what's wrong with NA wvw along with the toxicity that accompanies "You wanted to enjoy the superiority of your "group" or "prove something to someone" which needed no proof or wasn't even important enough." sums it up but that imagined superiority and proving it means everything to a number of toxic people who go out of their way to destroy the pleasure of wvw for everyone else.

Until this changes and people play the game for fun nothing is going to change with wvw....alliances or not. In fact being on Kaineng with an "alliance" is a horrible experience atm, not a great advocate for things to come.

[Israel.7056]

> @"Shazmataz.1423" said:

> > @"gebrechen.5643" said:

> > As someone who play both on NA and EU I can at least confirm that this is mainly an NA problem. You NA guys broke that game mode over the years with your transfering and stacking of servers by getting paid for transfers or driving your weird "we go there for the fights - agenda" that never applied to your wvw environment. In the beginning guilds transfered for a gvg vs. some other guild as far as I remember, but after that no one really cared for good fights. You wanted to enjoy the superiority of your "group" or "prove something to someone" which needed no proof or wasn't even important enough.

> > If any guild would ever have "searched" for fights they could have stayed at their home servers and waited for matchups to happen. There was always enough to fight before you started stacking your NA timezones with "all the fight guilds". There are so many examples out there, choose your own. I mostly choose Maguuma for this, because it's the most obvious one next to Malvolents "alliance" stuff that left two or three servers in ruins by drawing players from one server to the next.

> > The alliance system won't change any of that until you don't change your behaviour.

> > Does really anyone think what didn't work in the last six years on NA suddenly starts working in year seven?

> > Maguuma, Tarnished Coast, Jade Quarry, HoD, Dragonbrand, Blackgate are dead, the new experiments Crystal Desert, SoS, *SoR are dead again too.

> >

> > My expectation for the "soon" coming alliances is that one alliance, most likely the Kaineng one, will dominate over what's now FA and the rest will be unhappy lootbags. Prove me wrong. Right, you won't.

> >

> >

>

> This post is so on point! You have encapsulated what's wrong with NA wvw along with the toxicity that accompanies "You wanted to enjoy the superiority of your "group" or "prove something to someone" which needed no proof or wasn't even important enough." sums it up but that imagined superiority and proving it means everything to a number of toxic people who go out of their way to destroy the pleasure of wvw for everyone else.

> Until this changes and people play the game for fun nothing is going to change with wvw....alliances or not. In fact being on Kaineng with an "alliance" is a horrible experience atm, not a great advocate for things to come.

 

I would think the fatal flaw in this reasoning to be obvious to everyone right?

[Strider Pj.2193]

> @"Israel.7056" said:

> > @"Shazmataz.1423" said:

> > > @"gebrechen.5643" said:

> > > As someone who play both on NA and EU I can at least confirm that this is mainly an NA problem. You NA guys broke that game mode over the years with your transfering and stacking of servers by getting paid for transfers or driving your weird "we go there for the fights - agenda" that never applied to your wvw environment. In the beginning guilds transfered for a gvg vs. some other guild as far as I remember, but after that no one really cared for good fights. You wanted to enjoy the superiority of your "group" or "prove something to someone" which needed no proof or wasn't even important enough.

> > > If any guild would ever have "searched" for fights they could have stayed at their home servers and waited for matchups to happen. There was always enough to fight before you started stacking your NA timezones with "all the fight guilds". There are so many examples out there, choose your own. I mostly choose Maguuma for this, because it's the most obvious one next to Malvolents "alliance" stuff that left two or three servers in ruins by drawing players from one server to the next.

> > > The alliance system won't change any of that until you don't change your behaviour.

> > > Does really anyone think what didn't work in the last six years on NA suddenly starts working in year seven?

> > > Maguuma, Tarnished Coast, Jade Quarry, HoD, Dragonbrand, Blackgate are dead, the new experiments Crystal Desert, SoS, *SoR are dead again too.

> > >

> > > My expectation for the "soon" coming alliances is that one alliance, most likely the Kaineng one, will dominate over what's now FA and the rest will be unhappy lootbags. Prove me wrong. Right, you won't.

> > >

> > >

> >

> > This post is so on point! You have encapsulated what's wrong with NA wvw along with the toxicity that accompanies "You wanted to enjoy the superiority of your "group" or "prove something to someone" which needed no proof or wasn't even important enough." sums it up but that imagined superiority and proving it means everything to a number of toxic people who go out of their way to destroy the pleasure of wvw for everyone else.

> > Until this changes and people play the game for fun nothing is going to change with wvw....alliances or not. In fact being on Kaineng with an "alliance" is a horrible experience atm, not a great advocate for things to come.

>

> I would think the fatal flaw in this reasoning to be obvious to everyone right?

 

Unfortunately not to everyone.

[zencow.3651]

> @"Straegen.2938" said:

>

> I think the issue is less about farming new players and new players not being welcomed and taught the ropes. The current WvW setup actively discourages veterans from guiding new players through the various areas. I straight up leave an area/fight when new players are around.

>

> This in turn creates a hostile new player environment. Few if any new players will stick around after getting run over, and over, and over when they first step into WvW. Veterans should have an incentive to help new players and the game mode itself should have enticing rewards so new players have a vested interest in trying it out.

 

I'm just gonna say this won't solve anything.

 

The current open-world PvE setup actively breeds poor 'play how I want' attitudes and a problematic 'casual' mentality and these 'casuals' value a perceived sense of 'convenience' above all else. They don't want to answer to anyone else or plan their schedules around a game. A fixed mindset may also evident where metacognition around their deaths and how they could improve just doesn't happen.

 

Veterans DO try to find new players to teach but teaching requires both a willing student and an effective means to engage them in the content and they offer them this through voice communication and training times. The reward of gaining trained and better quality players to play with is already enough of an incentive in itself.

 

However, 'casual' players tend to flat out refuse getting into squads and going on teamspeak/discord/whatever to meet the veteran's end of expectations and encase themselves in their own bubbles thinking they're contributing oh-so-much just squirrelling around.

 

Would I like better WvW rewards? Yes.

Would it incentivize people to actually group up, learn and contribute better in fights? No.

[setdog.1592]

i believe the OP is entirely inaccurate with his premise. the game is absolutely 100 percent inclusive. there is not one single aspect of the game designed to exclude any player.

 

if a player chooses not to participate in one, or multiple aspects of the game, for what ever reason, this is not due to game design. these are personal choices that players make.

 

a player deciding not to participate, is not the same as being excluded.

 

but i believe what the op is attempting to say is that anet should stop trying to dumb down the game so that the least dedicated and most casual players get exactly the same results as the players who invest more time and are much more interested in, and therefore achieve better results than the so called 'casuals' who want to be able to survive a zerg without even knowing or acknowledging the difference between pvp and pve.

[Warlord.9074]

> @"Caliburn.1845" said:

> So I'm curious, what do you guys think would be the most productive ways to revive WvW communities(or create new ones) and sustain those communities?

>

> All this talk of exclusion or inclusion, Alliances working or not working, servers or guilds working or not working. If its all so obvious, what good improvements can be made to foster communities?

 

Create 9 new servers and reduce NA to 3 tiers and stop locking servers, as an immediate bandaid. let who ever is left just stack where ever they want and stop this constant nonsense of matchmaking every 2 months just because anet didn't want to delete serves because a vocal minority complained about server loyalty, which is just yikes since anet is going to delete all the servers anyways. Why does this matter at this point. Delete all of the servers, Give people free transfers whos world got deleted. When there is ques on every map and there is only 3 tiers left people will spread out more. cuz they will not want to wait in que to play.

 

That is really the problem with NA and has been for years. Most of the reason for matchup imbalances has nothing to do with coverage and has everything with there being to many servers to support the players base, and anets refusal to just have less servers. Honestly is so stupid that the most easiest and logical way forward and yet is completely overlooked or ignored.

 

 

 

 

[Dawdler.8521]

> @"Warlord.9074" said:

> > @"Caliburn.1845" said:

> > So I'm curious, what do you guys think would be the most productive ways to revive WvW communities(or create new ones) and sustain those communities?

> >

> > All this talk of exclusion or inclusion, Alliances working or not working, servers or guilds working or not working. If its all so obvious, what good improvements can be made to foster communities?

>

> Create 9 new servers and reduce NA to 3 tiers and stop locking servers, as an immediate bandaid. let who ever is left just stack where ever they want and stop this constant nonsense of matchmaking every 2 months just because anet didn't want to delete serves because a vocal minority complained about server loyalty, which is just yikes since anet is going to delete all the servers anyways. Why does this matter at this point. Delete all of the servers, Give people free transfers whos world got deleted. When there is ques on every map and there is only 3 tiers left people will spread out more. cuz they will not want to wait in que to play.

>

> That is really the problem with NA and has been for years. Most of the reason for matchup imbalances has nothing to do with coverage and has everything with there being to many servers to support the players base, and anets refusal to just have less servers. Honestly is so stupid that the most easiest and logical way forward and yet is completely overlooked or ignored.

 

Your "immediate bandaid" requires every change that alliances do, except its a one-time and then you have the exact same problems after 2 months, as opposed to alliances solving it for the future. How can that be Anet refusing or overlooking/ignoring it when they are saying its being worked on?

[Hyper Cutter.9376]

> @"Caliburn.1845" said:

> So I'm curious, what do you guys think would be the most productive ways to revive WvW communities(or create new ones) and sustain those communities?

>

> All this talk of exclusion or inclusion, Alliances working or not working, servers or guilds working or not working. If its all so obvious, what good improvements can be made to foster communities?

There's nothing Anet can really do that it hasn't already done or is trying to do. Most of WvW's problems are laid at the feet of the playerbase, who have actively unbalanced the game mode literally every chance they get.

[Swamurabi.7890]

There's only three things that killed WvW.

 

1. Overstacking and the need to fill coverage/population gaps with experienced players. In a way this is cannibalism where only a few survive.

2. Removing the requirement of PvE players to enter WvW. It's easier for guilds to recruit players while they are playing WvW.

3. Megaservers. LA and the 5 starting cities should all be instanced to make WvW callouts and recruiting easier.

 

You want to revive WvW?

 

Force PvE players into WvW where they have to find friendly guilds to help them with their grind for shinies. Some of those players will see the light and stay and will grow WvW.

 

Give bonuses in PvE for personal participation in WvW.

 

[LetoII.3782]

> @"Hyper Cutter.9376" said:

> > @"Caliburn.1845" said:

> > So I'm curious, what do you guys think would be the most productive ways to revive WvW communities(or create new ones) and sustain those communities?

> >

> > All this talk of exclusion or inclusion, Alliances working or not working, servers or guilds working or not working. If its all so obvious, what good improvements can be made to foster communities?

> There's nothing Anet can really do that it hasn't already done or is trying to do. Most of WvW's problems are laid at the feet of the playerbase, who have actively unbalanced the game mode literally every chance they get.

 

It's a well and good to blame players, and true. But human nature isn't changing any time soon.

By not disincentivizing stacking, Anet promoted it, profited from it. It was inevitable and in my opinion planned for.

[Dawdler.8521]

> @"Swamurabi.7890" said:

> There's only three things that killed WvW.

>

> 1. Overstacking and the need to fill coverage/population gaps with experienced players. In a way this is cannibalism where only a few survive.

> 2. Removing the requirement of PvE players to enter WvW. It's easier for guilds to recruit players while they are playing WvW.

> 3. Megaservers. LA and the 5 starting cities should all be instanced to make WvW callouts and recruiting easier.

>

> You want to revive WvW?

>

> Force PvE players into WvW where they have to find friendly guilds to help them with their grind for shinies. Some of those players will see the light and stay and will grow WvW.

>

> Give bonuses in PvE for personal participation in WvW.

>

Ignoring the fact that neither point killed WvW.

 

[Swamurabi.7890]

> @"Dawdler.8521" said:

> > @"Swamurabi.7890" said:

> > There's only three things that killed WvW.

> >

> > 1. Overstacking and the need to fill coverage/population gaps with experienced players. In a way this is cannibalism where only a few survive.

> > 2. Removing the requirement of PvE players to enter WvW. It's easier for guilds to recruit players while they are playing WvW.

> > 3. Megaservers. LA and the 5 starting cities should all be instanced to make WvW callouts and recruiting easier.

> >

> > You want to revive WvW?

> >

> > Force PvE players into WvW where they have to find friendly guilds to help them with their grind for shinies. Some of those players will see the light and stay and will grow WvW.

> >

> > Give bonuses in PvE for personal participation in WvW.

> >

> Ignoring the fact that neither point killed WvW.

>

 

Thanks for your constructive criticism. Move along now.

[DeadlySynz.3471]

> @"VAHNeunzehnsechundsiebzig.3618" said:

> wow, 20 per map? That... is pretty much one guild squad. And yes, I am on a server where guilds are able to put up squads like that. Let me guess... you are on NA? Just because NA is broken that one is not true for EU. Also '20' or '30' or even a '50' cap would just kill wvw even faster than Mirages and Daredevils are currently able to.

>

> Also, what exactly is wrong with blobbing? There are people - like me - who actually enjoy 50v50v50 fights on weekends and 30v30v30 fights on the rest of the day. Roaming? Is just a bandaid waiting for the sweet action to start.

>

> Oh wait, nothing is wrong with 'blobbing'. You just dont like it.

 

If players/guilds are actively trying to avoid large blobs or blobby maps, there is a problem. Perhaps not on EU, but the fact remains, if it's happening, it's a problem. If a guild can field 40 (I see it rarely happens), then split the guild across 2 maps, done, problem solved. Blobbing not required under any stretch. This would go leaps and bounds into evening out the competition as it's not entirely difficult for a well coordinated smaller squad to beat a group of 20 whether they are coordinated or not. It also goes leaps and bounds into addressing the drastic lag during large encounters where people do in fact disconnect.

 

I can get behind allowing the current map cap on reset night only, but outside of that, there is no reason to keep the maps with the current map cap any other day of the week. Very rarely will guilds be able to facilitate those types of numbers 7 days a week. A guild raid that occurs 2-3 times per week where they get 20-30 or even 40 isn't reason enough to keep high map caps.

 

I could get behind an argument where if at least half of the servers on either NA or EU had guilds that could repeatedly keep guild raid numbers over 20 7 days a week, for at least a good portion of the day, then fine, keep it higher, maybe 30 per map then. Both you and I know that isn't the case; the majority of days (and time of day), this doesn't happen. The maps have stray pugs going about their business.. may or may not be outnumbered, and flipping occasional camp, while possibly flipping a tower or 2 with a handful of people. So why bother having a higher map cap at this point

 

I'm not sure how you feel about stacking of servers, or those players who persistently swap just to be on the superior numbers side. This really is the crux of the problem and why alliances are being put forth to begin with. If numbers remained even, no need for alliances, but seeing how some players want to stack themselves in the interest of unfairness, alliances are created to help even out the competition. As we're seeing now, players are still stacking themselves in the interest of unfairness. Keeping the map caps at 20-25 pretty much stops this behavior dead in it's tracks. Even when the new alliance system starts, players trying to stack themselves is pretty much futile. Why stack if you can no longer outnumber your opponent? Why swap servers or alliances if it means you might be stuck in a que more than you play? It's perfect for discouraging that type of player behavior. Because as many have said, alliances won't fix the player behavior in looking for the easiest win, but capping the maps at 20-25 will ensure goal of that player's behavior is thwarted.

 

We can try to debate that lowering map caps will destroy WvW; however, in order for that to be true, we constantly have to have active maps on the majority of servers causing ques, and right now we don't, so the argument doesn't stand. Now if I swapped to a server in attempt to have superior numbers or blob, and I was constantly met with ques on every map, that's not an Anet problem with lowering map caps, that's my problem for transferring there. simple solution, transfer somewhere else.

[Warlord.9074]

> @"Dawdler.8521" said:

> > @"Warlord.9074" said:

> > > @"Caliburn.1845" said:

> > > So I'm curious, what do you guys think would be the most productive ways to revive WvW communities(or create new ones) and sustain those communities?

> > >

> > > All this talk of exclusion or inclusion, Alliances working or not working, servers or guilds working or not working. If its all so obvious, what good improvements can be made to foster communities?

> >

> > Create 9 new servers and reduce NA to 3 tiers and stop locking servers, as an immediate bandaid. let who ever is left just stack where ever they want and stop this constant nonsense of matchmaking every 2 months just because anet didn't want to delete serves because a vocal minority complained about server loyalty, which is just yikes since anet is going to delete all the servers anyways. Why does this matter at this point. Delete all of the servers, Give people free transfers whos world got deleted. When there is ques on every map and there is only 3 tiers left people will spread out more. cuz they will not want to wait in que to play.

> >

> > That is really the problem with NA and has been for years. Most of the reason for matchup imbalances has nothing to do with coverage and has everything with there being to many servers to support the players base, and anets refusal to just have less servers. Honestly is so stupid that the most easiest and logical way forward and yet is completely overlooked or ignored.

>

> Your "immediate bandaid" requires every change that alliances do, except its a one-time and then you have the exact same problems after 2 months, as opposed to alliances solving it for the future. How can that be Anet refusing or overlooking/ignoring it when they are saying its being worked on?

 

My bandaid requires none of the proposed changes, it's simply what should of just been done. There is no proof at all that alliance system will solve anything. Keep in mind the alliance system idea was proposed by the same people that run the Kaining alliance. Good intentions or not theres a lot to be said about creating rules and structures that help you.

[VAHNeunzehnsechundsiebzig.]

> @"DeadlySynz.3471" said:

> > @"VAHNeunzehnsechundsiebzig.3618" said:

> > wow, 20 per map? That... is pretty much one guild squad. And yes, I am on a server where guilds are able to put up squads like that. Let me guess... you are on NA? Just because NA is broken that one is not true for EU. Also '20' or '30' or even a '50' cap would just kill wvw even faster than Mirages and Daredevils are currently able to.

> >

> > Also, what exactly is wrong with blobbing? There are people - like me - who actually enjoy 50v50v50 fights on weekends and 30v30v30 fights on the rest of the day. Roaming? Is just a bandaid waiting for the sweet action to start.

> >

> > Oh wait, nothing is wrong with 'blobbing'. You just dont like it.

>

> If players/guilds are actively trying to avoid large blobs or blobby maps, there is a problem. Perhaps not on EU, but the fact remains, if it's happening, it's a problem. If a guild can field 40 (I see it rarely happens), then split the guild across 2 maps, done, problem solved.

 

people will love that and flock to the mode! Sorry, your half of the guild has to go to desert or alpine, while the rest stays on ebg. Sure, that will cause no drama and everybody will be happy.

 

>Blobbing not required under any stretch. This would go leaps and bounds into evening out the competition as it's not entirely difficult for a well coordinated smaller squad to beat a group of 20 whether they are coordinated or not. It also goes leaps and bounds into addressing the drastic lag during large encounters where people do in fact disconnect.

 

it would kill the mode. Blobbing might not be required, but it is fun. A lot of fun.

 

>

> I can get behind allowing the current map cap on reset night only, but outside of that, there is no reason to keep the maps with the current map cap any other day of the week. Very rarely will guilds be able to facilitate those types of numbers 7 days a week. A guild raid that occurs 2-3 times per week where they get 20-30 or even 40 isn't reason enough to keep high map caps.

 

again, if NA is so broken, that is NAs problem. Sure, there are not q on all 4 maps on all days, but even linked with a dead server I see lots of q during the week. People don't evade fights, they look for them.

 

>

> I could get behind an argument where if at least half of the servers on either NA or EU had guilds that could repeatedly keep guild raid numbers over 20 7 days a week, for at least a good portion of the day, then fine, keep it higher, maybe 30 per map then. Both you and I know that isn't the case; the majority of days (and time of day), this doesn't happen. The maps have stray pugs going about their business.. may or may not be outnumbered, and flipping occasional camp, while possibly flipping a tower or 2 with a handful of people. So why bother having a higher map cap at this point

 

because on those days where it happens, it is a lot of fun and on those days where it doesn't, it doesn't matter at all. Today I fought with a handful of pugs against two big guild squads/pug squads from both of the opposite sites. AND IT WAS FUN. Awesome fun. Did we win? Well, we kept our stuff, got plenty of lootbags and xp. So, qualified yes.

 

>

> I'm not sure how you feel about stacking of servers, or those players who persistently swap just to be on the superior numbers side.

 

I do not care. Honestly. In EU Kodash, once a German language punching bag server got stacked and is now running rampage in T2. So what? At least the fights are challenging. They will go up to T1 and then get their behinds kicked. AND I DO NOT CARE. If they want to stack, their problem. *shrug* I don't mind losing, if the fight was fun. Better a stacked fighting server, than some siege slaves or a server consisting of backstabbing gankers.

 

>This really is the crux of the problem and why alliances are being put forth to begin with. If numbers remained even, no need for alliances, but seeing how some players want to stack themselves in the interest of unfairness, alliances are created to help even out the competition. As we're seeing now, players are still stacking themselves in the interest of unfairness. Keeping the map caps at 20-25 pretty much stops this behavior dead in it's tracks.

 

Wrong, it won't fix anything. Servers will still being stacked, just with a big boot load of toxic elitism mixed in. Only 20 players per map allowed? So only our 20 best will go in, the rest can wait in DR or LA. Yeah, will fix everything for sure. If fixing means 'kill it off for good'.

 

>Even when the new alliance system starts, players trying to stack themselves is pretty much futile. Why stack if you can no longer outnumber your opponent? Why swap servers or alliances if it means you might be stuck in a que more than you play? It's perfect for discouraging that type of player behavior. Because as many have said, alliances won't fix the player behavior in looking for the easiest win, but capping the maps at 20-25 will ensure goal of that player's behavior is thwarted.

 

Nope, a lower cap will change nothing. There will be still stacking. It will just increase the amount of frustrated losers who did not have a chance to get on the maps.

 

>

> We can try to debate that lowering map caps will destroy WvW; however, in order for that to be true, we constantly have to have active maps on the majority of servers causing ques, and right now we don't, so the argument doesn't stand. Now if I swapped to a server in attempt to have superior numbers or blob, and I was constantly met with ques on every map, that's not an Anet problem with lowering map caps, that's my problem for transferring there. simple solution, transfer somewhere else.

 

why do we need queues?

 

Answer: we don't.