Reztek.7805

And how common do i think it is? You have no clue. But that doesn't stop you from wild assumptions about everyone else, but yourself. Lol. You're talking about yourself, right? As i said in the previous post, which you obviously did not comprehend: it's so rare it's almost irrelevant. Many other posters also tried to explain it to you, but you wouldn't get it. Creating a straw man won't help you here. No one said that. Quite the opposite, it's either steamroll through enemy objectives (which means you are outnumbering them, heh!) or let them take objectives because it's not worth defending. Ohhh really, you are so special. You must be the only player doing that. Do you want a pat on the back? <Irony off> You fail to see that people who do exactly those roles, are the majority of the critics of those changes. And it must be a coincidence, that exactly those types of players are becoming increasingly rare because they leave the game. Why would a zerg-lemming even care about weakened defense? Another one of your straw mans? You wrote that at least twice, but honestly i doubt that. You seem completely delusional, sorry. But you can take the forum win, you seem quite invested here.

Ofc, this is needed in the game! Otherwise the "few" players outside the gate would have a hard time entering! 🙂

Nope, it's not that common. Equal numbers happen at best during prime time. So maybe 3 hours out of 24. The rest of the day one team outnumbers the other teams. So in general it should be 1/3 easymode attacking and 2/3 outnumbered defending. And for the latter: if the outnumbered teams decide to try to attack, none of the changes will help 5 players to take a T3 Tower against 50 defenders. But obviously easymode attacking isn't easy enough for everyone. I personally tend to fall asleep after joining the zerg for more than 30 minutes. You might get an other impression if you only play during prime, but even then, there's no rocket science needed to successfully take an objective. You're probably just doing it wrong.

That's a good start. But make sure that if less than 20 defenders show up on their own, the others are randomly pulled from any map. Maybe prioritize players in downstate. That should improve the game experience a lot! 😍

We might agree on the current situation, but not the reasons. Lots of players want an easymode, that has always been the case. Hence that's why map blobs are a thing since 2012. But Anet did everything to strengthen the blob, starting with the AoE cap. At the same time players where rewarded for not caring about the server/world and instead running in circles capping empty objectives. And the initiative to defend is being weakened further and further. Mix in unlimited server transfers, unnecessary guild features and hidden tags and there's not much left to encourage "communities". So no, the fault is mostly Anets.

I doubt devs play at all, besides some alibi marketing streams. It's hard to believe anyone thinks the last changes will improve the gamemode.

I'd love to see that too. Especially if there even IS a thought process, 'cause given their patch and post it doesn't seem so ... The following changes are part of an ongoing effort to make fighting for—and in—objectives feel better for attacking groups, as the defenders' advantage inside their own structures was previously too strong. While we don't want to swing that advantage completely in favor of attacking groups, we also want to encourage player interaction so that large portions of attacks against structures don't feel like a slog with little payoff. We feel that these changes will help to incentivize more player vs. player interactions while still allowing for defensive tactical gameplay. We will continue to monitor how these changes affect sieges and structure attacks. @ANet: Oh, there are ongoing efforts in WvW? Why don't you share them with the world? Is there also an ongoing effort to make defending worthwhile? Because, well, if one of the two groups doesn't show up, your mastermind plan won't work out. What makes you feel these changes are even anywhere near "good" and lol, seriously, "how" do you monitor to come to these conclusions. The real question is: What is your vision for WvW? Why don't you explain that? Do you even have one?

Either make doing damage or destroying siege while defending an objective under siege count, or change the description to something like "Kill at least 1 player (and do at least 51% of the damage) not further than 2m from the objectives wall and afterwards idle close to the same objective until the end of some timer. Oh, and make sure it's a full moon night."

Let me correct you here: casual players do not prefer vertical progression, random players do. GW2 is probably the only "good" MMO where you can easily reach max level and equip every class with casual playtime. You can take a break for months or even years and come back without much trouble. That's a big difference to most other MMOs. Besides compared to a legendary weapon, for which every veteran player had 10+ years time, the legendary runes are rather cheap. Random players join the game, kill their brain cells by doing farmruns all-day, cry for the lack of "endgame" and then leave for the next hyped MMO. 😉 And in most other MMOs casual players probably never reach the endgame because they can't stand the grind or are bored by playing on deserted maps.

Use map or team chat? Create or join a squad? Ever heard of friendlists? So far, no guild needed and not hard to imagine. Better question: What "big" features except an additional chat tab and an "alliance message of the day" do you expect? Join the usual 500 ppl wvw/server community guild, which is as big as alliances are (or were) supposed to be, and that's pretty much it. That doesn't make the system better or worse, but what are those other 50% you are talking about? 😄

Nope, it obviously is not related to the mouse. Same here, only in PvP and only with "Windowed Fullscreen". Switching to "Full Screen" can be used as a workaround to "fix" it.

First of all, the german wvw forum is pretty dead .. so "a lot of people" equals like 5 people. The alliance system is about balancing player population, language restrictions won't allow that. You may stick to a "single language alliance" but don't expect the "new worlds" to have just one language. ;)

2 years later and still not fixed, lel.

Well it does not sound like they track wvw playtime or participation time for every individual player. So at the beginning there's no data to know how the coverage of 2500+ players, mixed from the "old" servers, will be. Giving players more tools to organize coverage? Well sure, you could try to recruit an off-hour guild ... but, the point of this world restructuring is to get thrown together with alliances that cover other timezones/off-hours. So you might as well just reduce the chance to get those alliances for your world with that kind of "organization/optimization". The region concept failed right from the start. The EU servers have and always had players from way more timezones than "EU" implies.

That's actually pretty common on many servers. The alts of the usual bandwagoner guilds, pulling tactics in every objective as soon as their zerg enters the map. :p