WvW rewards

So I have been playing WvW almost exclusively now for about 6 months and am wondering why not add a reward system for the end of week battle ranking. Right now all that happens is you, as a server, either go up or down a tier or stay the same.. not much of an incentive in my opinion. Why not add a reward that players get based on their participation level, which tier they were on, and whether they moved up, down or stayed the same (obviously something would need to be done for those servers that are in Tier 1 and 4)... something like armor or weapon skins, gold, gems, something to "fight for" as opposed to just staying in this Tier or striving to move up a Tier... just a thought...

@"Tharnaron.2967" said:So I have been playing WvW almost exclusively now for about 6 months and am wondering why not add a reward system for the end of week battle ranking. Right now all that happens is you, as a server, either go up or down a tier or stay the same.. not much of an incentive in my opinion. Why not add a reward that players get based on their participation level, which tier they were on, and whether they moved up, down or stayed the same (obviously something would need to be done for those servers that are in Tier 1 and 4)... something like armor or weapon skins, gold, gems, something to "fight for" as opposed to just staying in this Tier or striving to move up a Tier... just a thought...

Because stacking. Period.

"You mean a sense of accomplishment isn't enough?!?!?!?" - every Anet dev who deals with WvW

They gonna get big stacks on one side, where only one particular group will only win, that is what this will incentivize. If anything, and this is my personal opinion, WvW players SHOULD indeed be getting better rewards, especially for the time they put into the game mode (where they can spend their currencies on special rewards, be it aura infusions, weapon/armor/consumables/mats/skins in general/etc). Reward player on individual basis based on their performance, not server as a whole. At least that sort of cuts out the stacking equation, even if it is minute.

Then all guilds will go for 'top server cuz top rewards'.The whole reward system for WvW should be revorked, as it is the least rewarding and most time consuming than other modes.I feel you on the matter - there suppose to be something to fight for, but that Anet's job to figure it out - I'm just a player and customer. They cut the 'world rewards' from WvW without giving anything in place of it, so they should look for good solution.I'd expect the wole overhoul off WvW rewards based on your personal participation during the week. You cap/kill/escort/build/defend - you get the rewards without the 'server stacking/server hopping' for rewards.Yes Anet, you can send me a check as I do this job for you.

1. Server-result rewards can not really be a thing until server populations and matchup/score are fixed and get something of a balance and actually matches content up. Otherwise the wrong people would get the rewards.

2. Arguably the biggest problem with rewards in WvW is that gearing up for WvW in WvW has fallen helplessly behind the other modes - the differences is on the magnitude of hours vs. weeks (eg., if you Drizzlefarm you're looking at an ascended piece every 3-4 hours) whereas 3 marks (or 30 splinters) in WvW takes you 10 weeks.

3. Compounding issues to this involves players being driven out of the mode organically while Anets efforts to repopulate the mode are all kneejerk one-offs that doesn't actually help the mode (like devaluing unique skins to raise interest in spending time in the mode with them being more attainable) or that with the direction the game has taken towards less content or ingame horizontal progression and more exchange-based progression, WvW is in a sense also falling behind in the abstract metaplay of the game (ie., playing the gemstore). That last thing doesn't necessarily have to be an issue, assuming the game is product first, but as the game empties out to become more of where the store is the updates etc., then being disadvantaged in that regard just makes you feel even more disenfrenchized with the game as whole.

gotta love when ppl say "much stacking is problem", but what happens yet? you either have no content and facepalm the whole day at your nooby pugs or u switch to some other server that has good players and farm the "casual" players, which are like currently 80% of the overall existing wvw population i feel.

farming is definitely more fun and .. productive? ... than getting no content outside of ganks (and even really bad players manage to gank at a certain numerical inequality - the cooldown and dps nerfs sorta pushed that too)

@Tharnaron.2967 said:So I have been playing WvW almost exclusively now for about 6 months and am wondering why not add a reward system for the end of week battle ranking.

There were server rewards in the past during the WvW tournaments. It actually lead to burned out players (a week is just too long for this) and more server stacking.

And the players that do not bandwaggon to already stacked servers would be punished more if there would be rewards based on server rankings.

@DemonSeed.3528 said:They gonna get big stacks on one side, where only one particular group will only win, that is what this will incentivize. If anything, and this is my personal opinion, WvW players SHOULD indeed be getting better rewards, especially for the time they put into the game mode (where they can spend their currencies on special rewards, be it aura infusions, weapon/armor/consumables/mats/skins in general/etc). Reward player on individual basis based on their performance, not server as a whole. At least that sort of cuts out the stacking equation, even if it is minute.

And how would that work exactly? All it would do is reward more blobbing- as the blob wins the 'performance'. Even less encouragement for scouts or defenders and more encouragement to blob.

@ baldrickthe format is about big group fights simply... the ideal would be mainly if not exclusively zergs 24ish+ or blobs 45ish+ running around. for that to work, ppl would need more understanding of everything tho.

the quality of scouting is rather bad because people don't even bother to learn terminology... all you get is [name][name][name][name][name][name][name][name][name][name][name][name][name][name][name][name][name][name][name][name][name][name][name][name][name][name][name][name][name][name][name][name][name][name][name][name][name][name][name][name][name][name][name][name][name][name][name][name][name][name]

... and that is your report. objective may flip in a second, may be only tagged, may be under siege, nobody knows.

while it would be quite easy, to just type:

nc 4 inc need helporgarri watergate 30ish, outer 50%(when ur around an can ~ count em)bay wurmgate swords(when ur on the way but spot sth on maps)

or "eyes hills?" and ideally some roamer can give u a report soon after. then again, most roamers don't give scout reports at all. only few roam on the numerical/activity

@Zok.4956 said:

@Tharnaron.2967 said:So I have been playing WvW almost exclusively now for about 6 months and am wondering why not add a reward system for the end of week battle ranking.

the argumentation of Anet was just weak there. bandwagoning been a thing since ages still. people still play nighttime bc of their timezones. stacking on several servers does still happen. you cannot play if u don't join that honestly. servers without at least 3-4 fighting guilds are a pain to play in...

Anet talked about this over a year ago, and i think its still on the "to do list".

I've been saying this for a while. Depending on participation level, people on the winning server get more than the 2nd place server, who get more than the 3rd place. They know our participation level, so calculating rewards shouldn't be an issue.

Pretty sure that's what skirmish tracks are for.

If you played WvW since launch you would know that it is a lot more profitable (i.e. not negative) ROI now. Before, even objectives cost gold to upgrade which is why things that were T3-ed were far less common and people actually tried to walk yaks.

Re: "something like armor or weapon skins, gold, gems"Armor / weapon skins you get for skirmish tickets. Also there's the warlord armor you get in the skirmish track. If you're going for Conflux/Warbringer then that would be more important than armor/weapon IMO.Gold you get from skirmish tracks and reward tracks.Gems aren't given out in any game mode and that is not going to change. If you want gems pay for them or use gold to gems.

The #1 complaint I have with rewards is that the grandmaster mark shards are completely ridiculous in function. Since you need 10 of them to make one mark (which is ~10g) and you can only get 3 per week even if you loop diamond rewards then you need a full month just for one mark. As all armor/weapons need 3-4 marks per piece it isn't a reasonable item in any stretch of the imagination. If they were changed to marks themselves it would alleviate a lot of the concern with respect to requiring PvE to get the armor/weapons in a reasonable amount of time.

There could also probably be other ways to get legendary weapons since the WvW titles take ages to obtain. Maybe for each maxed WvW title you can get an option to upgrade a mistforged weapon (not Mist Lord since you can get those in PVP) to legendary functionality (i.e. no skin change). I even suggested in the God of WvW thread that the title should offer the option of 1 accountbound Eternity.

Also see thread earlier: https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/110610/rewards

You get warlord armor skin every week. Awesome reward.

Since server populations are limited, a fair number of them are "full" and server transfers get costly how is "stacking" an issue... and I am not poking the bear, just genuinely asking the question as I don't see it...

@"Tharnaron.2967" said:Since server populations are limited, a fair number of them are "full" and server transfers get costly how is "stacking" an issue... and I am not poking the bear, just genuinely asking the question as I don't see it...

People transfer into linked servers. Which is why linked servers were never a good idea. Keep in mind server "full" status is not based off PVE players, only WVW activity (supposedly player-hours).

i.e. for North America:BG (full) + Kaineng (Very high)SBI (full) + FC (High)BP (Very High) + SoR (High)

FA (full) + ET (Very High)AR (full) + GoM (Very High)HoD (full) + YB (full)TC (full) + CD (high)DB (full) + DH (high)Mag (full) + IoJ (high)JQ (full) + EBay (high)NSP (Very high) + SF (medium)SoS (full) + DR (medium)

see: https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/World

@"Tharnaron.2967" said:Since server populations are limited, a fair number of them are "full" and server transfers get costly how is "stacking" an issue... and I am not poking the bear, just genuinely asking the question as I don't see it...

if u take whitesideridge (WSR) on EU: originally small and empty, barely populated server; then a load of veterans stack it to full + hopped on its link every time, therefore been the strongest fighting server for quite some time; then, it go unlinked once and everybody jumped off it.within a month this > stacked < server became empty (low population left).

technically "full" means really nothing, stacked is a term saying many veteran players = people that play for quite some time / taking the format Wvw quite serious _ stacking on that on server. a group of good40 people can easily push a full map of not experienced players (full map is sth around 70-75 assumed since Anet does not give us real numbers afaik)

So yeah, I get that people can transfer to link servers.. so you are saying that these kinds of people don't mind the server transfer cost?

@"Tharnaron.2967" said:So yeah, I get that people can transfer to link servers.. so you are saying that these kinds of people don't mind the server transfer cost?

Relinks happen every 2 months. That's plenty of time to gather gold (I highly doubt people are paying real money to get gems) to transfer to a medium (500 gem) /high (1000 gem) /very high (1800 gem) link.

Just doing dailies and not much else for 2 months would be roughly 120 gold which at current rates is enough for just under half of the transfer cost to a high server.

If you have been around long enough you would know that some players game the "server activity" by server "blackouts" and playing far less just to get their server to be open again. Similarly you have people transferring right after new links are announced , so any linking based on old information is not going to be accurate.

The system needs to be reevaluated such that the activity level is updated much more accurately and frequently , particularly when a group of 25+ players collectively (related via guild or not) move off any given server.

They need to make ascended armor and weapons have a chance to drop from mithril or higher skirmish chests. Below that, a chance for exotic (except for wood). And a higher drop rate for memories of battle/skirmish claim tickets.

tbh a higher drop rate for memories of battle and mark shards (the current shard number is a joke and set per week) would be nice.

we don't need ascended weapon/armor drops tbh, i still have like 5 unused armor boxes and a weapon box - its hard to get the sigils to fix the stats on them unless u got the crafting specs up (and if so, plainly crafting those would be kinda cheaper timewise anyways)

@ transfersthere's a ton of way to transfer btw. i know a newer player who just stored his good gear in bank and then deleted all his chars to get a free transfer ^^"but i am also sure that there are acutally people buying the transfers with real money; some guilds hop ever other matchup lol

@kamikharzeeh.8016 said:

@"Tharnaron.2967" said:Since server populations are limited, a fair number of them are "full" and server transfers get costly how is "stacking" an issue... and I am not poking the bear, just genuinely asking the question as I don't see it...

You used the wrong word there. They are not 'veterans', they are bandwagonners. All jump to a server to stack it 'for the fights', ruin it for any existing population, get bored or relinked and bandwagon to the next one, leaving a mess behind and causing more problems for wvw.

veterans are old players with the capability to predict bombs, set dodges, use mechanics correctly, push and pull back in the right time. the kinda people u can rely on in zergfights, the ones which u can push double or more of your numbers with.

some servers have gained notable battle power by this veteran-stacking scheme. if it was just plain bandwagoners, it only means it gets full immediately, and full server status says nothing at all about "quality".

bandwagoners aren't necessary good players, what i mean with "veterans" definitely are good players.

@"kamikharzeeh.8016" said:what i mean with "veterans" definitely are good players.

Depends on one's definition of "good", I mean I wouldn't describe players who got farmed by TA, LaG, etc as 'good', yet that describes the vast majority of "good" veterans.

When you have an 8 year old dead(ish) game mode, that is relatively low skilled and even by the low standards of WvW is competitively a joke, then mediocre players can appear as "good".

@Infusion.7149 said:

@"Tharnaron.2967" said:So yeah, I get that people can transfer to link servers.. so you are saying that these kinds of people don't mind the server transfer cost?

Thanks for this explanation.. makes far more sense now..