How to really fix WvW through game design — Guild Wars 2 Forums

How to really fix WvW through game design

Chaba.5410Chaba.5410 Member ✭✭✭✭
edited December 12, 2017 in WvW

I came upon this article the other day which made a point that perfectly describes what is wrong with WvW.

https://www.1843magazine.com/features/tabletop-generals

"One of Monopoly’s big mistakes is positive feedback, designer-speak for a mechanism by which a small advantage early on snowballs into a big, insurmountable one later in the game, which makes things boring for the other players. Modern designers tend to prefer negative feedback, in which life gets harder for those doing well. Sometimes that is enforced by explicit penalties. Sometimes it emerges by itself, or through political dealing by other players. Conquering too many planets in a game of Twilight Imperium may make it hard to defend existing territory, for instance, especially if other players decide to gang up on the leader. That helps to keep things interesting for everyone."

WvW is designed as a positive feedback game instead of one of negative feedback. I'm not going to go through detailing every little thing that feeds into making it a positive feedback game. I feel that many of you reading this already inherently understand how life in game gets easier when you have upgraded objectives and higher numbers than an opponent. I'm only going to offer some ideas for introducing negative feedback and I encourage others to do the same in this thread.

  • Introduce a DAoC-like new map/raid/dungeon only accessible to the server that is winning that makes it more difficult for that server to hold onto territory by pulling away population.
  • Reset objectives back to T1 at start of every skirmish. May need to increase the rate at which objectives upgrade to under two hours. Possibly keep tactics/improvements in place though.
  • (Once suggested in the past) Enforce a 2v1 against a winning server by making the two other servers temporary allies. Although I feel there are better negative feedback mechanisms that would make this suggestion unnecessary.
  • Players with outnumbered buff do not show as revealed from Watchtower or Sentries (or players on winning server are always revealed).

Edit: Additional suggestions from other posters.

  • Yaks from camps not in your starting zone deliver less supply. Yaks from camps not in your starting zone are slower. (Swamurabi)
  • Controlling SMC drains supply from other structures in EBG. Controlling other keeps drains supply from other structures. (Swamurabi)

Edit: So far most responses center around using supply as a negative feedback mechanism.

<13

Comments

  • Dawdler.8521Dawdler.8521 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited December 12, 2017

    @Chaba.5410 said:

    • Reset objectives back to T1 at start of every skirmish. May need to increase the rate at which objectives upgrade to under two hours. Possibly keep tactics/improvements in place though.

    While I love that idea - especially since you failed to mention what to a tee describe your snowballing issue, tier based PPT - this means people would just wait out a skirmish and then cap T3 (now T1).

    This idea would only work if we unlink tiers and fortification strenght into something... more temporary. The current T3 system would just be broken if it reset to T1, T3 is simply too strong.

    For example, T1 walls and T3 walls could offer roughly the same strength (maybe 10% hp boost per tier with no change in damage reduction), but T1 only have say 1 tactivator while T3 has 3. Or T1 has a siege cap of 10 and each additional tier adds 5 to the cap. You get the idea. Stuff like that.

    This would definetly mesh better with the reset of tiers every skirmish.

    Aint gonna happen though. Anet loves how their tier based PPT is unbalancing WvW and how defended T3 is so insanely strong compared to T0 you need a 50 man to even bother. They're not gonna cheapen the experience of a dozen people sitting on ACs in an impregnable fortress raking in easy points any time soon.

    Dont look a gift Asura in the mouth.
    No seriously, dont. Shark teeth.

  • Strider Pj.2193Strider Pj.2193 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Chaba.5410 said:
    I came upon this article the other day which made a point that perfectly describes what is wrong with WvW.

    https://www.1843magazine.com/features/tabletop-generals

    • Introduce a DAoC-like new map/raid/dungeon only accessible to the server that is winning that makes it more difficult for that server to hold onto territory by pulling away population.

    Would population in that dungeon count against your map cap? Because to hinder the overstacked servers I think it would have to be, or it wouldn't give as much of a disadvantage.

    • (Once suggested in the past) Enforce a 2v1 against a winning server by making the two other servers temporary allies. Although I feel there are better negative feedback mechanisms that would make this suggestion unnecessary.

    I really like the enforced 2v1. It makes the dominant server have to compete. I wonder if it would have to kick in once a certain spread in points. I could almost see it changing very frequently in close matches/skirmishes.

    • Players with outnumbered buff do not show as revealed from Watchtower or Sentries (or players on winning server are always revealed).

    I really like this one. Would allow ninja takes, and maybe more lords room fights with small numbers. Maybe reveal with numbers greater than 25 kind of like OJs.

    Thank You for the {MEME}

  • I always thought that supply could be the equalizer.

    Have it take more supply to upgrade structures not in your starting zone.
    Yaks from camps not in your starting zone deliver less supply.
    Yaks from camps not in your starting zone are slower.
    Controlling SMC drains supply from other structures in EBG
    Controlling other keeps drains supply from other structures.

  • Chaba.5410Chaba.5410 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited December 12, 2017

    @Strider Pj.2193 said:
    Would population in that dungeon count against your map cap? Because to hinder the overstacked servers I think it would have to be, or it wouldn't give as much of a disadvantage.

    Good point. It would have to or, as you say, it wouldn't be such a disadvantage.

  • Jana.6831Jana.6831 Member ✭✭✭

    The Yaks are somewhat faulty anyway (unless they changed it the past 2 months) : Every objective (minus SM?) needs the same amount of yaks to fortify, but keeps get 2 yaks, towers only one. I'd start with that actually.

    the gentle art of making enemies.

  • Strider Pj.2193Strider Pj.2193 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Jana.6831 said:
    The Yaks are somewhat faulty anyway (unless they changed it the past 2 months) : Every objective (minus SM?) needs the same amount of yaks to fortify, but keeps get 2 yaks, towers only one. I'd start with that actually.

    I thought towers get two? On ABL, southern towers get south camp and the same side camp like water and vale.

    Thank You for the {MEME}

  • I would suggest making supply a lot more relevant, in fact more than just that: make it essential for holding towers & keeps and make the supply requirement increase based on the tier of the tower/keep so that the loosing party can sabotage high tier objectives by cutting off supply which is easily achieveable by small numbers of players all over the map instead of one big zerg that can easily be tracked by the enemies.
    This also keeps the more large scale objective based feel that many, including myself, love about WvW.

    @OP Thanks for posting that article, that was quite interesting! :)

    As the old worlds fall behind
    Our spirit reaches wide
    With no fear breathing new life
    Awaken from the dark dark slumber

    Wintersun - Awaken from the dark slumber (Spring) - Part II The Awakening

  • GDchiaScrub.3241GDchiaScrub.3241 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Strider Pj.2193 said:

    @Jana.6831 said:
    The Yaks are somewhat faulty anyway (unless they changed it the past 2 months) : Every objective (minus SM?) needs the same amount of yaks to fortify, but keeps get 2 yaks, towers only one. I'd start with that actually.

    I thought towers get two? On ABL, southern towers get south camp and the same side camp like water and vale.

    Same for DBL for what it's worth. I think they're referring to EBG however.

    Holy Warriors of [Kazo] following Kazo doctrine guided by, Our Lord and Commander, Zudo in the holy Trinity of Him and his two firm glutes.

  • Aeolus.3615Aeolus.3615 Member ✭✭✭✭

    i got some taboo ideas.... less aoe/cleave spam, more single target skills type so players need to know whta they are atacking rather than spam cause it will stack with everything else.

  • Jana.6831Jana.6831 Member ✭✭✭
    edited December 12, 2017

    @GDchiaScrub.3241 said:

    @Strider Pj.2193 said:

    @Jana.6831 said:
    The Yaks are somewhat faulty anyway (unless they changed it the past 2 months) : Every objective (minus SM?) needs the same amount of yaks to fortify, but keeps get 2 yaks, towers only one. I'd start with that actually.

    I thought towers get two? On ABL, southern towers get south camp and the same side camp like water and vale.

    Same for DBL for what it's worth. I think they're referring to EBG however.

    I did, yes, but it's also the northern towers in each borderland, I think. That's a pet peeve of mine when we lost one of the flanking towers "How on earth should we get that fortified again??"

    the gentle art of making enemies.

  • WvW fix: Remove the need for servers, change the WvW factions to named factions like Edge of the Mist. The only difference is that instead you can sign up to be on a chosen faction, which is how you will go in with friends.

    Have extra rewards to choose a random faction that sorts players into lower population factions so the population will be balanced. Factions end and reset at the end of a WvW season.

  • Strider Pj.2193Strider Pj.2193 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Jana.6831 said:

    @GDchiaScrub.3241 said:

    @Strider Pj.2193 said:

    @Jana.6831 said:
    The Yaks are somewhat faulty anyway (unless they changed it the past 2 months) : Every objective (minus SM?) needs the same amount of yaks to fortify, but keeps get 2 yaks, towers only one. I'd start with that actually.

    I thought towers get two? On ABL, southern towers get south camp and the same side camp like water and vale.

    Same for DBL for what it's worth. I think they're referring to EBG however.

    I did, yes, but it's also the northern towers in each borderland, I think. That's a pet peeve of mine when we lost one of the flanking towers "How on earth should we get that fortified again??"

    I think North towers get NC and NW/NEC dolys as well.

    TBH, since it automated, I pay less attention to it.....

    I have no idea on EBG. I didn't realize that was where you meant. My bad..

    Thank You for the {MEME}

  • Strider Pj.2193Strider Pj.2193 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Zaviel.1245 said:
    WvW fix: Remove the need for servers, change the WvW factions to named factions like Edge of the Mist. The only difference is that instead you can sign up to be on a chosen faction, which is how you will go in with friends.

    Have extra rewards to choose a random faction that sorts players into lower population factions so the population will be balanced. Factions end and reset at the end of a WvW season.

    And kill the use of VOIP. Except for guilds. Even then, guilds would stand to risk being split.

    Thank You for the {MEME}

  • STIHL.2489STIHL.2489 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Fix Class Balance.. otherwise no matter they do the mode will remain broken.

    There are two kinds of Gamers, Salty, and Extra Salty.
    Ego is the Anesthesia that dullens the pain of Stupidity.

  • Jana.6831Jana.6831 Member ✭✭✭
    edited December 12, 2017

    @Strider Pj.2193 said:
    I think North towers get NC and NW/NEC dolys as well.

    No, they only get NC on ABL - I mostly avoided the DBL, so I have no idea if that's the case there as well, but I assume it is.

    TBH, since it automated, I pay less attention to it.....
    I have no idea on EBG. I didn't realize that was where you meant. My bad..

    All good, I didn't specify the towers/map I was referring to, so nothing to feel bad about, or I would have to as well.
    Just that it makes no sense that it takes basically twice the amount of yaks to fortify a tower. And I don't know why no one reviewed and fixed this. It's really the small things that need to be looked at - wvw actually doesn't need an overhaul, they need to take a few steps back, in my opinion.

    ETA:
    All camps on ABL have got 2 Yaks.
    NC: NW and NE tower and Garri
    EC: Garri and Hills
    WC: Garri and Bay
    Vale: Bay and SW tower
    SC: SW and SE tower (and actually bay and hills, right?)
    SEC: SE tower and Hills

    Same on EB:
    Each camp has got 2 yaks, one delivers the towers up to the Keep and the Keep, the other the towers up to SM and SM, if you don't own SM they'll run back to camp.
    NC on DBL has actually 4 yaks and I think 2 deliver Garri while each one delivers the side towers.

    the gentle art of making enemies.

  • Strider Pj.2193Strider Pj.2193 Member ✭✭✭✭

    I learned something today! :)

    I didn't realize that. 5 years in.... dang.

    Thank You for the {MEME}

  • -Introduce a DAoC-like new map/raid/dungeon only accessible to the server that is winning that makes it more difficult for that server to hold onto territory by pulling away population.
    *Are they rewarded for stacking in other words? It seems like it might get the wvw tournament feel I guess. I could see certain servers loving this because they could get special access and continue to pummel smaller servers. Players would abuse it, they can't help themselves.

    -Reset objectives back to T1 at start of every skirmish. May need to increase the rate at which objectives upgrade to under two hours. Possibly keep tactics/improvements in place though.
    *I do like this being on small server and nearly EVERY tower, keep, smc is fully T3 with all the toys at their disposal. I worry though pvers will flock to wvw to get easy experience. However, it may promote more fights.
    *The one cool thing I think that could be put into wvw is having the upgrades more player driven. You must slowly upgrade the wall, gate, etc by hand. Which means bring those guys back to the game who loved babying their tower. Imagine players spread out and they are soul lead player on managing that tower supply, upgrades, and what is the most critical item in que. They could even have an NPC team they could assign work to. Supervisor simulator basically and it could give people ROLES in wvw again. We're lacking roles and responsibilities in wvw these days.

    -(Once suggested in the past) Enforce a 2v1 against a winning server by making the two other servers temporary allies. Although I feel there are better negative feedback mechanisms that would make this suggestion unnecessary.
    *I run a roaming guild, I want you all dead and care not for your alliance.

    -Players with outnumbered buff do not show as revealed from Watchtower or Sentries (or players on winning server are always revealed).
    *This is probably the best idea I've ever heard in wvw. We need to get back to the good ole days when 3-5 brave players can ninja a T3 tower against the big dog server without the tiniest hint of orange dots attracting a 50 man zerg. This is a common issue in T4 with small teams on CD server. Again, ROLES of scouts and tower upgraders. A player should be the sentry, a living human being, not some cheesy automated feature that now promotes zerging down a roamer.
    Small teams are rare because its not worth it to attempt a T3 tower because in the end, a blob is going to come. Pug tags and large guilds can't help themselves. Then the community wonders why everyone blobs. And I have seen anet devs in these packs, which is concerning. I'm sure they are just.....gathering data, right? :)

  • shiri.4257shiri.4257 Member ✭✭✭✭

    4 hour skirmishes 2 hr off to reset things. perhaps only garrison should start off rollover upgrades.

    Spectre [VII] - Wood League Champion. Making "fight guilds" stack on higher tiers since 2013.
    Michelin rated WvW guild since 2015. The gold standard. Never transferred, never reformed, adapting and reloading with or without Anet.

  • Strider Pj.2193Strider Pj.2193 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @shiri.4257 said:
    4 hour skirmishes 2 hr off to reset things. perhaps only garrison should start off rollover upgrades.

    4 hours would be fine, but 2 hours off?? Please say you meant score, not actual gameplay....

    Thank You for the {MEME}

  • shiri.4257shiri.4257 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Hmm...guess better way to put is 4hrs of scoring and 2hrs off with no scoring or basically closed wvw. purpose for the 2 hr closure is to offset some of the deadzone coverage issues and semi force players to play in set time blocks. Take those 2 hrs to take a dump or go outside.

    Spectre [VII] - Wood League Champion. Making "fight guilds" stack on higher tiers since 2013.
    Michelin rated WvW guild since 2015. The gold standard. Never transferred, never reformed, adapting and reloading with or without Anet.

  • joneirikb.7506joneirikb.7506 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Chaba.5410 said:
    "One of Monopoly’s big mistakes is positive feedback, designer-speak for a mechanism by which a small advantage early on snowballs into a big, insurmountable one later in the game, which makes things boring for the other players. Modern designers tend to prefer negative feedback, in which life gets harder for those doing well. Sometimes that is enforced by explicit penalties. Sometimes it emerges by itself, or through political dealing by other players. Conquering too many planets in a game of Twilight Imperium may make it hard to defend existing territory, for instance, especially if other players decide to gang up on the leader. That helps to keep things interesting for everyone."

    I've always favored the idea of looking at "supply lines" as an element in the game. Twilight Imperium is a very good example of this, the larger your empire gets, the harder it is to move your ships about to where you need them, if one enemy jumps through a warphole and gets into your rear, you often need 2-3 rounds to get them where it is needed to counter them, Or at least 2 to build new ships and move them. And unless you've planned well, and no one sabotaged for you, you might not have a good production center outside your home planet etc.

    In WvW this could be used for things like Supplies/Yak's/Guards etc. If each time has a rough X number of each of those, so the less structures you have they more guards you got guarding it, the more yaks comes to it, and the faster it generates supply. The more structures you have, the less guards you got for each objective, yaks are spread thin making it take longer to upgrade, and get less supply.


    Regarding a few of the other points:

    • "Reset objectives every skirmish"

    I see the point, but that would severely limit/remove the feeling of building up something, that a lot of players enjoy, and is one of the defining differences from PvP etc.

    • "forced 2v1"

    Don't like the forced part, but would certainly appreciate some strong incentives toward it. Heck I'd be game for removing points from killing/taking from each others, and only from the leader.

    • "Outnumbered = Ninjas"

    Well, kinda like it. But at the same time, if the leading server is revealed too much, it will be hard for them to do roaming and havoc squads etc, it would have to be done in a way that doesn't ruin entire ways to play for people.

    I'd also like to point out the fun idea someone posted once, that the larger the zerg, the more noise they generated and youcould hear them coming, and the ground shaking etc. Would do about the same job (and be immersive!).


    Lastly just to be clear, I think this would be a start to solve 1 of the things wrong with WvW, but certainly not all, and not enough alone to fix WvW. But it would be starting to fix some of the problems inherent with the WvW design.

    Elrik Noj (Norn Guardian, Kaineng [SIN][Owls])
    "Understanding is a three edged sword: your side, their side, and the truth." - J. Michael Straczynski
    "GW2 is a MSOFGG: Mass Singleplayer Online Fashion Grinding Game" -me

  • Strider Pj.2193Strider Pj.2193 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @shiri.4257 said:
    Hmm...guess better way to put is 4hrs of scoring and 2hrs off with no scoring or basically closed wvw. purpose for the 2 hr closure is to offset some of the deadzone coverage issues and semi force players to play in set time blocks. Take those 2 hrs to take a dump or go outside.

    No. Reset is long enough.

    Thank You for the {MEME}

  • @Chaba.5410 said:
    I came upon this article the other day which made a point that perfectly describes what is wrong with WvW.

    https://www.1843magazine.com/features/tabletop-generals

    "One of Monopoly’s big mistakes is positive feedback, designer-speak for a mechanism by which a small advantage early on snowballs into a big, insurmountable one later in the game, which makes things boring for the other players. Modern designers tend to prefer negative feedback, in which life gets harder for those doing well. Sometimes that is enforced by explicit penalties. Sometimes it emerges by itself, or through political dealing by other players. Conquering too many planets in a game of Twilight Imperium may make it hard to defend existing territory, for instance, especially if other players decide to gang up on the leader. That helps to keep things interesting for everyone."

    WvW is designed as a positive feedback game instead of one of negative feedback. I'm not going to go through detailing every little thing that feeds into making it a positive feedback game. I feel that many of you reading this already inherently understand how life in game gets easier when you have upgraded objectives and higher numbers than an opponent. I'm only going to offer some ideas for introducing negative feedback and I encourage others to do the same in this thread.

    • Introduce a DAoC-like new map/raid/dungeon only accessible to the server that is winning that makes it more difficult for that server to hold onto territory by pulling away population.
    • Reset objectives back to T1 at start of every skirmish. May need to increase the rate at which objectives upgrade to under two hours. Possibly keep tactics/improvements in place though.
    • (Once suggested in the past) Enforce a 2v1 against a winning server by making the two other servers temporary allies. Although I feel there are better negative feedback mechanisms that would make this suggestion unnecessary.
    • Players with outnumbered buff do not show as revealed from Watchtower or Sentries (or players on winning server are always revealed).

    Edit: Additional suggestions from other posters.

    • Yaks from camps not in your starting zone deliver less supply. Yaks from camps not in your starting zone are slower. (Swamurabi)
    • Controlling SMC drains supply from other structures in EBG. Controlling other keeps drains supply from other structures. (Swamurabi)

    You have some great ideas and I always loved clearing out Darkness Falls after my realm gained access. I really like the idea of the objective reset after a skirmish is complete. In DAOC it seemed like the 2v1 occurred organically, but I don't see servers do this often on their own or if it does happen it is usually the top server and one of the bottom servers tag teaming the other weaker server. it would be interesting to see what this would look like in WvW.

    I think one issue that will always be a problem is the small size of the WvW maps. In DAOC you had 4(?) fairly large zones per realm so zergs couldn't get to keeps under siege in seconds where in GW2 zergs can get to the other side of the map in a few seconds. This also made for some interesting cat and mouse for smaller groups. I realize this will probably never change as it would require significant development, but here's to hoping.

  • Chaba.5410Chaba.5410 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited December 12, 2017

    @STIHL.2489 said:
    Fix Class Balance.. otherwise no matter they do the mode will remain broken.

    Possibly, but class balance doesn't affect WvW mechanics that help snowball a winner like objective upgrades, tactics, yaks. I was hoping this thread would focus on WvW mechanics.

  • morrolan.9608morrolan.9608 Member ✭✭✭

    I have nothing specific to add, I think WvW should be moved to a 3 faction system like the battlegroup proposal, however all of the suggestions in here are worthwhile considering. I don't think anything will be done because the game is all about positive feedback loops and fighting on siege.

  • Trajan.4953Trajan.4953 Member ✭✭✭

    Excellent post Chaba.

  • X T D.6458X T D.6458 Member ✭✭✭✭

    None of those ideas make any sense. WvW is a 24/7 game mode, what sense does it make to reset the tiers on objectives every 2 hours? It makes them completely pointless and would just encourage a constant ktrain at the start of each skirmish because everything would essentially be paper and not worth defending.

    What do you mean when you say winning server? Do you mean a server winning in a specific skirmish or in a matchup? How would this 2v1 work? Are you seriously proposing that 2 sides would essentially become neutral and non hostile to each other and only be able to attack one side simply because of their placement? Yea this cant possibly be abused right?

    What do you mean when you say winning server would always be revealed? Does that mean they do not even need to be Marked by a sentry or watchtower? Their locations would just always be revealed at all times?

    Another thing, outnumbered is not a Buff, it is an effect. Changing it to give an advantage to any side is wrong and misguided.

    Allowing SMC to drain supplies from other objectives in EB, simply by holding it does nothing but favor the larger server and disadvantage a smaller server by slowly supply starving them to a point where they can no longer defend a structure.

    Yaks do not need to have their speed or supply changed, because of their location.

    Somewhere chasing bags....

  • Chaba.5410Chaba.5410 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @X T D.6458 said:
    None of those ideas make any sense. WvW is a 24/7 game mode, what sense does it make to reset the tiers on objectives every 2 hours? It makes them completely pointless and would just encourage a constant ktrain at the start of each skirmish because everything would essentially be paper and not worth defending.

    What do you mean when you say winning server? Do you mean a server winning in a specific skirmish or in a matchup? How would this 2v1 work? Are you seriously proposing that 2 sides would essentially become neutral and non hostile to each other and only be able to attack one side simply because of their placement? Yea this cant possibly be abused right?

    What do you mean when you say winning server would always be revealed? Does that mean they do not even need to be Marked by a sentry or watchtower? Their locations would just always be revealed at all times?

    Another thing, outnumbered is not a Buff, it is an effect. Changing it to give an advantage to any side is wrong and misguided.

    Allowing SMC to drain supplies from other objectives in EB, simply by holding it does nothing but favor the larger server and disadvantage a smaller server by slowly supply starving them to a point where they can no longer defend a structure.

    Yaks do not need to have their speed or supply changed, because of their location.

    In some of your questions, I feel like you don't understand how the current WvW mechanics provide positive feedback. Like you don't understand how upgraded objectives that stay upgraded between skirmishes help a winning server have an easier time at winning (snowball) into the next skirmish? If you don't want to defend paper objectives that have full tactics, improvements, and built siege blueprints on them in order to maintain first place because that would be more difficult than if the objective were upgraded, then the game would be providing the appropriate negative feedback.

    Negative feedback mechanisms are intended to make winning more difficult if you are in first place. Like the article I linked mentions, positive feedback mechanisms can cause players who are not winning to become bored because the game allowed the winner to snowball the win. It is always a big turn-off to many players when they log in to play WvW and see almost everything T3'd and the winning server that did it has such an easy time to defend the structures.

  • hunkamania.7561hunkamania.7561 Member ✭✭✭✭

    upgraded structures and these new wvw tactics are killing the game and anything to nerf all the t3 kitten would be great. Look at the state of wvw right now. Everyone just afk farms and barely anyone does anything. If I were a commander i wouldn't want to try to take all this t3 kitten unless i got a big reward which we all know is a crappy champ bag.

    Ferguson's Crossing Server Leader

    WVW LEADER

    VR

  • roamzero.9486roamzero.9486 Member ✭✭✭

    From a small-scale perspective I noticed that dailies can have a big impact on how much fun there is for that aspect of WvW. Dailies for capturing camps and ruins in particular spread people away from zergs. Somekind of bounty system that mimics what these dailies do could make WvW a lot funner.

    Another thought I had for spreading people out is reducing T3 wall strength to T2 but require holding the ruins to do damage (in the borderlands).

  • @roamzero.9486 said:
    From a small-scale perspective I noticed that dailies can have a big impact on how much fun there is for that aspect of WvW. Dailies for capturing camps and ruins in particular spread people away from zergs. Somekind of bounty system that mimics what these dailies do could make WvW a lot funner.

    Another thought I had for spreading people out is reducing T3 wall strength to T2 but require holding the ruins to do damage (in the borderlands).

    I highlighted the part of your post that anet absolutely refuses to change in any way. In fact, there are mechanics and systems in place to encourage people to join a single map blob which I really feel are hurting the game.

    • small map size
    • no wvw xp scaling
    • aoe cap
    • large amounts of cc with no immunity timers
    • down state

    I don't think I have played a game where they have done so much to discourage smaller groups. In other games larger numbers in and of itself was an advantage, but apparently it just isn't enough here. I would love to see something introduced to split up the full map blob, but I doubt we will be so lucky.

  • hunkamania.7561hunkamania.7561 Member ✭✭✭✭

    soon this game will have everyone hiding behind t3 walls refreshing siege once all the guilds and commanders leave. it will be just what anet wanted all along.

    Ferguson's Crossing Server Leader

    WVW LEADER

    VR

  • X T D.6458X T D.6458 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Chaba.5410 said:

    @X T D.6458 said:
    None of those ideas make any sense. WvW is a 24/7 game mode, what sense does it make to reset the tiers on objectives every 2 hours? It makes them completely pointless and would just encourage a constant ktrain at the start of each skirmish because everything would essentially be paper and not worth defending.

    What do you mean when you say winning server? Do you mean a server winning in a specific skirmish or in a matchup? How would this 2v1 work? Are you seriously proposing that 2 sides would essentially become neutral and non hostile to each other and only be able to attack one side simply because of their placement? Yea this cant possibly be abused right?

    What do you mean when you say winning server would always be revealed? Does that mean they do not even need to be Marked by a sentry or watchtower? Their locations would just always be revealed at all times?

    Another thing, outnumbered is not a Buff, it is an effect. Changing it to give an advantage to any side is wrong and misguided.

    Allowing SMC to drain supplies from other objectives in EB, simply by holding it does nothing but favor the larger server and disadvantage a smaller server by slowly supply starving them to a point where they can no longer defend a structure.

    Yaks do not need to have their speed or supply changed, because of their location.

    In some of your questions, I feel like you don't understand how the current WvW mechanics provide positive feedback. Like you don't understand how upgraded objectives that stay upgraded between skirmishes help a winning server have an easier time at winning (snowball) into the next skirmish? If you don't want to defend paper objectives that have full tactics, improvements, and built siege blueprints on them in order to maintain first place because that would be more difficult than if the objective were upgraded, then the game would be providing the appropriate negative feedback.

    Negative feedback mechanisms are intended to make winning more difficult if you are in first place. Like the article I linked mentions, positive feedback mechanisms can cause players who are not winning to become bored because the game allowed the winner to snowball the win. It is always a big turn-off to many players when they log in to play WvW and see almost everything T3'd and the winning server that did it has such an easy time to defend the structures.

    You really don't see how resetting objectives to being essentially paper every 2 hours would make it easier for larger servers to ktrain an entire map very quickly? And also how this would put defenders at a great disadvantage? Just fyi this feature already exists...in EoTM. This idea would just discourage any players from defending, scouting, or anything else that involves upgrading because all that effort will just be a waste when the skirmish ends. I think seeing your entire map being constantly papered, and having no incentive to even try because your efforts will be wasted would be a bigger demoralizing factor. This would go far beyond population and coverage issues, because this would be a mechanic that basically tells people...nope sorry nothing you do matters.

    Somewhere chasing bags....

  • Chaba.5410Chaba.5410 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited December 13, 2017

    @X T D.6458 said:

    @Chaba.5410 said:

    @X T D.6458 said:
    None of those ideas make any sense. WvW is a 24/7 game mode, what sense does it make to reset the tiers on objectives every 2 hours? It makes them completely pointless and would just encourage a constant ktrain at the start of each skirmish because everything would essentially be paper and not worth defending.

    What do you mean when you say winning server? Do you mean a server winning in a specific skirmish or in a matchup? How would this 2v1 work? Are you seriously proposing that 2 sides would essentially become neutral and non hostile to each other and only be able to attack one side simply because of their placement? Yea this cant possibly be abused right?

    What do you mean when you say winning server would always be revealed? Does that mean they do not even need to be Marked by a sentry or watchtower? Their locations would just always be revealed at all times?

    Another thing, outnumbered is not a Buff, it is an effect. Changing it to give an advantage to any side is wrong and misguided.

    Allowing SMC to drain supplies from other objectives in EB, simply by holding it does nothing but favor the larger server and disadvantage a smaller server by slowly supply starving them to a point where they can no longer defend a structure.

    Yaks do not need to have their speed or supply changed, because of their location.

    In some of your questions, I feel like you don't understand how the current WvW mechanics provide positive feedback. Like you don't understand how upgraded objectives that stay upgraded between skirmishes help a winning server have an easier time at winning (snowball) into the next skirmish? If you don't want to defend paper objectives that have full tactics, improvements, and built siege blueprints on them in order to maintain first place because that would be more difficult than if the objective were upgraded, then the game would be providing the appropriate negative feedback.

    Negative feedback mechanisms are intended to make winning more difficult if you are in first place. Like the article I linked mentions, positive feedback mechanisms can cause players who are not winning to become bored because the game allowed the winner to snowball the win. It is always a big turn-off to many players when they log in to play WvW and see almost everything T3'd and the winning server that did it has such an easy time to defend the structures.

    You really don't see how resetting objectives to being essentially paper every 2 hours would make it easier for larger servers to ktrain an entire map very quickly? And also how this would put defenders at a great disadvantage? Just fyi this feature already exists...in EoTM. This idea would just discourage any players from defending, scouting, or anything else that involves upgrading because all that effort will just be a waste when the skirmish ends. I think seeing your entire map being constantly papered, and having no incentive to even try because your efforts will be wasted would be a bigger demoralizing factor. This would go far beyond population and coverage issues, because this would be a mechanic that basically tells people...nope sorry nothing you do matters.

    I'm not entirely sure what you expect the outcome of a "ktrain an entire map very quickly" is supposed to produce as your point. These so-called larger servers need to have the people on to spend time walking yaks and re-upgrading these objectives to get their snowball points which they are not necessarily going to be able to do across all four maps during off-hours. Think of reset night during NA primetime when populations tend to be more balanced and it isn't so easy to simply ktrain everything. What it does do is take away the upgraded objective advantage from the winning server that snowballs into the next skirmish or two. Successfully defending a T3 keep always needs about half as many people as the attacking force, an advantage that larger/winning servers get as positive feedback currently.

  • Drinks.2361Drinks.2361 Member ✭✭✭

    yeah I think they have buffed defence WAY too much in the game, siege should only be able to hold off a zerg long enough for players to get there & respond not some 4h shield spam.

    We had golem week, cannon beta, I think it's time we had a week where they deleted gates. Even if just the keeps in EBG it would get some fights going on interesting terrain/

    but yeah Chaba I think you're right about the positive feedback, hopefully someone from Anet reads it.

  • I always liked the idea of Eotm style upgrades and skirmish resets like Eotm, except in alpine/EBG/dbl.

  • Trajan.4953Trajan.4953 Member ✭✭✭

    @Drinks.2361 said:
    yeah I think they have buffed defence WAY too much in the game, siege should only be able to hold off a zerg long enough for players to get there & respond not some 4h shield spam.

    We had golem week, cannon beta, I think it's time we had a week where they deleted gates. Even if just the keeps in EBG it would get some fights going on interesting terrain/

    but yeah Chaba I think you're right about the positive feedback, hopefully someone from Anet reads it.

    This.

  • The only realistic way I can see WvW getting fixed through game design. Is only if someone flatout brought out NCsoft and ArenaNet. And invested millions of USDs into improving the gamemode, so that it MAY yield them a proper return in the distant future. This endeavor would take a rich, enthusiastic, and patient person or group of people to pull off.

    I am the one and only true Majestic Being.
    I stand now on the precipice of change.
    My perceptions on quality is refined.
    I am now the outsider looking in.
    Next level simi profession troll at your service.
    Bring the lols like no other.

  • Chorazin.4107Chorazin.4107 Member ✭✭✭

    @Chaba.5410 said:

    • Introduce a DAoC-like new map/raid/dungeon only accessible to the server that is winning that makes it more difficult for that server to hold onto territory by pulling away population.

    The dungeon should be called Falling Darkness.

    [lion] - [tRex] - [nâh/UwU/yep]

  • Namer.9750Namer.9750 Member ✭✭✭
    edited December 15, 2017

    @shiri.4257 said:
    Hmm...guess better way to put is 4hrs of scoring and 2hrs off with no scoring or basically closed wvw. purpose for the 2 hr closure is to offset some of the deadzone coverage issues and semi force players to play in set time blocks. Take those 2 hrs to take a dump or go outside.

    What if those two hours are the only times you can play? You work 9 to 5, get home at 6 or 7, have some food, finish up some work, maybe get on GW2 at 9 pm.

    And lo and behold, closed WvW. So you sit and take a dump until 11 pm, play for 30 minutes, then go to bed.

    Please think about suggestions you make, for the love of god.

    @Drinks.2361 said:
    yeah I think they have buffed defence WAY too much in the game, siege should only be able to hold off a zerg long enough for players to get there & respond not some 4h shield spam.

    We had golem week, cannon beta, I think it's time we had a week where they deleted gates. Even if just the keeps in EBG it would get some fights going on interesting terrain/

    but yeah Chaba I think you're right about the positive feedback, hopefully someone from Anet reads it.

    There's a bit of a problem with that though. You can currently hold of 30-40ish people with 10 people if you have a good understanding of how to use siege. There isn't always help coming, even in primetime. That 4h shield spam? Attackers can also do that, and to far greater effectiveness because they only have to protect the small spot around sieges, while defenders have to protect every breakable wall and gate (you can always turn your siege and hit at an angle that shield gens don't protect; you can do this on almost every wall).

  • Dawdler.8521Dawdler.8521 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited December 15, 2017

    @Reaper Alim.4176 said:
    The only realistic way I can see WvW getting fixed through game design. Is only if someone flatout brought out NCsoft and ArenaNet. And invested millions of USDs into improving the gamemode, so that it MAY yield them a proper return in the distant future. This endeavor would take a rich, enthusiastic, and patient person or group of people to pull off.

    The only way that is going to end is a publisher like Trion buys it and we get $100 lootboxes.

    You know it will.

    Dont look a gift Asura in the mouth.
    No seriously, dont. Shark teeth.

  • Drinks.2361Drinks.2361 Member ✭✭✭
    edited December 15, 2017

    @Namer.9750 said:
    There isn't always help coming, even in primetime.

    If you don't have people that will show up to defend you lose the structure, I don't really see that as a problem. If you start losing a chunk of the map it'll compress the players you do have into a smaller area so you've got a better shot at winning the next fight.

    Structures on the map should promote fights, draw players from enemy servers together so they can fight each other. With siege creep where we're at now structures separate players from each other, siege spamming from the almost invulnerability of walls. It reduces all the effort Anet has put into designing classes & balance into pressing buttons on cooldown. There is no reactive counter play, I know someone is going to post something along the lines of "you can place a shield gen" that is about as active as a game of checkers. Maybe siege disablers are active but that's the only one.

  • Feanor.2358Feanor.2358 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Chaba.5410 said:

    • (Once suggested in the past) Enforce a 2v1 against a winning server by making the two other servers temporary allies.

    There's no need for that, because it usually happens naturally and is a kind of auto-balance. And even better, leaving it to happen naturally also leaves the element of uncertainty. You never know when your supposed "allies" will turn on you.

  • Aeolus.3615Aeolus.3615 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited December 15, 2017

    If u guys get the matches towards EOTM timers.. RIP WvW.

    I would not mind a RO, war of emperium system rather than low timer skimirshes that hold no value on the game.

  • Chaba.5410Chaba.5410 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Feanor.2358 said:

    @Chaba.5410 said:

    • (Once suggested in the past) Enforce a 2v1 against a winning server by making the two other servers temporary allies.

    There's no need for that, because it usually happens naturally and is a kind of auto-balance. And even better, leaving it to happen naturally also leaves the element of uncertainty. You never know when your supposed "allies" will turn on you.

    You can say it happens naturally, but it really only happened very very rarely. What naturally happens most often is the two larger servers gang up on the smaller one. That's not negative feedback.

  • Grim West.3194Grim West.3194 Member ✭✭✭
    edited December 15, 2017

    I hope the devs take a look and seriously consider some of these ideas.

    WvW needs some changes at a very basic level. The bandaids are not working.

  • shiri.4257shiri.4257 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Namer.9750 said:

    @shiri.4257 said:
    Hmm...guess better way to put is 4hrs of scoring and 2hrs off with no scoring or basically closed wvw. purpose for the 2 hr closure is to offset some of the deadzone coverage issues and semi force players to play in set time blocks. Take those 2 hrs to take a dump or go outside.

    What if those two hours are the only times you can play? You work 9 to 5, get home at 6 or 7, have some food, finish up some work, maybe get on GW2 at 9 pm.

    And lo and behold, closed WvW. So you sit and take a dump until 11 pm, play for 30 minutes, then go to bed.

    Sounds like an ideal raid night! i believe your presumption is you think the suggestion was to cover every wvw player. it's not, the Skirmish on and Skirmish off zones purpose is to concentrate players during certain hours and mitigate dead time zones. I'm assuming Anet has graphs that show activity and coverage per server and thats what they were doing with links. The question more measuring 1) what is considered dead zone activity? 2) how much time is spent on dead zone activity? 3) setup Skirmish on and Skirmish off hours.

    With a 4 on and 2 off, would provide 16hours of wvw per day and 8 hours off. Which is mitigating an estimated 33% of dead zone coverage if that's how much each server has.

    Of course there are ratios we can use. Such as 6hrs on and 2 hrs off or even 3hrs on and 1hr off. ( same amount of off time). These scenarios will mitigate 25% of play time and hopefully mitigate run away dead zone scoring.

    Why choose 3 hrs, 4 hours, or 6 hours? Simply bias on my part, my attention span is about 3-4hrs for a raid if that. Say the skirmish time starts at 6pm and i can't make it until 7/8pm. Sucks, but then its just about life choices. Changing my work schedule or changing my game schedule? Choosing a 3/1, 4/2, 6/2 or any on/off scoring has pros and cons.

    I do not advocate any idea that will make everyone happy, because it does not exist. The underlying problems are 1) mitigate coverage wars without sidelining too many players. 2) Get the most bang for your buck in a raid (action). The resetting objectives in between off times, can provide that. Honestly, not too many people want to spend 1/3 of their raid desieging t3 structures, 1/3 trying to break outter, and the last 1/3 of their raid breaking into inner. But this cane be mitigated also by getting rid of fortified gates altogether, so we can embrace the life of middle fort.

    Spectre [VII] - Wood League Champion. Making "fight guilds" stack on higher tiers since 2013.
    Michelin rated WvW guild since 2015. The gold standard. Never transferred, never reformed, adapting and reloading with or without Anet.

  • Recomputed every skirm:
    1. Lowest server gets auto-watchtower on all stuff they own and do not cause swords when attacking an objective.
    2. Highest server - any blob gets a symbol over it, similar to OJs, but without needing to be in combat (something to the effect of, any group over 20% of the server population of all 4 maps put together).

  • Bish.8627Bish.8627 Member ✭✭✭
    edited December 16, 2017

    Know what I would love? Put the emphasis on players defending towers and keeps rather than siege and walls. Stop giving abilities that pull off walls and make far less skills work damaging defenders on walls. Then nerf siege and defences especially for T3.

    Seriously, stop us being pulled off walls.

  • Swagger.1459Swagger.1459 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Chaba.5410 said:
    I came upon this article the other day which made a point that perfectly describes what is wrong with WvW.

    https://www.1843magazine.com/features/tabletop-generals

    "One of Monopoly’s big mistakes is positive feedback, designer-speak for a mechanism by which a small advantage early on snowballs into a big, insurmountable one later in the game, which makes things boring for the other players. Modern designers tend to prefer negative feedback, in which life gets harder for those doing well. Sometimes that is enforced by explicit penalties. Sometimes it emerges by itself, or through political dealing by other players. Conquering too many planets in a game of Twilight Imperium may make it hard to defend existing territory, for instance, especially if other players decide to gang up on the leader. That helps to keep things interesting for everyone."

    WvW is designed as a positive feedback game instead of one of negative feedback. I'm not going to go through detailing every little thing that feeds into making it a positive feedback game. I feel that many of you reading this already inherently understand how life in game gets easier when you have upgraded objectives and higher numbers than an opponent. I'm only going to offer some ideas for introducing negative feedback and I encourage others to do the same in this thread.

    • Introduce a DAoC-like new map/raid/dungeon only accessible to the server that is winning that makes it more difficult for that server to hold onto territory by pulling away population.
    • Reset objectives back to T1 at start of every skirmish. May need to increase the rate at which objectives upgrade to under two hours. Possibly keep tactics/improvements in place though.
    • (Once suggested in the past) Enforce a 2v1 against a winning server by making the two other servers temporary allies. Although I feel there are better negative feedback mechanisms that would make this suggestion unnecessary.
    • Players with outnumbered buff do not show as revealed from Watchtower or Sentries (or players on winning server are always revealed).

    Edit: Additional suggestions from other posters.

    • Yaks from camps not in your starting zone deliver less supply. Yaks from camps not in your starting zone are slower. (Swamurabi)
    • Controlling SMC drains supply from other structures in EBG. Controlling other keeps drains supply from other structures. (Swamurabi)

    Edit: So far most responses center around using supply as a negative feedback mechanism.

    Introducing annoying mechanics certainly won’t improve the current state of wvw.

©2010–2018 ArenaNet, LLC. All rights reserved. Guild Wars, Guild Wars 2, Heart of Thorns, Guild Wars 2: Path of Fire, ArenaNet, NCSOFT, the Interlocking NC Logo, and all associated logos and designs are trademarks or registered trademarks of NCSOFT Corporation. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.