Alliance Design That Stops The QQ — Guild Wars 2 Forums

Alliance Design That Stops The QQ

Swagger.1459Swagger.1459 Member ✭✭✭✭
edited January 26, 2019 in WvW

THE GOALS OF THESE SUGGESTIONS:

  • To fix the same complaints we have seen for 6 years over and over and over and over...
  • To keep the progress made with World Restructing systems and use it for balancing Factions.
  • To eliminate stacking by removing the transfer system entirely.
  • To pool ALL players into one big playground and create an epic 3 sided Alliance war.
  • To encourage ALL types of players to get involved.
  • To cater to ALL different play styles.
  • To provide a place where ALL players can contribute to their side in many ways despite possible queues.
  • To make “scoring” more about personal and guild rewards instead, and placement means reward PACE.
  • To make WvW into a “living” WvW experience that receives closer to equal amounts of attention from the developers.
  • To make a space that both developers and players CARE MORE about.

Imagine a Alliance WvW MIST WAR like this…

WHAT ALLIANCES WOULD LOOK LIKE:

  • 3 Alliance Factions made up of ALL players pooled together fighting against each other. OBVIOUSLY NA and EU are NOT connected.
  • Alliances, guilds and individual players are reshuffled every 2 months to create 3 new Factions
  • Faction Names change every 2 months.

THE 1st ALLIANCE UPDATE WOULD INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING:

MAPS MADE FOR "BLOBS", WITH A 100 PLAYER MAP CAP PER SIDE
These maps are the “No PvE” zones that remain conducive to quality open space and structure capture mass pvp.

  • 1 Eternal Battlegrounds with SM CASTLE.
  • 1 Alpine Borderland.
  • 1 Desert Borderland.
  • 1 NEW Arctic Borderland.
  • 1 Edge of the Mists.

PLUS... (These would be the EotM factions inspired borderland maps.)

  • 1 NEW Badlands Borderland with a castle.
  • 1 NEW Frostreach Borderland with a castle.
  • 1 NEW Overgrowth Borderland with a castle.

(SO 8 MAPS WITH 4 CASTLES FOR "BLOBS" TO FIGHT OVER)

MAPS MADE SPECIFICALLY FOR SMALL GUILDS, SMALL TEAMS AND SOLO ROAMERS WITH A 50 PLAYER MAP CAP PER SIDE

  • 6 Guild Wars inspired PvP/PvE Maps http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/The_Mists
  • Let’s call these “Hot Zones” (for this discussion) that draw elements from GW lore.
  • Players fight against each other and NPCs here.
  • These maps have *MOSTLY OPEN AREA CAPTURE POINTS, EVENTS AND META EVENTS as well.
  • WvW wide alerts can be given to indicate a meta event will occur on a map.

(SO 6 MAPS MADE MOSTLY FOR SMALL OPS AND SOLO ROAMERS WITH A MAP CAP OF 50 PLAYERS PER SIDE)


THE 2nd ALLIANCE UPDATE (RELEASED AT A LATER DATE) WOULD INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING:

"SAFE SPACE" HOMELAND PVE MAPS WHERE NEW PLAYERS CAN LEARN THE BASICS OF WVW PLAY AND CONTRIBUTE TO THE MIST WAR

  • I’d like to take NPCs and Factions from EotM and WvW and expand on them. Let’s give them a purpose for their existence in the Mists, an open world story for players to go through and a compelling reason for players to be fighting the Mist War with them.
  • Homeland maps would be the entry zones for WvW depending on the Faction side you are on. From here you can portal to other maps. These homeland maps do not have to be just 1 map for each side, multiple smaller maps could be used as well or added later.
  • Enemy players cannot enter opposing sides PvE homelands.
  • These maps are treated and played like any Tyria PvE maps, but tailored to teach players about wvw and help contribute to "war score".
  • Players are not forced into other types of WvW maps, they are only encouraged by rewards.

GENERAL STUFF FOR ALL MAPS

  • Would be cool to have some underground maps and areas utilized more in the Mists. Homeland and "Hot Zones" would be great for this.
  • Add tunnel systems, like in EotM, to various maps for strategic use and map travel.
  • It would be great to have a cohesive story and fixed groups of npcs for each faction across all maps.
  • Outnumbered "Blob" maps gets a bit of extra help from their homeland faction NPCs. Have an additional Champion, with tough minions, spawn to help protect friendly structures against enemies. Only structures, not supply camps

NO MAP COPIES EXCEPT FOR HOMELAND PVE MAPS

  • Ideally I’m looking to create 1 Mist “world” for this "war", but feel the PvE maps would need to use the map copy function like we have in PvE.

MAP TOTALS RECAP

  • 8 PvP maps (EB, AB, DB, Arctic B, EotM, BB, FB, OB) with 4 castles in total (EB, BB, FB, OB). Total fixed max capacity across these 8 maps would be 2,400 players.
  • 6 PvP/PvE Hot Zone meta event maps. Total fixed max capacity across these 6 maps would be 900 players.
  • 3 Homeland PvE maps, with a few extra area maps for learning about wvw and contributing to your Faction.

(So a total of 3,300 players can be participating in wvw, at any given time, across 14 maps. While pure PvE style maps allow for tons of players due to the map copy function)

SCORING AND REWARDS
I’m going to try to bring up a basic outline of scoring and rewards. I feel the ideal "scoring system" would have more of an emphasis on reward pace, NOT just about 1st, 2nd and 3rd place rewards. To do this, I’d like to see a tiered reward vendor system (similar to Dry Top) based off of “war score”. Tiers would either scale up in quality for purchasable goods and rewards, or lower in cost for purchasable goods and rewards. Badges of Honor and gold are used as currency to purchase items.

  • ALL maps contribute to the Mist War score total for each side. Yes ALL. The purpose behind this is to have ALL players contribute to the war effort in the way THEY feel comfortable.
  • Personal reward tracks and Pip/Ticket stuff all remain in place.
  • Loot as normal from player kills, npc kills, events and capturing objectives.
  • ALL maps have unique crafting materials to gather, and these materials are only found in the Mists. These can be used for components in any new crafted items introduced to the game so they become part of the global economy.
  • HIDE SCORING FROM PLAYERS, and only use it as an internal Dev stats tool every 2 months when Alliances and players are reshuffled.
  • GET RID of 2 hour Skirmish stuff.
  • Faction mix and match rotations done every 2 months.
  • NO TOURNAMENTS.
  • Continue with WvW "special event weeks"
  • Outnumbered Buffs are still in place on maps
  • REMOVE THE SERVER TRANSFER SYSTEM because you will not need it for this design.

CASTLE DESIGNS

  • I feel it would be a great change to have multiple capture points to castles. This would require some changes to EB, but feel it’s worth it.
  • I’d like to see more reasons to take and hold castles. Perhaps gaining access to a unique vendor with unique personal and guild goods.
  • Increased Magic Find, WXP, BoH drops and PiPs while holding a castle. Stacking reward bonuses for each castle in possession of your Faction... Stuff that doesn’t give an advantage during combat.

THESE IDEAS WOULD BE BETTER FOR THE LONG RUN...
It would be smoother for the long run to balance 3 sides total instead of multiple different match ups. I think the 1 “world to fight over', with 3 sided designs concept, would provide more population stability overall, and better coverage, for everyone. Shifting players and guilds every couple months keeps things "fresher'. Removing the "score" for player eyes, and focusing on personal and guild rewards, changes the emphasis from a "numbers" war to more of a "mist war".

I HAVE SOME EDITS COMING...

Comments

  • Swagger.1459Swagger.1459 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited December 9, 2018

    FACTION CONCEPT EXAMPLES USING GW LORE

    GREEN FACTION

    Why Balthazar on green?

    RED FACTION

    “Abaddon, with the help of Dhuum and Menzies, was almost successful, but was stopped by the Order of the Sunspears and the Order of Whispers, who entered the Realm of Torment to defeat him. In his final moments, Abaddon’s power threatened to run out of control and destroy Tyria, but it was absorbed by Spearmarshal Kormir, who became the Goddess of Truth using a power that had been granted to her by the Five Gods.”

    BLUE FACTION

    WHY ARE THE FACTIONS FIGHTING?
    I’m still figuring out a good tie-in for these factions to be at war. I was thinking perhaps going with like a “Battle of Champions” type thing, but with the bad NPCs thrown into the mix....

    Maybe the Factions are trying to win control over the…

    http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Scepter_of_Orr OR http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Staff_of_the_Mists

    To control… http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Titan and http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Demon for extra NPC support for their Faction.

    ...IDK, just tossing out some story line ideas that add more substance surrounding the "Mist War".

    Thanks for reading!

  • Dante.1763Dante.1763 Member ✭✭✭✭

    ....i like this..i like everything about this.

    Ember Wandertooth(SB), Lucina Fallenflame(Weaver), Kianda Redpaw(Guardian), Kingslayer, Light in the Dark.
    Why Guild Wars is called Guild Wars

  • subversiontwo.7501subversiontwo.7501 Member ✭✭✭
    edited December 9, 2018

    I like the gist of what you are trying to describe but remain sceptical about most of the approaches you suggest. I understand that describing approaches in such a broad outline is nigh impossible. However let me poke at some of the things so you can consider them.

    A ) The singular RvR idea (as in one WvWvW) with a map carousel is good. Concept-wise that is what can be salvaged from EotM. However, you have not adressed how those maps will be populated and score will be attributed beyond saying that they will all do so and that outnumbered effects will still be in place. There have been plenty of similar suggestions on these forums that have adressed those points and come further in their proposals. That leaves room for improvement, especially as this may be the core aspect (or at least the strong suit) of your overall idea.

    B ) You mention maps conducive to quality open space content but then go on to mention EotM, DBL and underground areas which are generally not conducive to that specific thing. It is also to a large degree why those maps are impopular. While some players always come to claim how much they enjoy them I have a strong feeling that they only do so because they are not populated by enough players to exploit the issues built onto those maps. The issues players have had with those maps have always been exactly that, they are not conducive to open gameplay and delve down into boring exploits such as cliff/bridge pull-wars or choke-wars that lead to pirateship standoffs. I'm not saying you can't have versions of those maps or have an underground theme akin to HoT maps just keep in mind that your target point was maps that are conducive to WvW gameplay and those examples are not (regardless of scale).

    C ) The scoring system you propose is both not fleshed out to the point where it is understandable and also seems to be void of any competetive aspect. It sounds more like a system where everyone get access to stuff at the end of a stretch with no outline to how, what or the effects of contribution. If a server is capable of keeping another server out of access to their shinies then scoring balance is still extremely important (and 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or winners and losers, are still a thing). Granted, that is still more appealing than "everyone is a winner" or "everyone is a winner unless you self-implode" approaches seen in PvE event maps because it would still reflect PvP where you can impact your opposition. Again, I'm not saying a tiered system is bad, it can be really good. However, you are vague about the competetive aspects of it and thus the need for balance of it.

    D ) The things you call Hotzones are already either here or are being worked on. There is the PvP Stronghold mode for your PvE/PvP/Moba/GW1 niche it's just that no one seems to play it. I don't see why it has to be salvaged into WvW and there seems to be little to no demand for it. It was also mentioned during the new TDM/Arena 2v2 maps stream that Anet were working on larger such maps at least as custom arenas (up towards 10v10, but hopefully with the presence of mind to build in support for even larger groups if they spend time and resources on code for it now - it would be hilariously Anet-like to spend time coding a system that breaks the 5v5 limitations without realizing that such an environment would be better for Obsidian Sanctum-like content as well or that they would choose not to build that possibility into the system for personal reasons rather than player demand or possibility only to spend years trying to re-fix it later :3 ). Anyway, the map variety you propose seem a little superfluous even if the idea of having a map carousel and perhaps more a lobby with training areas for new players (as opposed to calling it a PvE map) are both solid.

    If you trim the fat and flesh out the vague (thus flush out the vague) off your suggestions then is basically boils down to what alot of other players have suggested in lieu of the alliance system even since before the alliance system design was revealed: Megaserver (EotM, overflow), no queues, map carousel with more maps (conducive to open spaces), lobby, population/score balance on maps/outnumbered, additional rewards once scoring is balanced, TDM-type maps on the side (and of course class/mechanics balance with attention to WvW/sPvP needs). That is not a bad thing, it is a good thing. Having good ideas with aspects that derive/improve upon design is better than having unique ideas :) .

  • Dawdler.8521Dawdler.8521 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Oh it's a great suggestion...

    ... for GW3 since all that would easily take 3+ years to make.

    For GW2, it's not viable.

  • subversiontwo.7501subversiontwo.7501 Member ✭✭✭
    edited December 9, 2018

    @Dawdler.8521 said:
    Oh it's a great suggestion...

    ... for GW3 since all that would easily take 3+ years to make.

    For GW2, it's not viable.

    I disagree!

    The beauty of the line of ideas that this thread also stems from is that it draws upon existing tech and moving parts that are already in the game.

    • Lobby, exists for PvP
    • Megaserver, exists for EotM/PvE/PvP
    • Overflows/no queue/per-squad, exists for PvE
    • Maps, Anet has hopefully learnt alot about them going into PoF as they keep claiming that themselves (and from WvW-mistakes)
    • Anet obviously have the resources to make beautiful maps and they could churn out 20 variations of EB's core design and we'd be happy
    • More sPvP modes and interactivity between WvW and sPvP is being done with TDM maps
    • Better interactivity between WvW and sPvP is being done with "the competetive team" (includes the balance team for skill splits etc.)
    • Scoring, outnumbered effects already tracks active numbers on maps which is the superior way to adress 24h pop imbalances and score
    • Once those pop balances are solved a venue for new rewards opens up (whether it is tiered and based on success/stretch goals or not)

    All of that exists in GW2.

    That is literally everything we need. If they want to do alliances for the three megaworlds, fine, but that is the least important aspect of it albeit fundamental. It is important in itself to balance the worlds but everything else balances the gameplay to make the worlds less of an issue.

  • Swagger.1459Swagger.1459 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited December 9, 2018

    @subversiontwo.7501 said:
    I like the gist of what you are trying to describe but remain sceptical about most of the approaches you suggest. I understand that describing approaches in such a broad outline is nigh impossible. However let me poke at some of the things so you can consider them.

    A ) The singular RvR idea (as in one WvWvW) with a map carousel is good. Concept-wise that is what can be salvaged from EotM. However, you have not adressed how those maps will be populated and score will be attributed beyond saying that they will all do so and that outnumbered effects will still be in place. There have been plenty of similar suggestions on these forums that have adressed those points and come further in their proposals. That leaves room for improvement, especially as this may be the core aspect (or at least the strong suit) of your overall idea.

    ALL NA players are pooled into 1 NA Mist World and divided out by 3. Same for EU. NA and EU remain separate. Alliances are still used so the devs can have more control over the numbers being divide out.

    B ) You mention maps conducive to quality open space content but then go on to mention EotM, DBL and underground areas which are generally not conducive to that specific thing. It is also to a large degree why those maps are impopular. While some players always come to claim how much they enjoy them I have a strong feeling that they only do so because they are not populated by enough players to exploit the issues built onto those maps. The issues players have had with those maps have always been exactly that, they are not conducive to open gameplay and delve down into boring exploits such as cliff/bridge pull-wars or choke-wars that lead to pirateship standoffs. I'm not saying you can't have versions of those maps or have an underground theme akin to HoT maps just keep in mind that your target point was maps that are conducive to WvW gameplay and those examples are not (regardless of scale).

    Maps design preference differs from person to person, and maps can be worked on for improvements based off of community feedback

    C ) The scoring system you propose is both not fleshed out to the point where it is understandable and also seems to be void of any competetive aspect. It sounds more like a system where everyone get access to stuff at the end of a stretch with no outline to how, what or the effects of contribution. If a server is capable of keeping another server out of access to their shinies then scoring balance is still extremely important (and 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or winners and losers, are still a thing). Granted, that is still more appealing than "everyone is a winner" or "everyone is a winner unless you self-implode" approaches seen in PvE event maps because it would still reflect PvP where you can impact your opposition. Again, I'm not saying a tiered system is bad, it can be really good. However, you are vague about the competetive aspects of it and thus the need for balance of it.

    We have a great scoring system already in place to use for this. Nothing really changes that here. The exception is that score totals are hidden from players and only used by the devs to remake, and rebalance, Factions every 2 months. Players can still look on the maps to see who own what, and get an idea of who is ahead at the time. New reward vendors scale off of reward tiers similar to what happens in Dry Top. Personal and guild rewards are mostly based off of personal contribution, nothing to do with score

    D ) The things you call Hotzones are already either here or are being worked on. There is the PvP Stronghold mode for your PvE/PvP/Moba/GW1 niche it's just that no one seems to play it. I don't see why it has to be salvaged into WvW and there seems to be little to no demand for it. It was also mentioned during the new TDM/Arena 2v2 maps stream that Anet were working on larger such maps at least as custom arenas (up towards 10v10, but hopefully with the presence of mind to build in support for even larger groups if they spend time and resources on code for it now - it would be hilariously Anet-like to spend time coding a system that breaks the 5v5 limitations without realizing that such an environment would be better for Obsidian Sanctum-like content as well or that they would choose not to build that possibility into the system for personal reasons rather than player demand only to spend years trying to re-fix it later :3 ). Anyway, the map variety you propose seem a little superfluous even if the idea of having a map carousel and perhaps more a lobby with training areas for new players (as opposed to calling it a PvE map) are both solid.

    The "hot zones" would be tailored for smaller groups, and solo players, to be able to contribute away from the "blobs"... "Blob" QQ is common for smaller groups and roamers, and mostly flipping camps isn't really exciting. Think of these maps like any game that is designed for PvPvE, and similar to if Anet designated 6 maps in Tyria into PvPvE zones.

    If you trim the fat and flesh out the vague (thus flush out the vague) off your suggestions then is basically boils down to what alot of other players have suggested in lieu of the alliance system even since before the alliance system design was revealed: Megaserver (EotM, overflow), no queues, map carousel with more maps (conducive to open spaces), population/score balance on maps/outnumbered, additional rewards once scoring is balanced, TDM-type maps on the side (and of course class/mechanics balance with attention to WvW/sPvP needs). That is not a bad thing, it is a good thing. Having good ideas with aspects that derive/improve upon design is better than having unique ideas :) .

    The only maps that would have copies would be the PvE homeland maps. NONE of the other maps would be copied for player to play on, not even EotM. ALL maps are in play at the SAME time, and again, only the PvE homeland maps would have overflow maps. Map capacity for each blob PvP map would be 300 total. Map capacity for the hot zone PvP/PvE maps would be 150 total. PvE maps get the copies so idk what the map caps would be, depends on what size and how many.

  • Knighthonor.4061Knighthonor.4061 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Would like some kind of NPC boss summon like we had in old AV in Vanilla WoW and I liked how NPC were much stronger compared to players in Vanilla then after the first expansion released the npc were nerfed to be weak and they lost their appeal and threat after that. I would like hard hitting npc like that in WvW that can turn the tides of battle. Casual players can be contribute to the team by running whatever quest/heart objective is necessary to summon the NPC units. The game has a similar concept but the NPC are super weak and easily passed on because they serve no impact on the battles.

  • subversiontwo.7501subversiontwo.7501 Member ✭✭✭
    edited December 9, 2018

    @Swagger.1459 said:
    Maps design preference differs from person to person, and maps can be worked on for improvements based off of community feedback

    No, we don't need to argue about people having different preferences or iterative work being good work. Isn't really points for argumentation, it is beside the point.

    I argued that people who enjoy the current (or initial) iterations of EotM and DBL only do so because they are not subjected to the cancerous state of those maps being properly populated. Much like you, I enjoy all aspects of WvW so I both blob and roam (and everything inbetween). There is no difference if I roam with two friends or am in a squad how those maps are not conducive to fun open fights, catching up with friends or taking objectives. When those maps are fun that is not down to map but rather to the target-environment present on them - eg., the blobs not being there and smaller less organized groups or other roamers being there. When they are not, the map is not better and when they are on other maps those maps are at least equally good.

    I remember the obstacle fences initially on DBL and I've claimed oversized cliff-perched objectives on DBL as a roamer the other day. I've pulled my fair share of new players from bridges when EotM was new or tried to get to a GvG spot through automatic cannon fire on it more recently. None of it is good design. That people decide not to exploit those maps now or that they are not populated enough to spread those exploits does not take from the point that they can be exploited and will drive people off them (and indirectly out of the mode) again. It isn't iteration either, they are built around those design flaws.

    *We have a great scoring system already in place to use for this. Nothing really changes that here. The exception is that score totals are hidden from players and only used by the devs to remake, and rebalance, Factions every 2 months.

    No, we have a terrible scoring system that makes off-timezone gem-transfers more valuable than primetime players and splits the community into PPT- and Fight extremes at most other times of the week than evening-to-midnight reset-night (friday 19:00-24:00). It is literally only reset night that behaves as WvW was intended and first did most days of the week during prime time. There is no higher tiered "PPT server" that is not a night-capping server (predominantly so, often to the point of being incapable of creating good primetime content, so they create imbalance at all hours). Reset nights you rarely hear people talk about PPT vs. Fight because everybody both fights and fight over objectives.

    That said content is not reproduced every day is entirely down to what is broken in the scoring system. People still have preferences sure, but reset night proves that they are not to such extremes as being distinctly separate server cultures when maps are roughly population-balanced. I'd like to think most players like fighting and fighting over objectives or caring about score when that is feasible and designed responsibly. Now it isn't and forms behaviour.

    The "hot zones" would be tailored for smaller groups, and solo players, to be able to contribute away from the "blobs"... "Blob" QQ is common for smaller groups and roamers, and mostly flipping camps isn't really exciting. Think of these maps like any game that is designed for PvPvE, and similar to if Anet designated 6 maps in Tyria into PvPvE zones.

    I never see any notable roamers complain about blobs. I see blobs being complained about when it comes to class and mechanics design. I see blobs being complained about by inexperienced players. That is more down to no one being around to teach them or set them straight though. That you can only flip camps as a roamer is a gross understatement even if it may be the first thing you suggest to an inexperienced player who asks what they can do. Experienced roamers can take any objective, act as scouts, defend/stall objectives, re/back-cap objectives, havoc-cap objectives, havoc-party around commanders, zergbust the few medium-sized groups that still exist and go into sPvP for other forms of TDM-, CTF- or lord-smashing content. That is besides fighting other roamers or fighting other roamers over objectives (or duel) which presumtively is their main content.

    The only maps that would have copies would be the PvE homeland maps. NONE of the other maps would be copied for player to play on, not even EotM. ALL maps are in play at the SAME time, and again, only the PvE homeland maps would have overflow maps. Map capacity for each blob PvP map would be 300 total. Map capacity for the hot zone PvP/PvE maps would be 150 total. PvE maps get the copies so idk what the map caps would be, depends on what size and how many.

    This is you trying to be unique rather than good. There is no motivation to why it should work like that.

  • Swagger.1459Swagger.1459 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited December 9, 2018

    @subversiontwo.7501 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:
    Maps design preference differs from person to person, and maps can be worked on for improvements based off of community feedback

    No, we don't need to argue about people having different preferences or iterative work being good work. Isn't really points for argumentation, it is beside the point.

    I argued that people who enjoy the current (or initial) iterations of EotM and DBL only do so because they are not subjected to the cancerous state of those maps being properly populated. Much like you, I enjoy all aspects of WvW so I both blob and roam (and everything inbetween). There is no difference if I roam with two friends or am in a squad how those maps are not conducive to fun open fights, catching up with friends or taking objectives. When those maps are fun that is not down to map but rather to the target-environment present on them - eg., the blobs not being there and smaller less organized groups or other roamers being there. When they are not, the map is not better and when they are on other maps those maps are at least equally good.

    I remember the obstacle fences initially on DBL and I've claimed oversized cliff-perched objectives on DBL as a roamer the other day. I've pulled my fair share of new players from bridges when EotM was new or tried to get to a GvG spot through automatic cannon fire on it more recently. None of it is good design. That people decide not to exploit those maps now or that they are not populated enough to spread those exploits does not take from the point that they can be exploited and will drive people off them (and indirectly out of the mode) again.

    *We have a great scoring system already in place to use for this. Nothing really changes that here. The exception is that score totals are hidden from players and only used by the devs to remake, and rebalance, Factions every 2 months.

    No, we have a terrible scoring system that makes off-timezone gem-transfers more valuable than primetime players and splits the community into PPT- and Fight extremes at most other times of the week than evening-to-midnight reset-night (friday 19:00-24:00). It is literally only reset night that behaves as WvW was intended and first did most days of the week during prime time. There is no higher tiered "PPT server" that is not a night-capping server (predominantly so, often to the point of being incapable of creating good primetime content, so they create imbalance at all hours). Reset nights you rarely hear people talk about PPT vs. Fight because everybody both fights and fight over objectives.

    That said content is not reproduced every day is entirely down to what is broken in the scoring system. People still have preferences sure, but reset night proves that they are not to such extremes as being distinctly separate server cultures when maps are roughly population-balanced. I'd like to think most players like fighting and fighting over objectives or caring about score when that is feasible and designed responsibly. Now it isn't and forms behaviour.

    The "hot zones" would be tailored for smaller groups, and solo players, to be able to contribute away from the "blobs"... "Blob" QQ is common for smaller groups and roamers, and mostly flipping camps isn't really exciting. Think of these maps like any game that is designed for PvPvE, and similar to if Anet designated 6 maps in Tyria into PvPvE zones.

    I never see any notable roamers complain about blobs. I see blobs being complained about when it comes to class and mechanics design. I see blobs being complained about by inexperienced players. That is more down to no one being around to teach them or set them straight though. That you can only flip camps as a roamer is a gross understatement even if it may be the first thing you suggest to an inexperienced player who asks what they can do. Experienced roamers can take any objective, act as scouts, defend/stall objectives, re/back-cap objectives and go into sPvP for other forms of TDM-, CTF- or lord-smashing content.

    The only maps that would have copies would be the PvE homeland maps. NONE of the other maps would be copied for player to play on, not even EotM. ALL maps are in play at the SAME time, and again, only the PvE homeland maps would have overflow maps. Map capacity for each blob PvP map would be 300 total. Map capacity for the hot zone PvP/PvE maps would be 150 total. PvE maps get the copies so idk what the map caps would be, depends on what size and how many.

    This is you trying to be unique rather than good. There is no motivation to why it should work like that.

    People like different maps for different reasons.

    The scoring system becomes hidden, except for certain vendor unlock tiers. All players on ALL maps contribute to the war score and you have every US player, or Every EU player, contributing to their faction score. Players are fighting on 1 world for their Faction, and that would be akin to having 8 NA server vs 8 NA servers and 8 NA servers fighting it out for that 1 world (or EU 9 servers vs 9 servers vs 9 servers), with PvE players contributing. ALL time zones are covered, and all actions on 1 side contribute to that side with a system like this... That is why there would be all these maps to play on. The suggestion is not an EotM overflow design.

    There are complaints about blobs, on the forums and in-game, all the time.

    I'm trying to resolve issues with WvW and get the dev team to treat WvW like the rest of the game. Go look at what Camelot Unchained RvR game is offering and think about what I've brought up. You might get a different perspective. https://camelotunchained.com/v3/bsc-design-docs/rvr-map/

  • subversiontwo.7501subversiontwo.7501 Member ✭✭✭
    edited December 9, 2018

    @Swagger.1459 said:
    People like different maps for different reasons.

    Sure, people have alot of preferences, we've talked about that. This is getting somewhat circular. They also often form them into statements without arguments. That is rarely interesting and does not really invite to discussion.

    What is interesting is why they have those preferences, if those preferences are valid enough to take into considertion and if those preferences are superior to other alternatives that they could keep an open mind towards. That is how you discuss.

    All players on ALL maps contribute to the war score and you have every US player, or Every EU player, contributing to their faction score /.../ The suggestion is not an EotM overflow design.

    If the servers play separately but contribute to pooled score you still run risk of massive- and content-stifling imbalances. If "US-green" is pooled together with "EU-green" but EU-green is largely made up of south americans on spanish servers and french canadians on french servers while "US-blue" is largely made up of aussies that stack servers in that server group then you have the same recipe for disaster as there is now. For interactivity on maps, the servers are split into different regions for what is likely to be taxation reasons and is unlikely to change.

    This is a discussion forum not a snowflake suggestion box (even if I am admittedly unsure at times). You are free to ignore me but I am also free in trying to engage in discussion with you. You may not have have suggested an EotM overflow design but I am arguing that it is superior to what you are suggesting. That is an appeal for you to consider what I am saying and then formulate a thoughtful response that can drive the discussion forward.

    There are complaints about blobs, on the forums and in-game, all the time.

    From players who do not know better, sure, we've already talked about that. They also complain about alot of other things that are completely unfounded and wrong.

    I'm trying to resolve issues with WvW and get the dev team to treat WvW like the rest of the game. Go look at what Camelot Unchained RvR game is offering and think about what I've brought up. You might get a different perspective.

    CU looks nice from a server engineering standpoint. Even in CU an active population balance would be superior to the EVE-like "let's see where the players take this engineering beast" approach they have vetted so far. They have some 15-years of experience to analyse there. I am doubtful that CU will have a better combat engine and will be better than what GW2 has the potential be. I will likely play it if/when it comes out but GW2 could still keep me playing it more if heads are taken out of rear ends. That is also why you, I and most other people who post here do post here and are trying to resolve issues with WvW and try to get the dev team to treat WvW better :3 . We see the potential and try to be constructive even if we do not adress it with blind positivity.

    That goes for this thread too.

  • Swagger.1459Swagger.1459 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited December 10, 2018

    @subversiontwo.7501 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:
    People like different maps for different reasons.

    Sure, people have alot of preferences, we've talked about that. This is getting somewhat circular. They also often form them into statements without arguments. That is rarely interesting and does not really invite to discussion.

    What is interesting is why they have those preferences, if those preferences are valid enough to take into considertion and if those preferences are superior to other alternatives that they could keep an open mind towards. That is how you discuss.

    All players on ALL maps contribute to the war score and you have every US player, or Every EU player, contributing to their faction score /.../ The suggestion is not an EotM overflow design.

    If the servers play separately but contribute to pooled score you still run risk of massive- and content-stifling imbalances. If "US-green" is pooled together with "EU-green" but EU-green is largely made up of south americans on spanish servers and french canadians on french servers while "US-blue" is largely made up of aussies that stack servers in that server group then you have the same recipe for disaster as there is now. For interactivity on maps, the servers are split into different regions for what is likely to be taxation reasons and is unlikely to change.

    This is a discussion forum not a snowflake suggestion box (even if I am admittedly unsure at times). You are free to ignore me but I am also free in trying to engage in discussion with you. You may not have have suggested an EotM overflow design but I am arguing that it is superior to what you are suggesting. That is an appeal for you to consider what I am saying and then formulate a thoughtful response that can drive the discussion forward.

    There are complaints about blobs, on the forums and in-game, all the time.

    From players who do not know better, sure, we've already talked about that. They also complain about alot of other things that are completely unfounded and wrong.

    I'm trying to resolve issues with WvW and get the dev team to treat WvW like the rest of the game. Go look at what Camelot Unchained RvR game is offering and think about what I've brought up. You might get a different perspective.

    CU looks nice from a server engineering standpoint. I am doubtful that it will have a better combat engine and will be better than what GW2 could be. I will likely play it if/when it comes out but GW2 still has the potential to keep me playing it more if heads are taken out of rear ends. That is also why you, I and most other people who post here do post here and are trying to resolve issues with WvW and try to get the dev team to treat WvW better :3 .

    I don't think this is really the time to break down map styles exactly. Kind of moot for this thread.

    I clearly stated that NA and EU remain SEPERATE. NA and EU will NEVER be linked for WvW play.

    I'm not talking game engines here. I'm talking what feature will be offered and what designs they are projected to have for RvR gameplay. WvW was modeled/inspired by DAoC. CU is the next gen DAoC++. GW2 WvW needs love.

    We can't get ahead of ourselves in certain areas. I'd focus more on the concepts, and what they mean for WvW, as opposed to specifics.

  • Widmo.3186Widmo.3186 Member ✭✭✭

    Looks nice and appreciate your work, but we all know what is the fate of this thread...

    Dont mind me, I just randomly spam 35 skill-buttons

  • pretty sure 100 ppl per side on a map doesn't work as they tried to go high before.
    small maps should be smaller imo, down to 30.
    instead of an arctic bl they should do a pof themed bl, since desert is sorta hot themed? or am I wrong. anyway not another boring snow map.

    you don't know till you know, ya know.

  • Caliburn.1845Caliburn.1845 Member ✭✭✭

    Some of the stuff would be good, some would be bad.

    My main worry would be the two month long match-ups. Right now we see activity drop hard as the week progresses and one side starts winning over the other two servers. Now stretch that over two months. Factions would get demoralized and get too far behind to care. Personal rewards are great and all, but you need at least a pseudo-competitive framework that people can invest in. And two month long match-ups determined after the first week are going to turn people off of WvW, and drop activity in the game mode.

    Caliburn.1845, Monsters Inc(BOO) guildleader.
    DH>DB>BG>MAG>YB>SBI>YB>AR

  • Baldrick.8967Baldrick.8967 Member ✭✭✭

    OP. How is the one part timer working in wvw supposed to find the time to do any of your wish list?

  • SkyShroud.2865SkyShroud.2865 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited December 11, 2018

    Problem here is some people do not want alliance faction as simple faction of randoms. Some people want to be in control of the alliance, people and guilds of their choosing.
    It is relatively easy to create a shuffle balance if we do not have to share control with the players themselves but anet want to share control with the players, that is why the balance is in so much mess.

    Founder & Leader of Equinox Solstice [TIME], a Singapore-Based International PvX Guild
    Henge of Denravi Server
    www.gw2time.com

    --

    Explanations of WvW Structures & Populations Issues

  • Kylden Ar.3724Kylden Ar.3724 Member ✭✭✭✭

    I also would like a unicorn.

    How many times we gotta tell you GRIND IS NOT CONTENT there ANet?

    Leader of Tyrian Adventure Corp [TACO], [RaW][TACO] Alliance, Kaineng.

  • Stand The Wall.6987Stand The Wall.6987 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited December 12, 2018

    @Caliburn.1845 said:
    Some of the stuff would be good, some would be bad.

    My main worry would be the two month long match-ups. Right now we see activity drop hard as the week progresses and one side starts winning over the other two servers. Now stretch that over two months. Factions would get demoralized and get too far behind to care. Personal rewards are great and all, but you need at least a pseudo-competitive framework that people can invest in. And two month long match-ups determined after the first week are going to turn people off of WvW, and drop activity in the game mode.

    yeah I agree, it might help if these 2 months were always some wvw tournament like we had back in the day.

    you don't know till you know, ya know.

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

    @Widmo.3186 said:
    Looks nice and appreciate your work, but we all know what is the fate of this thread...

    Never know 100%. Besides, doesn't hurt to at least bring up constructive ideas to make improvements.

  • LetoII.3782LetoII.3782 Member ✭✭✭✭

    I don't think the game can wait until 2024

    [HUNT] the predatory instinct

  • LetoII.3782LetoII.3782 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 25, 2019

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    @LetoII.3782 said:
    I don't think the game can wait until 2024

    I bet if the resources were devoted they could do this in parts and make updates as they go.

    Buddy, we wouldn't be here if resources were involved xD
    Game didn't launch last week

    YOU'RE DOING A GREAT JOB RAY, WE DON"T BLAME YOU!

    [HUNT] the predatory instinct

  • EremiteAngel.9765EremiteAngel.9765 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 25, 2019

    Good ideas overall but personally I don't like the idea of artificially separating blobbing and roaming into different maps.
    Some guilds/roamers enjoy poking at large blobs (zerg surfing etc.) and trying to separate them is a wrong move to begin with.
    Also there is nothing really to enforce the type of activity that a player should or should not do in the maps.
    A blob map could end up being made up of 10 small guilds and various roamers all doing separate stuff.
    A small guild map could end up being made up of 1 entire blob.
    It would be just like how it is now with how there are sometimes 1 commander in the map and everyone blobs around him, or sometimes there are 2-3 commanders in the map who don't work together and the blob is separated.
    Regardless of whichever way was supposedly more efficient, players gravitate towards commander tags and if there is 1 tag, you have 1 blob. If there are 2 tags, you get 2 zergs. 3 tags, smaller parties. and so on.
    So when you say a blob map, it could just be small groups of tags fighting separately and a roamers map, could be just 1 big 50 man blob tag fighting with each other.
    You can't really tell them 'This is how you should play on which map' even if you make it more efficient for the maps to be blobbed or for many small groups to operate.

  • Swagger.1459Swagger.1459 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 25, 2019

    @EremiteAngel.9765 said:
    Good ideas overall but personally I don't like the idea of artificially separating blobbing and roaming into different maps.
    Some guilds/roamers enjoy poking at large blobs (zerg surfing etc.) and trying to separate them is a wrong move to begin with.
    Also there is nothing really to enforce the type of activity that a player should or should not do in the maps.
    A blob map could end up being made up of 10 small guilds and various roamers all doing separate stuff.
    A small guild map could end up being made up of 1 entire blob.
    It would be just like how it is now with how there are sometimes 1 commander in the map and everyone blobs around him, or sometimes there are 2-3 commanders in the map who don't work together and the blob is separated.
    Regardless of whichever way was supposedly more efficient, players gravitate towards commander tags and if there is 1 tag, you have 1 blob. If there are 2 tags, you get 2 zergs. 3 tags, smaller parties. and so on.
    So when you say a blob map, it could just be small groups of tags fighting separately and a roamers map, could be just 1 big 50 man blob tag fighting with each other.
    You can't really tell them 'This is how you should play on which map' even if you make it more efficient for the maps to be blobbed or for many small groups to operate.

    Players can choose where they want to play. The differences are the map designs as noted, so I'd read through that again.

    You like "blob' maps then go play on the "blob" maps. Some other players may not like the "blob" maps, so they have a choice of the other maps.

    Edit- I'll be extra helpful...

    "MAPS MADE FOR "BLOBS", WITH A 100 PLAYER MAP CAP PER SIDE

    • These maps are the “No PvE” zones that remain conducive to quality open space and structure capture mass pvp."

    "MAPS MADE SPECIFICALLY FOR SMALL GUILDS, SMALL TEAMS AND SOLO ROAMERS WITH A 50 PLAYER MAP CAP PER SIDE

  • dynomite.5834dynomite.5834 Member ✭✭✭

    Small teams/solo roaming isn't WvW though; it's more open world PvE. The concept of "WvW" always was large, epic, huge multi-player battles. This would be a big change for Anet.

  • Amazing ideas, the problem stays the same, how much do we need to wait to see a real change at wvw? it's the same since some years

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

    @dynomite.5834 said:
    Small teams/solo roaming isn't WvW though; it's more open world PvE. The concept of "WvW" always was large, epic, huge multi-player battles. This would be a big change for Anet.

    Small teams/solo roaming is a playstyle choice in WvW though. https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/World_versus_World

    "WvW battles generally fall into a spectrum between one-on-one combat and zergs.

    Zerg

    In most WvW, there is some form of zerg where large numbers of players congregate to capture objectives. Zergs are usually led by 1 or more commanders. This allows friendly players who are not part of the zerg to know the current position of the zerg.
    The role of an individual player in a zerg is not clearly defined; however, they tend to follow standard RPG archetypes:

    • Front-line / Tank
    • DPS
    • Support
    • CC

    The combat among zergs can also be divided into open field and wall fighting, where the latter describes the situation of one team fighting from the top of the walls of a tower, keep or castle. Front-line role occurs in open area combat. It is usually filled by tank professions such as Guardian, Warrior or Revenant. They can push the line or flank the enemy zerg in an open area fight. In the case of wall fighting, front-line role is at a minimal.
    Number of players in a zerg may vary, but is usually between twenty and forty players. A small "zerg" (10 players or less) is called a group, A normal zerg (20+ players) is called zerg, and a large zerg (40+ players) is called a blob.

    The name comes from Starcraft, a 1998 video game in which Zerg were a playable race known for swarming enemies with masses of cheap, weak units, defeating them with sheer numbers rather than skill.

    Roamer

    Roamers are usually individuals or very small groups that go behind enemy lines to achieve objectives that would normally be impractical or impossible for a zerg. They include:

    • Killing or deterring enemy stragglers and reinforcements
    • Defending and destroying supply caravans
    • Capturing enemy camps
    • Tagging (or tapping) - Attacking an enemy keep sufficiently that it (and its waypoint, if any) becomes contested
    • Providing intel about enemy zerg size and position
    • Creating diversion for enemy zerg
    • Roamers generally require high survivability and escapability.

    Scouts (Scouting)

    Scouts are those individuals who tend to look out for or babysit one or more objectives. Scouting an objective may vary from Keeps, Towers, Camps, or even enemy zergs. Scouts should focus on broadcasting enemy movements and aiding in the defense of key objectives.

    • Tend to stay and keep lookout for a specified objective even if there are fights happening in the same map.
    • Responsible for upgrading an objective and keeping it safe.
    • Should call for assistance if an enemy zerg hits their objective.
    • Slows enemies from taking the objective via   Siege Disablers and use of defensive siege.
    • Responsible for keeping the siege refreshed in the objective.
    • Provides precise intel on numbers and siege placement if the objective is tagged or is being attacked.
    • In many cases, scouts may also help run dolyaks to the objective in order to upgrade and resupply it.

    To provide rewards to a scout, the commander can share participation for the WvW Reward Track if the person has joined the squad, and the squad has a minimum of 5 members.

    Successful scout reports should be abbreviated while still conveying relevant information. A good call out will have enemy numbers, server or guild group, nearest relevant objective, possible siege status, and other relevant information. Scouts should also keep in mind whether it's best to use Team chat (/T) or Map chat (/M) when making a call out. "


    8 PvP "Blob" maps with a capacity of up to 100 players per side, or 300 total players on a map. Which is equivalent to two 50 person Squads per side, or six 50 person Squads total. Mostly structure capture objectives as it is now. Up to 2,400 players can occupy these 8 maps at any given time.

    6 Pvp/PvE maps with a capacity of up to 50 players per side, or 150 total players on a map. Which is equivalent to one 50 person Squads per side, or three 50 person Squads total. Mostly open area capture objectives, events and meta events. Up to 900 players can occupy these 6 maps at any given time.

    The map designs cater to many different playstyles. Players can choose where they want to play. These designs are actually a huge QoL improvement, not a detraction.

  • i'm all for positive change. sign me up for this. even if it doesn't work, at least we're trying something.

    Xterra/Marqeese[Ark]

  • Tiny Doom.4380Tiny Doom.4380 Member ✭✭✭

    Well, you've certainly put a lot of thought into it.

    As usual with any of these blue sky proposals, there are bits some people are going to like and bits they aren't. If it ever got as far as any kind of official ANet-directed discussion thread the sheer detail involved would bog the whole thing down in endless nit-picking debate, exactly as has happened every other time this has been tried in the last six years. One person's dream scenario is another's nightmare as we've seen over and over on these forums.

    The plain fact, though, is that there is absolutely no indication whatsoever that anyone with the ability to make any of this happen has the slightest interest, let alone intention, of doing so. There's already a plan in play for the wholescale re-imagining of WvW and that has taken, what, a year and more to get nowhere close as yet even to pre-alpha testing. It's all very well to say that this new proposal uses systems and mechanics that are already in the game but as anyone who's played these last half-dozen years must have noticed, these are not the kind of developers who simply think of an idea and slot the pieces together. Every new development takes many months. One this size would take years at the rate these teams work - even assuming there actually was a WvW "team", which a lot of people no longer believe to be the case.

    As someone said above, this is a decent proposal for GW3, if there is one. As far as GW2 is concerned, we have what we have and maybe one day we'll have the Alliance system as currently imagined. If that doesn't work then it's probably game over for WvW.

  • Dawdler.8521Dawdler.8521 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 26, 2019

    @Tiny Doom.4380 said:
    Well, you've certainly put a lot of thought into it.
    It's all very well to say that this new proposal uses systems and mechanics that are already in the game but as anyone who's played these last half-dozen years must have noticed, these are not the kind of developers who simply think of an idea and slot the pieces together. Every new development takes many months. One this size would take years at the rate these teams work - even assuming there actually was a WvW "team", which a lot of people no longer believe to be the case.

    Also I would consider saying that the suggestion in OP is "systems and mechanics already in the game" is a gross overstatement, lol. They clearly are not. That's like saying well if I paint stripes on my Toyota it'll become a Ferrari with 500hp, no problem easy modification of an existing chassi with wheels. Especially not since the Anet suggested alliance system isnt even in the game.

  • aspirine.6852aspirine.6852 Member ✭✭✭

    While it sounds all good on paper, in the game it will 90% be like one stacked alliance, the second is the ones that didnt make it to the strong group and the third that has all the rest for the two first ones to pick on.

  • dynomite.5834dynomite.5834 Member ✭✭✭

    @Dawdler.8521 said:

    @Tiny Doom.4380 said:
    Well, you've certainly put a lot of thought into it.
    It's all very well to say that this new proposal uses systems and mechanics that are already in the game but as anyone who's played these last half-dozen years must have noticed, these are not the kind of developers who simply think of an idea and slot the pieces together. Every new development takes many months. One this size would take years at the rate these teams work - even assuming there actually was a WvW "team", which a lot of people no longer believe to be the case.

    Also I would consider saying that the suggestion in OP is "systems and mechanics already in the game" is a gross overstatement, lol. They clearly are not. That's like saying well if I paint stripes on my Toyota it'll become a Ferrari with 500hp, no problem easy modification of an existing chassi with wheels. Especially not since the Anet suggested alliance system isnt even in the game.

    Exactly - the game, you can tell, was meant for larger battles from the get-go. On an older balance post from the devs said they try balance for groups of 10 or larger. To me, that means they never intended a smaller game play experience; that is sPvP.

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

    @Dawdler.8521 said:

    @Tiny Doom.4380 said:
    Well, you've certainly put a lot of thought into it.
    It's all very well to say that this new proposal uses systems and mechanics that are already in the game but as anyone who's played these last half-dozen years must have noticed, these are not the kind of developers who simply think of an idea and slot the pieces together. Every new development takes many months. One this size would take years at the rate these teams work - even assuming there actually was a WvW "team", which a lot of people no longer believe to be the case.

    Also I would consider saying that the suggestion in OP is "systems and mechanics already in the game" is a gross overstatement, lol. They clearly are not. That's like saying well if I paint stripes on my Toyota it'll become a Ferrari with 500hp, no problem easy modification of an existing chassi with wheels. Especially not since the Anet suggested alliance system isnt even in the game.

    I never wrote that... "systems and mechanics already in the game"

    And this was my statement about the alliance system... “To keep the progress made with World Restructing systems and use it for balancing Factions.”

  • Swagger.1459Swagger.1459 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 26, 2019

    @aspirine.6852 said:
    While it sounds all good on paper, in the game it will 90% be like one stacked alliance, the second is the ones that didnt make it to the strong group and the third that has all the rest for the two first ones to pick on.

    How are you assuming that? Did you really not read through the suggestion? Are you aware that an individual alliance is slated to be 500 players, the same cap as a guild, and the suggestion was to have players shifted every 2 months... and scores hidden and pve maps contribute to the war effort...

    Honestly, please read the op again and put it together.

    Edit- And to be helpful...

    “3 Alliance Factions made up of ALL players pooled together fighting against each other. OBVIOUSLY NA and EU are NOT connected.”

    “Alliances, guilds and individual players are reshuffled every 2 months to create 3 new Factions”

    “Faction Names change every 2 months.”

    Edit 2- And for reference...

    https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/45856/world-restructuring-update-1/p1

    “Alliance size

    We are currently leaning toward alliance size being 500. This is technically easier, as we already support groups of this size (guilds), and it gives us more flexibility to make the worlds even.”

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

    @dynomite.5834 said:

    @Dawdler.8521 said:

    @Tiny Doom.4380 said:
    Well, you've certainly put a lot of thought into it.
    It's all very well to say that this new proposal uses systems and mechanics that are already in the game but as anyone who's played these last half-dozen years must have noticed, these are not the kind of developers who simply think of an idea and slot the pieces together. Every new development takes many months. One this size would take years at the rate these teams work - even assuming there actually was a WvW "team", which a lot of people no longer believe to be the case.

    Also I would consider saying that the suggestion in OP is "systems and mechanics already in the game" is a gross overstatement, lol. They clearly are not. That's like saying well if I paint stripes on my Toyota it'll become a Ferrari with 500hp, no problem easy modification of an existing chassi with wheels. Especially not since the Anet suggested alliance system isnt even in the game.

    Exactly - the game, you can tell, was meant for larger battles from the get-go. On an older balance post from the devs said they try balance for groups of 10 or larger. To me, that means they never intended a smaller game play experience; that is sPvP.

    I have to ask... what are you taking about?

  • Dawdler.8521Dawdler.8521 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    @Dawdler.8521 said:

    @Tiny Doom.4380 said:
    Well, you've certainly put a lot of thought into it.
    It's all very well to say that this new proposal uses systems and mechanics that are already in the game but as anyone who's played these last half-dozen years must have noticed, these are not the kind of developers who simply think of an idea and slot the pieces together. Every new development takes many months. One this size would take years at the rate these teams work - even assuming there actually was a WvW "team", which a lot of people no longer believe to be the case.

    Also I would consider saying that the suggestion in OP is "systems and mechanics already in the game" is a gross overstatement, lol. They clearly are not. That's like saying well if I paint stripes on my Toyota it'll become a Ferrari with 500hp, no problem easy modification of an existing chassi with wheels. Especially not since the Anet suggested alliance system isnt even in the game.

    I never wrote that... "systems and mechanics already in the game"

    And this was my statement about the alliance system... “To keep the progress made with World Restructing systems and use it for balancing Factions.”

    Oh you're right, it was that subversion dude responding to me earlier. Sorry.

    Still, its not really feasable. At the end of the day, it takes alot of work to bring something like WvW toghether - they're not going to change it unless it's from their end the initiative comes. At best we can get QoL improvements. I still want to see what alliances bring (if we ever get there) because IMO there are only two major issues "wrong" with WvW: the way population is handled (hopefully fixed by alliances) and the way PPT is handled. The later is a sad affair since we know how it works when its working good - when all objectives are T0, at reset, and field activity (ie fights) plays a major part of the score). We also know that it all kittens up once objectives reach T3 and gives exponentially higher points for just doing... nothing. But it doesnt require reimagining the game mode to fix.

  • XenesisII.1540XenesisII.1540 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Takes them a year just to create 1 new wvw map. But you want them to add 10 new maps.
    In their eyes creating 10 brand new maps would just be better served in a new pve expansion where they can actually get money for it than give it away for free, which they have to for wvw to not split the map populations by accounts. Even with their current development power mostly behind pve, look how long it takes for them to create 4-5 maps for a new expansion and then smaller maps for living story.

    You say smaller maps with smaller 50 population caps, but that does nothing to make it less blobby, it's still enough for a full sized squad to operate in. If you want smaller groups you're going to have to have maps designed for 10-15 per side, like a battleground in other games. Capture points will do nothing, as bloodlust has proven these days to promote little game play, as long as just 1 person is needed per capture point. If you do something like ESO where you need to capture the 3 surrounding areas in order to attack a tower then you might be on to something, but that is also pulled off because of having a bigger map. A lattice system would serve a purpose here in breaking up groups into smaller numbers.

    You want to hide scoring but replaced it with nothing.
    1. Scoring has nothing to do with how players are shuffled in alliances unless you plan on tracking how much a player scores in a match and start labeling players as being useful-not useful in sorting of alliance worlds. It is still better to evenly sort by bigger group numbers down to the smallest (through timezones) to get more balanced worlds.
    2. While ppt might not be everyone's cup of tea for playing wvw it is still the main driving force for wvw, it gives most players a purpose however much or little they actually care about it. In other games like dark age of camelot, relics were used to drive players to attack enemy lands, in warhammer capturing full areas would eventually get you to be able to raid the enemy city. You have to give players a reason to play in there whether that be scoring, fighting over powerful items, capturing lands for bonuses, or leaderboards.

    Giving identity to the three sides is something I've wrote about a couple times in the past already so not going to comment much on it again. It would be good to have a built in identity for each world instead of just green blue red, especially since the world names are going to change every time as well, which is the last bit of permanent identity a player is going to have stripped and further driving them to not care about what world they are on.

    Another derailing post. ^^
    EBG North Keep: One of the village residents will now flee if their home is destroyed!
    || Stealth is a Terribad Mechanic ||

  • aspirine.6852aspirine.6852 Member ✭✭✭

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    @aspirine.6852 said:
    While it sounds all good on paper, in the game it will 90% be like one stacked alliance, the second is the ones that didnt make it to the strong group and the third that has all the rest for the two first ones to pick on.

    How are you assuming that? Did you really not read through the suggestion? Are you aware that an individual alliance is slated to be 500 players, the same cap as a guild, and the suggestion was to have players shifted every 2 months... and scores hidden and pve maps contribute to the war effort...

    Honestly, please read the op again and put it together.

    Edit- And to be helpful...

    “3 Alliance Factions made up of ALL players pooled together fighting against each other. OBVIOUSLY NA and EU are NOT connected.”

    “Alliances, guilds and individual players are reshuffled every 2 months to create 3 new Factions”

    “Faction Names change every 2 months.”

    Edit 2- And for reference...

    https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/45856/world-restructuring-update-1/p1

    “Alliance size

    We are currently leaning toward alliance size being 500. This is technically easier, as we already support groups of this size (guilds), and it gives us more flexibility to make the worlds even.”

    I was not talking about your suggestions, but Anet assumes that the whole thing will create a more balanced population. But like stacked servers now, you will have stacked alliances too, and therefore also the weakest one. Nothing much will change from the current system.

  • 1 borderland = core classes
    For skilled roaming and skill blobbing minded players

    1 borderland = HoT classes
    For boonbots so they can sustain

    1 borderland = PoF classes
    For players to defecate down eachothers throats

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

    @aspirine.6852 said:

    @Swagger.1459 said:

    @aspirine.6852 said:
    While it sounds all good on paper, in the game it will 90% be like one stacked alliance, the second is the ones that didnt make it to the strong group and the third that has all the rest for the two first ones to pick on.

    How are you assuming that? Did you really not read through the suggestion? Are you aware that an individual alliance is slated to be 500 players, the same cap as a guild, and the suggestion was to have players shifted every 2 months... and scores hidden and pve maps contribute to the war effort...

    Honestly, please read the op again and put it together.

    Edit- And to be helpful...

    “3 Alliance Factions made up of ALL players pooled together fighting against each other. OBVIOUSLY NA and EU are NOT connected.”

    “Alliances, guilds and individual players are reshuffled every 2 months to create 3 new Factions”

    “Faction Names change every 2 months.”

    Edit 2- And for reference...

    https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/45856/world-restructuring-update-1/p1

    “Alliance size

    We are currently leaning toward alliance size being 500. This is technically easier, as we already support groups of this size (guilds), and it gives us more flexibility to make the worlds even.”

    I was not talking about your suggestions, but Anet assumes that the whole thing will create a more balanced population. But like stacked servers now, you will have stacked alliances too, and therefore also the weakest one. Nothing much will change from the current system.

    There will not be stacked servers because there won’t be any servers to stack. Let me break this down further...

    Example...

    All NA wvw participants are divided by 3 and assigned to a Faction side to fight for 2 months.

    At the 2 month mark the devs reshuffle all players, be it groups of a 500 person alliance, or up to a 500 person guild and individual players... Using the tech that Raymond Lukes is working on now.

    Stacking a Faction is not possible because groups or individuals are constantly reshuffled every 2 months.

    There score is hidden from players and only kept track of by the devs. The devs use that score information to reshuffle players into new 3 new Factions every 2 months.

    There is no transfer function anymore because it’s not needed.

    You cannot stack a Faction using my idea.

  • Kylden Ar.3724Kylden Ar.3724 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Sorry, not going to happen or work. But I too would like a Unicorn.

    I think any fixes to WvW at this point are 2 years too late. The mode is in triage mode now, just bleeding out slowly.

    How many times we gotta tell you GRIND IS NOT CONTENT there ANet?

    Leader of Tyrian Adventure Corp [TACO], [RaW][TACO] Alliance, Kaineng.

©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.