Communication is the key

@"Ben Phongluangtham.1065"

The last year was one of the worst in the AAA game industry. It caused by various bad decisions of the leadership but one thing is very common: ignorance.These companies didn't listen to their players. They didn't want to get feedback instead they chose a blind flight and now they crashed to the ground.This behavior is very similar to what you guys show us. If you are ignoring your players and flying without any feedback sooner or later you gonna crash.We don't want that so please listen to us. Read the forums and not just ban everyone but communicate and escalate the issues.

If you are willing to do that here is the NO. 1 issue in the history of GW2 pvp:(Yes) it is the malfunctioning Match Making system

The problem:Most of the time Match Making draws together players with totally different amount of pvp experiences or/and ineffective builds against the opposite team. We call these matches total blowouts with results like 150-500 or worse. It not fun to play even if you win.

Why is that:The information what MM is using to build up the teams is not enough by far to make a balanced match setup.

Possible solution:

• The algorithm should consider not just the actual rank but the overall level, the no. of games, the win/lose rate and the experience with the actual build.

• The algorithm should correctly define the player build role in the game.It should check the player equipment and the most active role with this build based on the match statistics.It should make identifications correctly like "wow its a tank defensive build not a dps!", "oh wow its a condi agressive and can't heal others!" etc...Whit this information it should make correct conclusions which build setups can counter which ones by the newest game update.

All this little information fragments could build up a more solid player profile and can lead more balanced games.

So please don't design another awkward reward track, clumsy new unrank level and another lobby overhaul until this issue hasn't fixed and the most important don't delete suggestions but read them.

Thanks.

Or allow team queue again...

I tend to ignore the downsides of balance and bad matches when having fun with friends.

Not only that, matchmaking needs a higher player pool to pull from and allowing a higher number of players in the mists could also be the solution to match making.

The most competitive games on the market don't use your proposed solutions, do you have an idea why?

@"Bazooka.3590" said:These companies didn't listen to their players.I think you'll find that "listening" is not the same as agreeing.

They didn't want to get feedbackSimilarly wanting feedback is not the same as following player suggestions.

Now, if you had said simply, "I'd like to see more engagement between the developers and the players, more road maps, and more opportunities to influence what happens next," I imagine most people would agree.

@Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:

@"Bazooka.3590" said:These companies didn't listen to their players.I think you'll find that "listening" is not the same as agreeing.

They didn't want to get feedbackSimilarly wanting feedback is not the same as following player suggestions.

Don’t really play warframe anymore these days but one thing they did do was Digitsl extremes keeps in contact with its player base on a fairly frequent basses,even have streams every few weeks ontop of frequent dev streams. Arenet should consider somthing similar

@Psycoprophet.8107 said:

@Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:

@"Bazooka.3590" said:These companies didn't listen to their players.I think you'll find that "listening" is not the same as agreeing.

They didn't want to get feedbackSimilarly wanting feedback is not the same as following player suggestions.

GW2 does have streams. There's just the unfortunate fact that most GW2 players aren't interested in PvP so that means the streams are practically never focused on that. They are mainly community art showcases or showcases of specific game design like map design, or story, etc.

What would actually be more interesting is if the devs did regular visits to Twitch streams of known community members. I mean how awesome would it be if Ben was a guest on TeaTime? This would take some activity from the streamers themselves but also the willingness from ANet to open up communication with their community. Ben is already frequently in Jawgeous's/Jebro's channel talking about things(not as a dev but as a person).

@Yannir.4132 said:

@Psycoprophet.8107 said:

@Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:

@"Bazooka.3590" said:These companies didn't listen to their players.I think you'll find that "listening" is not the same as agreeing.

They didn't want to get feedbackSimilarly wanting feedback is not the same as following player suggestions.

I agree that would be great

@Yannir.4132 said:

@Psycoprophet.8107 said:

@Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:

@"Bazooka.3590" said:These companies didn't listen to their players.I think you'll find that "listening" is not the same as agreeing.

They didn't want to get feedbackSimilarly wanting feedback is not the same as following player suggestions.

Thats just a symptom of the problem not the root. People "dont care about PvP" because it has been sort of neglected. ESL came at a bad time (poor balance) and with very little exposition (no PvP events, most of my guilds and friends didnt even know that was happening until it was almost finishing, in game I would ask in /all and all I got was "whats that?") so Anet sort of ditched PvP.

The fact that there are still people playing PvP despite the slow cadence and quality/quantity of balance patches, Anet organized events that would draw people in, general support for an e-scene shows that the mode is inherently fun and very salvageable.

A game mode is like a garden, it has to be constantly watered, cared for, maintained, given nutrients on a regular basis and have it in a state you want to show to others!None of these will happen unless you first do the basic; balance and expose it to people.

Small pre-season, mid season, post season patches, I'm talking about 2-3 weeksMINIMUN, not the 4-6 months we have now. Big patches every 4-6 weeks as needed, minute changes 1-2 weeks. It is ok to mess up, you can tweak things in the biweekly patches if you think you went to far/not enough. Please for the light of Dwayna, make PvP events; weekend double sXP, limited reward tracks that do not coincide with PvE events which draw people away from PvP, i mean PvP centric events, like "Battle for the Mist" where blue is fighting for Glint and red for Shatterer and there are 2 different reward tracks, just be creative.

I dont think the answer is allowing bigger parties, in fact, it should be strickly soloQ in ranked, since groups skew team dynamics towards groups with voice chat. Overwatch can get away with it because voice chat is built-in with the game, GW2 does not. Initiate guildies and friends in unranked, encourage them to go ranked and measure themselves vs others in equal circumstances, thats the whole point of ranked; how good YOU fare with the team vs the enemies, everyone on the same ground and same rules.

@Fortus.6175 said:-snip-

I do agree with that, my previous comment was in response to another comment. It wasn't a general suggestion of what steps to take first. Just throwing around ideas. My suggestion would cater more to the already existing PvP population, and wouldn't be very good at drawing in new people.Wish the game did more to remind the players of the general populace that PvP/WvW is always active no matter how big of a content drought there is in PvE.

Thank you for the answers guys. Sadly the one to whom I asked my question didn't answered.Very nice Ben. You help us decide to leave this game. Congrats.I'd be curious what Anet shareholders would think about this behaviour ...

@Bazooka.3590 said:Thank you for the answers guys. Sadly the one to whom I asked my question didn't answered.Very nice Ben. You help us decide to leave this game. Congrats.I'd be curious what Anet shareholders would think about this behaviour ...

Don't think Ben's job is to pander to your questions on the forum, that would be gaile (that's a big job even for her alone) , we are pretty lucky he responds to as much as he does.

We hear you.Adds some more number tweaks

@"Bazooka.3590" said:Possible solution:

• The algorithm should consider not just the actual rank but the overall level, the no. of games, the win/lose rate and the experience with the actual build.

• The algorithm should correctly define the player build role in the game.It should check the player equipment and the most active role with this build based on the match statistics.It should make identifications correctly like "wow its a tank defensive build not a dps!", "oh wow its a condi agressive and can't heal others!" etc...Whit this information it should make correct conclusions which build setups can counter which ones by the newest game update.

@Nightmare.1234 said:

@Bazooka.3590 said:Thank you for the answers guys. Sadly the one to whom I asked my question didn't answered.Very nice Ben. You help us decide to leave this game. Congrats.I'd be curious what Anet shareholders would think about this behaviour ...

Strange thing they delete your post in a day if they don't like it but never answer anything. It seems they have the time to read at least.

@Shailyn Slay.7234 said:

@"Bazooka.3590" said:Possible solution:

• The algorithm should consider not just the actual rank but the overall level, the no. of games, the win/lose rate and the experience with the actual build.

• The algorithm should correctly define the player build role in the game.It should check the player equipment and the most active role with this build based on the match statistics.It should make identifications correctly like "wow its a tank defensive build not a dps!", "oh wow its a condi agressive and can't heal others!" etc...Whit this information it should make correct conclusions which build setups can counter which ones by the newest game update.

It's a "Possible" solution not "The" solution.The essence of the whole post is to try to make Anet to communicate with us.

@Bazooka.3590 said:

@Shailyn Slay.7234 said:

@Bazooka.3590 said:Possible solution:

• The algorithm should consider not just the actual rank but the overall level, the no. of games, the win/lose rate and the experience with the actual build.

• The algorithm should correctly define the player build role in the game.It should check the player equipment and the most active role with this build based on the match statistics.It should make identifications correctly like "wow its a tank defensive build not a dps!", "oh wow its a condi agressive and can't heal others!" etc...Whit this information it should make correct conclusions which build setups can counter which ones by the newest game update.

In > @Bazooka.3590 said:

@Shailyn Slay.7234 said:

@Bazooka.3590 said:Possible solution:

• The algorithm should consider not just the actual rank but the overall level, the no. of games, the win/lose rate and the experience with the actual build.

• The algorithm should correctly define the player build role in the game.It should check the player equipment and the most active role with this build based on the match statistics.It should make identifications correctly like "wow its a tank defensive build not a dps!", "oh wow its a condi agressive and can't heal others!" etc...Whit this information it should make correct conclusions which build setups can counter which ones by the newest game update.

In a way least likely to warrant a response.