No Real Discussion

It's hillarious & depressing now...

There was a time when topics in the WvW forum had real substance.

This is how I feel as I observe & continue to encourage a long term vision for the WvW game mode.

Without critical changes to core WvW mechanics...this game mode's long-term viability will never thrive as it should.

Topics will continue to meander into shallow & cosmetic discussions that do not encourage ideas on how to create a healthy competitive game mode.

Based on my observations...we're perpetually going to repeat/re-code the same fix without solving the source of the problem...IF we do not get rid of the specific WvW mechanics (Fixed 3 Way in Tiers) that make up the heart of our Match-Up design.

Server Linking is a prime example of Team Creation mechanics failing to create healthy competition while destroying the "ecosystems" of our WvW communities in the Long-Term...IF we continue to use the same mechanics in Match-Up design.

Alliances is a second attempt at using this same approach. A huge investment of development resources on an In-Direct solution through Team Creation & not Directly attacking the Real Flaw in our Match-Up mechanics that only encourages un-healthy match-ups that stifles competition & systematically favor a few heavily stacked teams. Alliances will in my opinion have similar results that Server Linking had in the Long-Term.

Game mechanics needs to be re-designed to allow players vested in their team to have healthy competitive match-ups where a highly sought after & published team ranking is earned...all the while taking into account that players will naturally want to stack onto the currently "winning" team.

We can continue down this path...repeatedly...but sooner or later...interest will waver...and opportunity will be lost.

Please make the changes that are necessary for WvW to get past this infancy stage that is preventing it from evolving into a SuperBowl eSport event capable of fielding teams supported by players numbering in the thousands...or tens of thousands...this is what I can envision.

eSports is Not & Should Not be like regular sports...where teams sizes are physically small in number...if you don't get this concept...then you won't understand what true eSports should evolve into...where team sizes will only be limited by the technology that supports it.

eSports foremost...must seriously engage teams (regardless of size) in a healthy competitive game mode...this is my opinion on how WvW needs to be guided towards.

Some folks can only see and understand what a tree is, but never see the bigger picture....at comprehending what a forest ecosystem needs in order for it to thrive. The WvW game mode is such an ecosystem that I've always envisioned to be capable of thriving based on existing mechanics & re-purposed concepts that's already being used in-game.

Yours truly,Diku

Credibility requires critical insight & time.

They spent time developing mounts and gliders.Nobody who makes decisions is paying any attention to what goes on in WvW, they're just throwing things at us and mildly annoyed it isn't working.

@Diku.2546 Don't take this the wrong way, but does @Anet even want it to be a "SuperBowl eSport event"... Like ever?

I'm just curious... Because if not, then you or I will probably just be wasting more of our time here.

Announcing Alliances almost make it seem possible in that direction. Though, now we have the Warclaw around the corner before that. Which, makes me more confused ATM. I'm trying to figure out if WvW is just gonna continue to be "The Red Head Step Child" or actually trying to become the opposite of a joke.

Maybe once that's made clear, we may get a bit less "hilarious" "topics" around the joke. Though instead, more with your kind of "substance".

:Edited In light of new clarity.

WvW isn’t Esports... Spvp was for Esports. WvW is our version of “open world” Realm vs Realm that was inspired by Dark Age of Camelot Realm vs Realm.

Competitive WvW was destroyed by several bad decisions: no migration controls, world linking, cheap post link transfers, manual rating adjustments, and later the 1u1d system.

The alliances system maybe the feature to restore competitive WvW. I think ANet came to realize it only during the development, and found it is actually difficult to solve.

I fear meaningless fuss, like the Warclaw, is ANet trying to cover up the failure to deliver the alliances.

There was a time when topics in the WvW forum had real substance.

I agree with this part, even if I don't agree with your vision for the mode.

On the other hand, there is absolutely nothing that can make WvW competitive without completely scrapping the entire game mode and remake it as something completely different. It is meant to be the "Open World Tyria of PvP".

It's odd too, ofc wvw is nothing like a battle royale but it kinda is in core ways. There is obviously a huge demand for large dynamic sandbox pvp games in the general video game community yet there seems to be so little focus on the one thing gw's provides in that area.

I think OP has a valid point in the waste of resources/band-aids but surely with all the recent stuff we would be naive to think they will invest in new technology for wvw, which I'm guessing any 'real' improvements would be dependent upon. I suppose we'll see what effects the recent lay-offs will have on the gamemode in the next few months in terms of 'renewed focus', but, empathy for the layed-off aside, we've been kinda hearing that for a while now.

@"Korgov.7645" said:Competitive WvW was destroyed by several bad decisions: no migration controls, world linking, cheap post link transfers, manual rating adjustments, and later the 1u1d system.

The alliances system maybe the feature to restore competitive WvW. I think ANet came to realize it only during the development, and found it is actually difficult to solve.

I fear meaningless fuss, like the Warclaw, is ANet trying to cover up the failure to deliver the alliances.

The problems you mentioned aren't made by Arenanet. Most of the issues come from the guilds itself. Guilds in this game are basically locusts. They join your server, eat all they can get (here) "active" players and transfer off after they killed all that is left of the former guilds of that server. Just take a look at NA and tell me again that "Anet is the problem" here."We want fights" is the most stupid excuse for people to avoid having to work for improvement. Sure, there maybe one or two guilds, that don't transfer around and indeed try to improve their gameplay and don't really care but they are the minority in the game.You know how that "looking for fights" looks like most of the time? You take your guild, stack a server with other guilds that are acting the same and wonder why no one fights you, after you blobbed them down with your 30 man guild and 50 pugs or you managed to wipe them because you aren't that bad and they log off for the night and bring more players tomorrow. The other answer if you fail to fight them is "sieging stuff up" and let them die in a rain of arrows, catapult and treb fire until you bore them to death and they sooner or later transfer off.And with that the circle starts a new. A server dies, the guilds take every player that can click on metabattle and a new world is conquered.

Sorry, I can't feel your pain. Try not to stack a server once, bring your guild out without having a full squad and don't complain when you wipe. You never learn if you nutthug or leave after wipe which seems mandatory for most fight guilds out there.

So, what's the new shit to transfer to these days? Borlis Pass? Dark Haven? Emry Bay?

And: What do you think changes with Alliances? Your behaviour of overstacking?

@gebrechen.5643 said:

@"Korgov.7645" said:Competitive WvW was destroyed by several bad decisions: no migration controls, world linking, cheap post link transfers, manual rating adjustments, and later the 1u1d system.

The alliances system maybe the feature to restore competitive WvW. I think ANet came to realize it only during the development, and found it is actually difficult to solve.

I fear meaningless fuss, like the Warclaw, is ANet trying to cover up the failure to deliver the alliances.

People like to get a shot of 'omg i am sooo good' in this game. I Will admit to have this feeling myself as well. The problem on the player base in wvw i see: people measure themselves 2 levels higher then they actually are. The guilds that stack a server say(they asking to get carried) and those people themselves can choose in carry(and loose sometimes out of their fault) or get carried (and be the fault of loosing) which would you prefere? And look here from Both perspectives.

The third party has server loyalty, thid remains only to those servers who havnt been consumed by the bandwagons.

I think pre Alliance the best thing to stop this bandwagon (which is a fault in the game mode which no one could solve completely) is half the time of serverpairings. How often have i been tierlocked in a server since our host got bandwagoned or Just lost the bandwagon?How often people transfer first week after the pairing to get 8 weeks of 'slightly better gameplay' because they leave the lower tiers deserted. Look at kaineng for instance, they completely dead allready....they lost 1 fucking week

Please, let the pairings take 4 weeks and preferably no transfer first weekIf someone wants to bandwagon, make the Costs outweight the profit..

@gebrechen.5643 said:And: What do you think changes with Alliances? Your behaviour of overstacking?

There is a chance for alliance pride to develop among players. If only there was some recognition for your alliance performing well - but no such plans have been revealed.

The teams can be composed to create even populations. If only there were some migration controls to prevent post-link mass transfers - but no such plans have been revealed.

I'm not completely sold on Alliances, it certainly won't fix all the problems with WvW. But implemented properly it will change and greatly improve WvW from where it is right now.

With that said, if there is a better alternative than Alliances I'd be all for it. But nothing of substance has been suggested or proposed here. What actual systemic idea would be better than Alliances?

@Caliburn.1845 said:With that said, if there is a better alternative than Alliances I'd be all for it. But nothing of substance has been suggested or proposed here. What actual systemic idea would be better than Alliances?Its a Diku OP so something about superbowl and globes solves everything.

Either way, alliances is still only meant to solve population imbalances in stagnating or overpopulated worlds - often caused by players - by reshuffling everyone in smaller more manageable pieces than the link world chunks. Nothing more. Nothing less.

I would like to see some sort of alliance recognition ingame as much as anyone else, but its a later concern to be disappointed with, just like how linked worlds still cant rep anything but the main world.

@Korgov.7645 said:

@"gebrechen.5643" said:And: What do you think changes with Alliances? Your behaviour of overstacking?

That won't happen. Why? Because if one of the Alliances gets roflstomped (like we already saw happening) it will dissolve with a lot of drama. The only good thing about alliances is that you don't sit in a queue with some idiots that flood a link server because they failed on their old server and "transfer off for better fights".

I just think that discussion is made between us but devs doesnt get really involved in WvW discussions about what WvW community want to get (improvement gameplay , content etc...) The only "discussion" we got is the World restructure update, they post update and that all.

@"gebrechen.5643" said:That won't happen. Why? Because if one of the Alliances gets roflstomped (like we already saw happening) it will dissolve with a lot of drama.

Which is a good thing. Alliances would form and reform, thats how they are supposed to thrive. Of course we wont have pride from the get go, but ultimately players 100% choose to be in one unlike current worlds where many people simply remain out of sheer laziness, being unwilling to pay for transfers or are "hostages" to their conflicted guild friends.

The game mode has never been competitive, you can't make something that is 24/7, has teams of different sizes and puts people that have played years against people who have played a week competitive. RvR is a failed game mode, they should have just added battlegrounds instead.

I got a question what do wvw people want? they want to be able to instate kill anyone without dying themselves they want to be able to rip down towers without having there towers ever flipped

@xXMapcoXx.9614 said:I got a question what do wvw people want? they want to be able to instate kill anyone without dying themselves they want to be able to rip down towers without having there towers ever flipped

YepBut they want IT against other playersBecause their ego isnt boosted enough against An npc

@LetoII.3782 said:They spent time developing mounts and gliders.Nobody who makes decisions is paying any attention to what goes on in WvW, they're just throwing things at us and mildly annoyed it isn't working.

They will start paying attention (to charts) when we stop paying attention (to the game and find another one), but the latter is unlikely (which they know) due to (likely) various attachments people have to the game.

It's a psychological game. They know most won't quit however much they are disgruntled with the state of the game. And the ignorant part of the community supports them blindly.

@"Dawdler.8521" said:Its a Diku OP so something about superbowl and globes solves everything.

I really wish we had more Discussions with Substance, but most threads that do have substance...tend to get easily buried by the shallow & cosmetic posts because it does take effort for folks to think & provide a discussion with substance...so I'm not holding out hope this will stay up very long.

Based on my observations...we're perpetually going to repeat/re-code the same fix without solving the source of the problem...IF we do not get rid of the specific WvW mechanics (Fixed 3 Way in Tiers) that make up the heart of our Match-Up design.

Here's the Fix: Don't balance population. We need to accept the fact that server stacking naturally happens & make it part of the game mode.

Here's a Step by Step How-To:

1) Remove the Fixed 3 Way Fight Match-Up in Tiers mechanic. <--- Get rid of our current Match-Up mechanics.

2) Assign each World Server a Single Red Home Border Map to Defend. <--- Let this idea sink in.

3) Re-Purpose the concept of

5) Reward Players only when they Attack Higher Ranked Servers compared to their Home Server Rank, or when they Defend their Home Border Map.6) Discourage Players when they Attack Lower Ranked Servers compared to their Home Server Rank with a Buff that prevent Rewards.

7) Allow players to change their Server every 3 months by gem payment.8) Allow players to see the Top 3 Servers attacking their Red Home BL in a random order every time its displayed.

9) Restrict which players are on the field with Reserve seating to enter Maps to be: Defenders=40% / Attackers=40% / Referee=20%

Players can naturally stack on the Number 1 Ranked "Winning" Server with this Match-Up design while Lower Ranked Servers are encouraged to fight against ANY Servers ranked above them.

Players get to choose Who they want to fight AGAINST every week, but can only change Who they want to fight FOR every 3 months.

Now...to expand the game mode...add more maps that have Red/Green/Blue WayPoints..with the home team always "owning" the RED corner & enemies using the Green and Blue corners.

Our WvW game mode really is capable of being the next eSport SuperBowl...fueled by loyal players & fans willing to participate in an annual event that should encourage healthy competition in the Long Term as its goal..and making money of course.

Some may not like this vision (left globes out), but at least it's complete & solidly tells you How-To Do It...compared to most other ideas that I've seen here.

TLDR - We need to empower players on ANY of the Lower Ranked servers to directly fight on ANY of the Top Ranked Server's Home BLs while encouraging a healthy competitive game mode in the Long-Term.

In the end...it's your Home Server's ranking that determines if your team gets invited to attend the annual eSport SuperBowl event.

Yours truly,Diku

Credibility requires critical insight & time.

I'm sorry but what? I think I understand corporate taxes more than that.

@Kylden Ar.3724 said:I'm sorry but what? I think I understand corporate taxes more than that.

Diku has been pushing this idea for a long time now. Basically, the idea is to give each current server their own EBG, Desert BL and 2 Alpine BLs... That way it preserves each individual server, and all players can go play wherever they want across 51 individual server matchups that have a total of 204 maps... AND maps (“globes”) are opened and closed based off of population on a particular map.

...

The problem that Diku doesn’t understand is that we can’t even fill up the current 8 match ups (let alone find a state of closer-to-equal numbers of players at most times) that have a total of 32 maps... yet still desires 51 individual match ups with 204 maps...

Edit- So to recap... The idea aims to save each server from going bye bye through adding in 172 maps to play on... Using the football references made in this thread, and in the past, it’s like each football team, and individual players, being able to go play football at any other football team’s stadium... Much like if we made the NFL a free-for-all basically...

@"Swagger.1459" Thanks for explaining the idea. I was more confused as well tbh.

All I really want is for WvW to be more competitive so that I and others actually have a good reason to try and Win a match. That is done in a fair and respectable enough manner around it's playerbase. And of coarse have fun in the process.

Honestly, if that's what the "SuperBowl" part actually entails... I'm Not for it. In part, because I actually agree with you about the maps issue. Rather take my chances with Alliance's as I can relate much more to that idea anyways.I just thought he wanted it to be as Big as the Superbowl, but for gaming lol... So I was like "Sure, why not?". Anyways, yea, Thanks again for the clarity B)

@Swagger.1459 said:

@Kylden Ar.3724 said:I'm sorry but what? I think I understand corporate taxes more than that.

I think the problem is that you don't understand Diku.

@shiri.4257 said:

@Swagger.1459 said:

@Kylden Ar.3724 said:I'm sorry but what? I think I understand corporate taxes more than that.

The real problem is that some are not thinking in realistic ways.

These same ideas were rehashed over and over and over ad nauseam... for years... And overly injected into each thread repeatedly... I know Diku has good intent, but none of it is plausible period.