Things to get Balance in WVW ideas. — Guild Wars 2 Forums

Things to get Balance in WVW ideas.

hayabusafmw.9370hayabusafmw.9370 Member ✭✭
edited May 16, 2019 in WvW

Here are some ideas i came up with to help balance the matching system in place.

1.Block server transfers to 6 months or even longer. Unless the server dies it should unlock you the possibility to relocate.

2.Troll Free to play accounts should be linked with main wvw account using IP. VPN users. It should be bannable and not usable for WVW/PVP. It's too easy to go on a server troll / spy / pull levers/ ect.

  1. The stronger servers have limited RESPAWNS once dead. Meaning you cannot respawn in that Bl or go near the same keep you were fighting until the fight is done. You are forced to switch bl's or get somekind of penality if you do decide otherwise ex: (death or losing health every second or somekind of bad karma system that can only be removed by good karma = playing fair).

  2. Outnumbered should be a thing of the past. Meaning if your server is already maxed in EBG you should be blocked access to it and forced to switch bl's. If your server have loss more times in the past than the one more active currently it should let your server add up a few more players but not let you outnumber them.

  3. Cooldowns on bl swap. no more switching because some group decided to go to your home bl. I find those tactics boring and not realistic.

  4. If your server loses 2 times in a row in a matchup due to poor participation. You should be automatically paired or gain something for participation.

  5. Coverage / timezone/ Should be monitored and matched so no advantages would be gained out of that.

  6. Forced to play all bl's not sit in EBG all day everyday. You should be rewarded accordingly as well. More you do more you take from other bl's the more you GAIN. ex: drops , gold , ect

9.Anyone caught hacking should be PERMA banned and never allowed back to anything WVW / PVP ip ban included.

Just a few ideas there and there cause i love WVW and i believe in ANET and GW2's community. I strongly hope someday matches will be balanced out and more fun other than feeling outnumbered and getting consistent 6v1 scenario every night until restart.

Cheers !
PS: sorry for the bad grammar! I'm just a neverland ranch refugee!

Comments

  • KrHome.1920KrHome.1920 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited May 16, 2019

    There is too much "forced to" in your suggestions. This is still a game which has to attract people in the first place. The target for a videogame is to make it feel rewarding for everyone. If you bind the reward to some specific play style, then you will always "force" players to abuse it.

    E.g.: when you increase the rewards on low populated maps, then players will change the map the moment they notice that a low population map exists. When you then limit map travels to prevent map hopping, you will get the same problem of players sitting on one map like before (because they all traveled to the low populated one and are now stuck there).

    Just reward players properly! The outnumbered buff and how it's currently implemented is a good start. I would even double the bonuses as then WvW comes pretty close to PvE in terms of loot which keeps players on low populated servers in the game mode.

    A long term goal should of course be a complete rework of the game mode (aka alliance system).

  • coro.3176coro.3176 Member ✭✭✭✭

    I know a lot of the time this happens:

    • Defenders - This is stupid. We're getting run over by 60 players and we can only field ~20 or so to fight. Let's quit for the night and just let them have it.
    • Attackers - This is boring. All the defenders quit and the maps are empty. Let's quit for night and go play something else.

    Maybe some simple reward scaling could help? I don't know if this is technically feasible, but something like:

    • If your group of players (calculated roughly as the number of allies near you) outnumbers your enemy's group (# of enemies near them) you get no reward from killing them. - maybe 1WXP and no loot.
    • If your group of players is even with your enemy's, you get regular loot
    • If your group of players is smaller than your enemy's group, you get much better rewards - maybe every kill drops a bag and 250 WXP.

    There are already TONS of advantages of running around with the largest mega-blob the server can field on any given map. Maybe this could incentivize splitting up a bit. The opposing server would still be outnumbered and would still lose the map, but they might not get run over every fight if the groups are running in similar sizes.

  • Psycoprophet.8107Psycoprophet.8107 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Dawdler.8521 said:
    9 points on how to best kill WvW. Its actually rather impressive.

    10th point
    Keep same balance team.

  • iKeostuKen.2738iKeostuKen.2738 Member ✭✭✭

    @Dawdler.8521 said:
    9 points on how to best kill WvW. Its actually rather impressive.

    Have a feeling you and your supporters didnt even bother reading the list if you think point number 9 would kill WvW in anyway.

  • Dawdler.8521Dawdler.8521 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited May 17, 2019

    @iKeostuKen.2738 said:

    @Dawdler.8521 said:
    9 points on how to best kill WvW. Its actually rather impressive.

    Have a feeling you and your supporters didnt even bother reading the list if you think point number 9 would kill WvW in anyway.

    Ok then, we agree I'm only 88.8% correct?

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

  • steki.1478steki.1478 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Half of these are l2p issues and lack of server organization. Other half is just unnecessary forced movement.

    Deso's favorite FROG
    Master of afk and kiting
    The God of Pips and Gud Deeps
    Froggo himself

  • Gorani.7205Gorani.7205 Member ✭✭✭

    The individual player has very little chance to influence whether he is on a winning or losing server. His rewards (pips, WxP, drops, etc.) should not be touched.
    What should be enforced is the way server points get calculated . We need to leave the "#1 + #2 feed on #3 for easy points" behind and get servers to go "#2 + #3 go vs #1 for the top spot". Scoring needs to reflect that somehow. A #1 server that just takes stuff from a weak #3 should not get as much points per tick (or by taking a #3 structure) than fighting the #2. The #3 should get more points for going against #1.
    As there will never be perfectly balanced match ups, this should have been a consideration from day one in WvW.

  • Cristalyan.5728Cristalyan.5728 Member ✭✭✭

    @Gorani.7205 said:
    The individual player has very little chance to influence whether he is on a winning or losing server. His rewards (pips, WxP, drops, etc.) should not be touched.
    What should be enforced is the way server points get calculated . We need to leave the "#1 + #2 feed on #3 for easy points" behind and get servers to go "#2 + #3 go vs #1 for the top spot". Scoring needs to reflect that somehow. A #1 server that just takes stuff from a weak #3 should not get as much points per tick (or by taking a #3 structure) than fighting the #2. The #3 should get more points for going against #1.
    As there will never be perfectly balanced match ups, this should have been a consideration from day one in WvW.

    Your points here may be useful when winning will count somehow. But now? What has the winning server extra compared with the loosing server?
    And when the Alliance system will be here, I expect that the meaning of "victory" to be even less important.

    A - to not forget: Nerf the WarCat. Cancel the Maul, lower the HP, eliminate the imunity on dodge, limit the number of dodges. This can be a good start to balance WvW.

  • TinkTinkPOOF.9201TinkTinkPOOF.9201 Member ✭✭✭

    @hayabusafmw.9370 said:
    Here are some ideas i came up with to help balance the matching system in place.

    1.Block server transfers to 6 months or even longer. Unless the server dies it should unlock you the possibility to relocate.

    Why? The cost to swap servers people can just buy another account, I know many people who have accounts on a number of servers for when they are in a winning position. People who want to move servers will find a way, you are only going to hurt those who want to move for other reasons than stacking. It will also kill a good income source for anet, so even if it was effective, they are not going to do it as it means a hit to their bottom line.

    2.Troll Free to play accounts should be linked with main wvw account using IP. VPN users. It should be bannable and not usable for WVW/PVP. It's too easy to go on a server troll / spy / pull levers/ ect.

    Most IP's are not static, and you are never going to track VPNs, thats the whole point of VPNs, and just like IP's are not static, and can be assigned to anyone, so one day you banned the cheater or smurf account, the next day when the cheater resets his modem and that IP is unassigned from him and given to someone else, that new person who never cheated, is now banned.

    1. The stronger servers have limited RESPAWNS once dead. Meaning you cannot respawn in that Bl or go near the same keep you were fighting until the fight is done. You are forced to switch bl's or get somekind of penality if you do decide otherwise ex: (death or losing health every second or somekind of bad karma system that can only be removed by good karma = playing fair).

    No. This punishes the larger server and gives advantage to the smaller server. I myself am a strong no downstate or no rally supporter because they favor the larger team/server, but that gets removed from everyone, large or small, what you are talking about here is punishment for having more players or doing better in the match-up. That is not balance, nor would it help anything and would only make WvW more toxic as those who are not considered the best contributors to a match-up will be hounded to leave the map.

    1. Outnumbered should be a thing of the past. Meaning if your server is already maxed in EBG you should be blocked access to it and forced to switch bl's. If your server have loss more times in the past than the one more active currently it should let your server add up a few more players but not let you outnumber them.

    Maps are already blocked when maxed, its called queues. Outnumbered can be given to a server even when the other servers are no where near max map cap, it just means your server has no one there.

    1. Cooldowns on bl swap. no more switching because some group decided to go to your home bl. I find those tactics boring and not realistic.

    Not much about this game is realistic, nor does it try to be. Balance, not realism is the problem.

    1. If your server loses 2 times in a row in a matchup due to poor participation. You should be automatically paired or gain something for participation.

    This is not possible, and just because you are doing bad, doesn't mean you should get help. You could have this actually counter your points above as you could end up with a higher population server doing bad or even tanking and get a link. Also, this would mean you would have to keep servers in reserve to automatically "pair" them. This is not practical or good and would be ripe for abuse.

    1. Coverage / timezone/ Should be monitored and matched so no advantages would be gained out of that.

    This is not an advantage, anyone can get on at any time on any server. Some servers are more organized and have planned tags for most time zones, nor should someone in a given time zone be punished because all the others are at work/school or sleep.

    1. Forced to play all bl's not sit in EBG all day everyday. You should be rewarded accordingly as well. More you do more you take from other bl's the more you GAIN. ex: drops , gold , ect

    Another bad idea, as you are punishing people for playing the maps they like the most. I never go DBL, and I don't visit EBG often, I mostly roam in other servers BLs, why should I be punished for something I want to do?

    9.Anyone caught hacking should be PERMA banned and never allowed back to anything WVW / PVP ip ban included.

    I can agree on the perma ban, however as stated above, IP bans do not work and smurf accounts are real, so good luck.

    "When you power creep the game and make it so that spam gameplay is nearly as effective as deep knowledge and nuance, the quality of players will decrease." -Exedore

  • iKeostuKen.2738iKeostuKen.2738 Member ✭✭✭

    @Dawdler.8521 said:

    @iKeostuKen.2738 said:

    @Dawdler.8521 said:
    9 points on how to best kill WvW. Its actually rather impressive.

    Have a feeling you and your supporters didnt even bother reading the list if you think point number 9 would kill WvW in anyway.

    Ok then, we agree I'm only 88.8% correct?

    6 and 8 would also not really kill WvW. Could be potential positives if implemented right so 6/9.

  • idolin.2831idolin.2831 Member ✭✭✭

    @iKeostuKen.2738 said:

    @Dawdler.8521 said:

    @iKeostuKen.2738 said:

    @Dawdler.8521 said:
    9 points on how to best kill WvW. Its actually rather impressive.

    Have a feeling you and your supporters didnt even bother reading the list if you think point number 9 would kill WvW in anyway.

    Ok then, we agree I'm only 88.8% correct?

    6 and 8 would also not really kill WvW. Could be potential positives if implemented right so 6/9.

    1. How do you pair servers exactly? Seems a bit unrealistic to me. A large server can also tank to try to get a link.

    2. That's the best way to lose more players. Punish people for playing in maps they like - what if they hate all the other maps?

  • Offair.2563Offair.2563 Member ✭✭✭

    @MUDse.7623 said:
    if the number of opponents can be controlled with your own servers numbers, this can lead to toxicity against players that are deemed 'not good enough'. considering that there are players with different focus in WvW, most players will be seen as 'not good enough' by some.

    It's all a matter of perspective.

    Don't argue with idiots, they drag you down to their level and own you with experience.
    Big Babou, Ranger for life.

  • iKeostuKen.2738iKeostuKen.2738 Member ✭✭✭
    edited May 18, 2019

    @idolin.2831 said:

    @iKeostuKen.2738 said:

    @Dawdler.8521 said:

    @iKeostuKen.2738 said:

    @Dawdler.8521 said:
    9 points on how to best kill WvW. Its actually rather impressive.

    Have a feeling you and your supporters didnt even bother reading the list if you think point number 9 would kill WvW in anyway.

    Ok then, we agree I'm only 88.8% correct?

    6 and 8 would also not really kill WvW. Could be potential positives if implemented right so 6/9.

    1. How do you pair servers exactly? Seems a bit unrealistic to me. A large server can also tank to try to get a link.

    2. That's the best way to lose more players. Punish people for playing in maps they like - what if they hate all the other maps?

    1. Theres always a way to beat the system. Its a good idea, unrealistic for it to work perfectly. But wouldnt kill WvW if it did manage to actually make it through.
    2. No one said anything about punish. It boosts rewards if they go to a server thats not queued.
  • Slick.7164Slick.7164 Member ✭✭

    Wont work. Most of Anet employees are on Blackgate. They let a low population server link with BG every six weeks. They enjoy killing their own game. Let it die and wait until new game comes out.

  • idolin.2831idolin.2831 Member ✭✭✭

    @iKeostuKen.2738 said:

    @idolin.2831 said:

    @iKeostuKen.2738 said:

    @Dawdler.8521 said:

    @iKeostuKen.2738 said:

    @Dawdler.8521 said:
    9 points on how to best kill WvW. Its actually rather impressive.

    Have a feeling you and your supporters didnt even bother reading the list if you think point number 9 would kill WvW in anyway.

    Ok then, we agree I'm only 88.8% correct?

    6 and 8 would also not really kill WvW. Could be potential positives if implemented right so 6/9.

    1. How do you pair servers exactly? Seems a bit unrealistic to me. A large server can also tank to try to get a link.

    2. That's the best way to lose more players. Punish people for playing in maps they like - what if they hate all the other maps?

    1. Theres always a way to beat the system. Its a good idea, unrealistic for it to work perfectly. But wouldnt kill WvW if it did manage to actually make it through.
    2. No one said anything about punish. It boosts rewards if they go to a server thats not queued.

    I think we know that they won't do 6 since alliance is coming (hopefully).

  • iKeostuKen.2738iKeostuKen.2738 Member ✭✭✭

    @idolin.2831 said:

    @iKeostuKen.2738 said:

    @idolin.2831 said:

    @iKeostuKen.2738 said:

    @Dawdler.8521 said:

    @iKeostuKen.2738 said:

    @Dawdler.8521 said:
    9 points on how to best kill WvW. Its actually rather impressive.

    Have a feeling you and your supporters didnt even bother reading the list if you think point number 9 would kill WvW in anyway.

    Ok then, we agree I'm only 88.8% correct?

    6 and 8 would also not really kill WvW. Could be potential positives if implemented right so 6/9.

    1. How do you pair servers exactly? Seems a bit unrealistic to me. A large server can also tank to try to get a link.

    2. That's the best way to lose more players. Punish people for playing in maps they like - what if they hate all the other maps?

    1. Theres always a way to beat the system. Its a good idea, unrealistic for it to work perfectly. But wouldnt kill WvW if it did manage to actually make it through.
    2. No one said anything about punish. It boosts rewards if they go to a server thats not queued.

    I think we know that they won't do 6 since alliance is coming (hopefully).

    Definitely not. Hoping Alliance is worth the wait.

  • primatos.5413primatos.5413 Member ✭✭✭

    @Slick.7164 said:
    Wont work. Most of Anet employees are on Blackgate. They let a low population server link with BG every six weeks. They enjoy killing their own game. Let it die and wait until new game comes out.

    is that true ? O.o

  • Meviken.2054Meviken.2054 Member ✭✭

    I've heard from others that Blackgate is Anet's "private server," so to speak. Perhaps A-net's employees should be forced to leave it and play the smaller servers instead?

©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.