@Stephane Lo Presti.7258 said:Hello everyone!

World Vs. World

Scaling Objective Rewards

We’re looking to add some additional rewards to WvW. One of the big ways we’re looking into doing this is added rewards for capturing and defending objectives that scale up based on how big the action was. For example successfully capturing a keep that was defended by 50 players should be a lot more rewarding than capturing a keep that was completely undefended.

World Restructuring

World restructuring, commonly referred to as the Alliance system, remains our top priority for WvW. We’re not going into details on this post, since a lot of detail has been released previously. We are still not in a place where we feel comfortable releasing a target date, but we are still working on it.

There remain big issues in WvW there are not addressed by World Restructuring. The biggest one is finding a means to make winning mean something in WvW without motivating players to burn themselves out trying to maintain 24/7 coverage. We have some early designs built around this and will be investigating them once World Restructuring is finished so it is a bit too early for us to go into details around the ideas, but we’re thinking about them.

I guess this is the part I have the biggest problem with. The ‘bit too early’.

We are at 19 months from the initial announcement, and 10 months from the last update.

We are excited for it, but you’ve had two LS announcements, plus a full LS season, with the bulk of a second one that have taken place since the initial...,

We love your game. We live WvW as end game.

Help.

Completely agree with the reward boost here. That would definitely get me personally more invested in WvW.

Can we possibly have an incentive that encourages players to command? There's big expectations of commanders in WvW, and not much room to practice without making mistakes and getting flamed for it.

Is there any reason why 2v2 can't be a permanent mode, specially now that we have more maps? Just remove stronghold and make that the special tournament instead. I'm sure alot of people would agree with me.

Well thats all the stuff you talk about all them time, most wont come before 2020 and nothing new here.

ArenaNet: We messed up. They are going CRAZY on us. They know we don't care about WVW!!! Quick Do something fast!

i belive no word from them anymore.things could be done in less than a week if you wouldnt concentrate on pve only.guess wvw/pvp is not profitable for them..... better shut it down all together then.

Go for monthly gvg 15vs15 eotm arena instance & everything is forgiven

@LePapaBoby.2457 said:Go for monthly gvg 15vs15 eotm arena instance & everything is forgiven

^This^

@"Stephane Lo Presti.7258" said:

World restructuring, commonly referred to as the Alliance system, remains our top priority for WvW.

I think it's important to give an opinion on how this reads to the community - "We can't deliver on THE top priority for a single mode while delivering in spades for others."

Hello Stephane,Please consider merging some wvw due to pop issues, also consider in doing weeks that only allow core specs or only hot specs , something that change the wvw meta at least for a week, this is some details u can do for wvw without a lot work and better to preserve the remaining population. btw in the forums they got better ideias than i said above that also can be implemented.ty

too little too latethanks for the post anyway

I love how every time there is a new living story you try to placate us by dropping little bread crumb that you care about the wvw gamemode. If you do, then please change the minds of about 95% of the wvw community by showing us real change vs giving us cheap words. We all know words mean nothing unless you back them up with real action. I have played wvw since the first season tournament. I have seen very little go into giving the wvw player base what we have asked for. You give us surveys but what do you do with the data. As it is I might log in once a week to play reset but you loosing players. Can you imagine what happens when all of wvw players quit because there is only so much pvd, lag ridden fight where your servers can’t even handle ebg fights in smc, etc. the list could go on and you have been told numerous times what those issues are. They fall on deaf ears, like I’m sure my post will do. Sadly the biggest meme for wvw these days is “dead game”. I played pve since game launch, do I care about living story. Seriously, NO. I don’t care about the new story line, the new pve stuff. I login to play wvw, like many others; soon to be nonexistent with your lack of caring. When your wvw player base all leaves, maybe, and I say that with dripping sarcasm...you will care. We all know it’s the last thing on your list of priorities, but then so is supporting a company that doesn’t listen to it’s players. So when is the wvw funeral? So I can officially pay my respects.

Have you thought about officially supporting a competitive mode for guild vs. guild which includes leaderboards? The WvW alliance system is already a good attempt to make guilds relevant.

By now we know the only reason why you are not posting a specific timetable is because the majority would uninstall if they knew how long this will take to implement. You have lost all credibility in the PvP community and you rather keep it that way than making a fixed commitment. It really makes you wonder. Is reality even worse than we think at this point?

some of the community makes me: :#

Keep up the amazing job Arenanet! No matter those pitiful reactions, don't care about them, just do your work. <3

There is one thing that I don't see mentioned anywhere, it wasn't mentioned on stream and it isn't mentioned here - the warclaw fixes and improvements. In WvW all the exploits using the dismount warclaw jump are still possible. The promised "dismount enemy and self" warclaw skill seems to be forgotten.

Will be Ready when it's ReadyWe cant talk about itSoon™

@Happy Yes.1453 said:By now we know the only reason why you are not posting a specific timetable is because the majority would uninstall if they knew how long this will take to implement. You have lost all credibility in the PvP community and you rather keep it that way than making a fixed commitment. It really makes you wonder. Is reality even worse than we think at this point?

Posts like this are the reason they never tell us anything in advance. Every time they do it's not fast enough, if they don't then the game is dead and they're incompetent.Also we JUST heard that swiss tournaments are around the corner, is that not enough? Would you rather they never release it now because it wasn't fast enough before? Doesn't make sense to me to complain about nothing being done when the talk about it was that it is almost done.

@Stephane Lo Presti.7258 said:

Hello everyone!World Vs. WorldScaling Objective RewardsWe’re looking to add some additional rewards to WvW. One of the big ways we’re looking into doing this is added rewards for capturing and defending objectives that scale up based on how big the action was. For example successfully capturing a keep that was defended by 50 players should be a lot more rewarding than capturing a keep that was completely undefended.

I have a few concerns about the Above statement.

1) A game that has issues with lag in large combats should be actively working to fix that issue prior to incentivizing players to only fight in large groups.

2) Off the top of my head there are a number of concerns with the rewards not making sense if they are based on number of players in the fight. Here are some scenarios that concern me.

A) We successfully attack a keep with 20 attackers vs 20 defenders. Is the reward for this bigger or smaller than attacking 40 vs 20? After all, the 2nd case had a bigger action and therefore should be worth more. To me the first attack is more impressive and should be worth more, not the second.B) Same scenario reversed. We hold off 20 attackers with 20. Is our reward less than holding off those 20 with 50? Second scenario had bigger action but should be valued less by the game not more. And same question for holding off 20 with 8. That should be even more heavily rewarded but under the scenario described it would be worth the least.C) A server decides to do a coordinated attack with one group hitting enemy Bay and another Hills. The Hills fight is 30 vs 30 and the Bay fight is 20 vs 20. They both last 10 minutes with our attackers victorious in both cases. Why is one rewarded more than the other? And if it is, won't everybody just be incentivized to join the 30 vs 30 next time?
D) There are times that I will do a bluff attack at one structure while hitting or tying another. If that works as planned the defenders get pulled to the first structure and we take the second one unopposed. To me that was a success for the attacker but under what is described above the smaller group that took the second structure unopposed is lightly rewarded while the defenders that held off the larger group is heavily rewarded. This is the opposite of how things should work!E) A group of 10 gets through to the lord. The EWP is pulled and 60 people come through and kill them. The reward for the 60 people is higher than if 40 came through. Why? Neither fight is likely to be great but having one rewarded over the other makes no sense. It also incentivizes EVERYBODY to go through the EWP instead of coordinating and saying "Our 40 have got this, you other 20 keep doing what you are doing" (Assuming people talk to each other)F) Given the fact that people can make a free account easily the potential for abuse with scaling rewards is pretty high.

If we are looking at scaling things in large fights please look at the keep lord as the first thing to fix not rewards. Killing one with 8 should not be many times faster than with 20.

If I misunderstood the above and my scenarios aren't the problems I think they are then please let me know!

Thank you,

Able Sentry

If you lend a friend some money and he says he'll pay you back "soon". At which point in time does this become a lie? That is debatable. PC gaming is a rapidly evolving business, not a charity, and they said "soon" over a year ago. In this context a reasonable time has past now. They can make what they want and as fast or slow as they want. As a player, the only thing I want is an honest timetable, so that I can make my own decisions as well. If they don't want to do this, fine, but I will draw my own conclusions based on logical arguments. I'm very sorry if this somehow offends you.

@"Stephane Lo Presti.7258" Regarding WvW:At this stage, you could consider bringing back old practices like collaborative development initiatives, it is clear to me that there is a dedicated playerbase for WvW that is greatly invested in the gamemode, with plenty of opinions and ideas as to what the gamemode needs (and specially regarding things that are needed now, and that are needed in the future).

Beyond the vague idea of alliances being a top priority that we will talk about in the future (as you've said, when it does release it will be a transitory process), we need a more concrete roadmap of what your plans are, ideas, or lack of, regarding the mode. A reason to play now, and to keep playing towards the point where world restructuring is implemented.
Beyond rewards and moving pieces, the WvW community feels abandoned, even if some updates have happened to the mode, there is a lack of clear communication, and clear direction, to keep players invested.
Please consider this, we don't expect you to make something appear out of thin air, we want a reason to believe that if we stick around there are great things to be expected, until you decide to stop developing the game.

I personally was expecting at least some talk about new skills or traits in the future being added with the new saga, because that kind of things affect the whole game including WvW, and the lack of that was the source of my disappointment. I want world restructuring, it would improve things in wvw, but that alone is not a solution to all of the problems or lack of incentives that prevent the mode to thrive, so even if you say it is a top priority, what I understand is that it is due to the difficulty of developing it, but not because it is what is most urgent to be improved.
Scaling rewards sounds great, the question is "which rewards will be scaled", as you'll quickly notice, wvw players soon reach a point in which there are no new things on the horizon to be excited about.
Talk to us, do AMAs, do collaborative development initiatives, tell us what you expect from the mode, what's you plan for it beyond fixing imbalances that are caused by the lack of players (world restructuring).
GW2 has confounded epic with emotional, and forgotten how to be epic for a long while.

And here I was hoping that we will finally drop the CtP game mode and would be moving back to Random Arena and Team Arena. Oh well, I guess I will keep avoiding PvP.

"The biggest one is finding a means to make winning mean something in WvW without motivating players to burn themselves out trying to maintain 24/7 coverage" - You took away the WvW tournies and never replaced them, You took away the incentive of server bonuses with mega servers, you took away server pride by combining servers. You took away us being able to call on people from LA and similar towns to help defend with mega servers - these are just the ones that come immediately to mind. Motivating players?? all you have done is demotivate for the past 5 years. I now only try and come to play when I am outmanned so I can get my rewards done quicker and get out, there is no incentive anymore. None for scouting, none for protecting.... You think a "WvW we remember you" is going to placate the community?

Mini season sound great imo, ideally i'd have 2 seasons run together conquest and 2v2/3v3.

Imo 3v3 could be a hit and you arent giving it the chance it deserves.