Weekly Ranked Rewards — Guild Wars 2 Forums

Weekly Ranked Rewards

TheGrimm.5624TheGrimm.5624 Member ✭✭✭✭
edited September 4, 2019 in WvW

Tl;dr Version: If there were weekly rewards for coming in 1,2,3 in the form of random WvW loot chests that would contain WvW related materials and items that aid the war effort would you be interested in it?

So the forums have gone back and forth over time about rewarding people for winning but not too much else we end up with server stacking to win. So what if we employed one of the great evils to do this and achieve both. At the end of the week players would be rewarded with loot boxes (yes they can be traded, no they can't be bought from store) that contain the varied level loot rolls we see in normal chests with multiple tiers of chance. On the common side it could be things like coinage upwards could be scribing/crafting materials up to upgrades/schematics to WvW currencies of varying levels all the way at the super rare level being WvW tickets of mixed numbers. Server taking first would receive 5 boxes, second would receive 3 and last would receive 1. Tying the baseline chests to the server effort means you want to help your side. But additional chests could also be released based on individual weekly goals. An additional chest is rewarded for killing 'x' amount of players, a second one for getting double that amount by the end of week. Additional chests could also be granted if a targeted number, 'x', of captures occurs and one additional if 'x' amount of defenses are successfully done. So in the end the top server could pass out 9 chests a week at max and the bottom server players could achieve 5. If such a system was added additional weekly goals could be added along the way to prompt other aspects of game play, example 'x' amount of repairs, 'x' of supply interruptions and the like. The randomness keeps the prizes from being OP, they also create a new item for players to trade, and create a bit more reason to win with going over the top. Numbers & goals could be tweaked as needed but in the end it would be a weekly reward for gameplay that would be weighted on where you stood and how much you participated. So would a system like this be of interest?

Edit: was still entering options and it posted before I could finish option, fat fingers on this side, the last two options were going to be:

No, we get enough loot already
No, would like the focus to be elsewhere.

Next suggestion, allow the edit button to edit poll options. :)

Envy the Madman his musing when Death comes to make fools of us all.
De Mortuis Nil Nisi Bonum.
TheGrimm PoTBS/GW1/WAR/Rift/GW2/MWO/ESO/WoT/WoW/D2/HoTS/Civ6/CU/AoC

Weekly Ranked Rewards 43 votes

Yes, I could see this.
34% 15 votes
Yes, but I would like something else
25% 11 votes
No, but I do want more reasons to win
13% 6 votes
No, we get
25% 11 votes
<1

Comments

  • Im all for more loot in wvw, unfortunately your idea would result in more bandwagoning to winning servers, as was the case with wvw series 1 iirc.

  • lare.5129lare.5129 Member ✭✭✭

    we have enough rewards (pips, track, dayli) .. why ask more?

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

    No, we the wvw forums don't like extra loot, please stop.
    Also a line break in between that wall of text would go a long way, like across the page long way.
    Also handing loot to stacking servers, no thanks.

    "Is there pvp stuff for this?" "Absolutely, eh we actually have a new armor set coming soon."
    "From the back of the room!, the one pvp fan! we got him! WoAH!"
    || Stealth is a Terribad Mechanic ||

  • TheGrimm.5624TheGrimm.5624 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @XenesisII.1540 said:
    No, we the wvw forums don't like extra loot, please stop.
    Also a line break in between that wall of text would go a long way, like across the page long way.
    Also handing loot to stacking servers, no thanks.

    Yeah as I said, had a finger slip and hit enter when trying to backspace while still editing. Don't know why the poll screen behaves so much differently from the regular post.

    As far as stacking that's the reason for the randomness of the boxes, more boxes doesn't guarantee you better drops. With the system though the idea could be expanded and rewards could be given based on time outnumbered and for close matches. With the infrastructure it opens up more options but I understand the concern with stacking.

    Envy the Madman his musing when Death comes to make fools of us all.
    De Mortuis Nil Nisi Bonum.
    TheGrimm PoTBS/GW1/WAR/Rift/GW2/MWO/ESO/WoT/WoW/D2/HoTS/Civ6/CU/AoC

  • TheGrimm.5624TheGrimm.5624 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @lare.5129 said:
    we have enough rewards (pips, track, dayli) .. why ask more?

    Because a lot of us still go to the other game modes to support their WvW play. If you are just using everyone else's siege, food, utilities, not scribing and running exotic then yeah you probably make a little now, but if you fully gear out ascended and are providing the other consumables/siege/banners and doing scribing it's not cheap. And as we all know loot does draw people in. If you are having just as much fun in sPvP as WvW but WvW pays a lot less, where are you going to go. Not to mention since we do have players that said they would play more but there is no reason to win so why play, this might help a little more.

    Again we have a large player base in GW2, so we need to be asking more why don't others play WvW? Rewarding time is one I would say comes to mind from prior discussions as well, so every bit helps.

    Envy the Madman his musing when Death comes to make fools of us all.
    De Mortuis Nil Nisi Bonum.
    TheGrimm PoTBS/GW1/WAR/Rift/GW2/MWO/ESO/WoT/WoW/D2/HoTS/Civ6/CU/AoC

  • Strider Pj.2193Strider Pj.2193 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @TheGrimm.5624 said:

    @lare.5129 said:
    we have enough rewards (pips, track, dayli) .. why ask more?

    Because a lot of us still go to the other game modes to support their WvW play. If you are just using everyone else's siege, food, utilities, not scribing and running exotic then yeah you probably make a little now, but if you fully gear out ascended and are providing the other consumables/siege/banners and doing scribing it's not cheap. And as we all know loot does draw people in. If you are having just as much fun in sPvP as WvW but WvW pays a lot less, where are you going to go. Not to mention since we do have players that said they would play more but there is no reason to win so why play, this might help a little more.

    Again we have a large player base in GW2, so we need to be asking more why don't others play WvW? Rewarding time is one I would say comes to mind from prior discussions as well, so every bit helps.

    I can see this being more of a possibility once alliances (or IF alliances) hit and we play under it for a couple of rotations, but right now, it would be extremely easy to game that system.

    Likely there will be another three link group in the next relink which would be ripe for over stacking. As soon as the thought of seasons hit, plans would be in place to stack somewhere.

    And let’s say that transfers are stopped as soon as it’s announced and not allowed for the duration of the season: then the two (NA and EU) servers that shall not be named that are overstacked to begin with, would just pretty much dominate each of their matchups, leading to some servers effectively being left out of any rewards bu default.

    I would love more rewards. I just am not sure there is a way to do it with far less gerrymandering than what has happened in the past.

    Thank You for the {MEME}

  • TheGrimm.5624TheGrimm.5624 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Strider Pj.2193 said:

    I can see this being more of a possibility once alliances (or IF alliances) hit and we play under it for a couple of rotations, but right now, it would be extremely easy to game that system.

    Likely there will be another three link group in the next relink which would be ripe for over stacking. As soon as the thought of seasons hit, plans would be in place to stack somewhere.

    And let’s say that transfers are stopped as soon as it’s announced and not allowed for the duration of the season: then the two (NA and EU) servers that shall not be named that are overstacked to begin with, would just pretty much dominate each of their matchups, leading to some servers effectively being left out of any rewards bu default.

    I would love more rewards. I just am not sure there is a way to do it with far less gerrymandering than what has happened in the past.

    Fair, but also like to get it on the table and see what people think since it would need development time as well. Have seen ideas get posted on the forums and then years later see they finally bear fruit. And agree, even if I am one that believes in server pride, since we know alliances are still coming it would be best to get them before some other changes are made so we can understand the real impact of them.

    Envy the Madman his musing when Death comes to make fools of us all.
    De Mortuis Nil Nisi Bonum.
    TheGrimm PoTBS/GW1/WAR/Rift/GW2/MWO/ESO/WoT/WoW/D2/HoTS/Civ6/CU/AoC

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

    You don't guarantee better drops, but you're giving out more boxes, for winning teams it will be easier to reach the community goals to get the extra boxes, there's more players on those servers so more boxes being handed out, more chances to get something good, easier to earn, more reason to stack. In any case anet isn't going to implement another gambling system they won't be making money off of.

    "Is there pvp stuff for this?" "Absolutely, eh we actually have a new armor set coming soon."
    "From the back of the room!, the one pvp fan! we got him! WoAH!"
    || Stealth is a Terribad Mechanic ||

  • Stack, get more rewards. We'd get the same effect we had from seasons.

    Not saying that they shouldn't do anything, but it will perpetuate the server stacking for the additional loots (no matter how small they may be)

  • Sovereign.1093Sovereign.1093 Member ✭✭✭✭

    you are familiar with wvw community website ranking guilds based on kills. id like to see something like this but official. i.e. my guild is in the top 10, climbing the ladder is enough for my guild. the rewards besides from that intangible altruistic feeling of killing the enemy is nice.

    but since its anet, it could be ranked based on amount of ppt provided like that being recorded by guild missions.

    rank guilds, not servers.

    Not Even Coverage is the Only broken thing in WVW.

  • Sovereign.1093Sovereign.1093 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited September 6, 2019

    http://wvw-community.com/weeklyguild

    this, cant seem to paste it thru edit. must be a mobile thing.

    anyway, you can see the ranks based on those who registered on kills.

    anet can do better since they own the system.

    and if we are to be rewarded, just bonus on magic find wxp exp crafting synthesizing etc. could be skins too etc. so many options for us.

    why? its not easy to handle a huge group like a server, it becomes too impersonal like facebook, but a small guild, a small group we guild leaders can manage.

    Not Even Coverage is the Only broken thing in WVW.

  • TheGrimm.5624TheGrimm.5624 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Blockhead Magee.3092 said:
    Stack, get more rewards. We'd get the same effect we had from seasons.

    Not saying that they shouldn't do anything, but it will perpetuate the server stacking for the additional loots (no matter how small they may be)

    Yeah but with a system like this there could also be additional rewards for the server that fought out numbered more, the server with better KDR, servers with higher population to cap ratios (aka who did more with less based on turnout), extra rewards for all if the match is a close one. The example I provide above is an example on such a system might be built. Full disclosure I am posting this idea while on a link server but have seen enough posts of we need better rewards and winning means nothing that leaves me with the idea to make lemonade and try and solve multiple issues in the same solution.

    Envy the Madman his musing when Death comes to make fools of us all.
    De Mortuis Nil Nisi Bonum.
    TheGrimm PoTBS/GW1/WAR/Rift/GW2/MWO/ESO/WoT/WoW/D2/HoTS/Civ6/CU/AoC

  • lare.5129lare.5129 Member ✭✭✭

    @TheGrimm.5624 said:
    If you are just using everyone else's siege, food, utilities, not scribing and running exotic then yeah you probably make a little now, but if you fully gear out ascended and are providing the other consumables/siege/banners and doing scribing it's not cheap.

    I have legendary set on each char, also vision, aurora, bolt, ant etc.

    Again we have a large player base in GW2, so we need to be asking more why don't others play WvW? Rewarding time is one I would say comes to mind from prior discussions as well, so every bit helps.

    may be because I don't think that this is about rewards .. This is pvp hard part, not acceptable by wide player count. And absolutely enough that they need do wvw to get gift of battle. Who will like - stay, who not like - go play a wide other content. I am happy that not have long waiting to join on wvw.

  • TheGrimm.5624TheGrimm.5624 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @lare.5129 said:

    @TheGrimm.5624 said:
    If you are just using everyone else's siege, food, utilities, not scribing and running exotic then yeah you probably make a little now, but if you fully gear out ascended and are providing the other consumables/siege/banners and doing scribing it's not cheap.

    I have legendary set on each char, also vision, aurora, bolt, ant etc.

    Again we have a large player base in GW2, so we need to be asking more why don't others play WvW? Rewarding time is one I would say comes to mind from prior discussions as well, so every bit helps.

    may be because I don't think that this is about rewards .. This is pvp hard part, not acceptable by wide player count. And absolutely enough that they need do wvw to get gift of battle. Who will like - stay, who not like - go play a wide other content. I am happy that not have long waiting to join on wvw.

    I am not sure I understand your point. So you want less players in WvW? I WvW because someone else has stuff my server should have and have ridden servers from T1 to T8, so I am looking at how can we draw in people that aren't fighting for the sake of fight. And the answer is loot and not losing money. I would have made a lot more by spending all those hours in PvP over WvW but I don't take well when my server is attacked and will counter. But people that play for the sake of it's not ours and it should be, are far and inbetween. If we want our game mode to be exclusive then we need to stop whining when we bleed people versus find more ways to draw others in, and we have seen one reason they don't is because there is not enough bang for the buck. Aka loot in WvW is much lower than other game modes and since gear makes a difference here I can see the high cost to newer players which further alienates them from the mode. Don't get me wrong, I have 16 of a potential 24 WvW toons all fully ascended with close to 2 legendary sets, but most of that had to be funded outside of WvW over the last 6 years. Do you deny the game mode has been the worst of all others for drop over the last 6 years? Why would we expect new players to join in when they have such hurdles to reach?

    Envy the Madman his musing when Death comes to make fools of us all.
    De Mortuis Nil Nisi Bonum.
    TheGrimm PoTBS/GW1/WAR/Rift/GW2/MWO/ESO/WoT/WoW/D2/HoTS/Civ6/CU/AoC

  • lare.5129lare.5129 Member ✭✭✭

    @TheGrimm.5624 said:
    I am not sure I understand your point. So you want less players in WvW?

    I am not absoliutly worried if we drop 30%-50% wvw players. I think we have enough players on wvw, on Friday and weekend is to much for me.

    Do you deny the game mode has been the worst of all others for drop over the last 6 years? Why would we expect new players to join in when they have such hurdles to reach?

    We have legendary sets, legendary back, a lot of skins, a lot of achievements, and gift of battle, that needed mostly everywhere.
    Why we should ask more ?

  • @Sovereign.1093 said:
    you are familiar with wvw community website ranking guilds based on kills. id like to see something like this but official. i.e. my guild is in the top 10, climbing the ladder is enough for my guild. the rewards besides from that intangible altruistic feeling of killing the enemy is nice.

    So it will be a list of the best EBG farmers.

  • Sovereign.1093Sovereign.1093 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Rednik.3809 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:
    you are familiar with wvw community website ranking guilds based on kills. id like to see something like this but official. i.e. my guild is in the top 10, climbing the ladder is enough for my guild. the rewards besides from that intangible altruistic feeling of killing the enemy is nice.

    So it will be a list of the best EBG farmers.

    ^_________^ it's a start. it could be on a number of metric from ranks done by capture/defense/yaks walked etced. - things related to the game mechanic.

    Not Even Coverage is the Only broken thing in WVW.

  • Gop.8713Gop.8713 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited September 6, 2019

    EDIT: Sry, private poll so my post didn't make sense. Pretend that it started with a purple square that said 'No' and then continued . . :

    But like everyone else, I'd be for it if anet could force balanced matchups . . .

  • Samug.6512Samug.6512 Member ✭✭✭

    Just give a symbolic reward at the end of the weeek. 15 champion bags for 1st place, 10 champ bags for 2nd, 5 for 3rd place in the match-up, for all players that managed to get past golden pip chest. It's not like champ bags have any major economic value and even a symbolic reward would make a lot of people happier. Putting a minimum chest limit would prevent people from hopping in, killing a sentry and never showing up again that week.

    [NUKE]

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

    @Samug.6512 said:
    Just give a symbolic reward at the end of the weeek. 15 champion bags for 1st place, 10 champ bags for 2nd, 5 for 3rd place in the match-up, for all players that managed to get past golden pip chest. It's not like champ bags have any major economic value and even a symbolic reward would make a lot of people happier. Putting a minimum chest limit would prevent people from hopping in, killing a sentry and never showing up again that week.

    And then people would complain its not worth anything.

    There is simply no way to give a reward and at the same time ignore what players will do to get that reward, ie stack.

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

  • nthmetal.9652nthmetal.9652 Member ✭✭✭
    edited September 6, 2019

    @TheGrimm.5624

    Yes sure, let's throw additional rewards on the servers / skirmishes that are already being won. I cannot see how this could possibly go wrong and generate further incentive for overstacking. No way people will be even more motivated to join the side that already is winning, and, on the other hand, people on the losing side will be further demotivated. Surely this will help create balanced fights a lot.

    In a balanced scenario, more rewards / better rewards will surely help. I'm all for better rewards, but this only helps in scenarios already balanced. And often enough we don't have those. If the current skirmish / matchup feels, as if you can win it, better rewards hopefully generate more motivation to fight harder and win. Better rewards work. But only when the players feel as though fate is actually in their hands.

    The problem we're facing IMO: We're already facing issues where achieving a win is unlikely, even if the single player or team performance is better than that of the opposition. Very often numbers matter more than skill. Very often builds and zerg composition matter more than skill. The result are a stale, one-sided meta, and the results are one-sided fights, or fights that can only be won through a very high effort (if at all) with a very high likelyhood to go south if things are not working out. If things do not work out, rewards are basically already thrown at the winning side more or less for free.

    None of the choices in the poll really reflect my stance here. I would like better rewards, but we need rewards, that actually help the system and not create additional incentive for further misbalance.

    "and then we know that we have looked back through the ivory gates into that world of wonder which was ours before we were wise and unhappy"
    -- H. P. Lovecraft - Celephais

  • Gorani.7205Gorani.7205 Member ✭✭✭

    Voted no, because I strongly believe that individual rewards should not be tied to server rankings.
    I do believe in the need for better rewards by tweaking things we get from skirmish chests (replacing the fine category warped bundles with rare ones and adding a few more mystic coins and amalgamed gemstones).
    More reasons to win could still be rewarded by non-material rewards that promote "server/alliance pride"

  • The principle I like. The execution is going to run into the same challenges others listed above. Until or if we have Alliances I just don't see any way to design this that would not be destroyed by both coverage issues and stacking. Honestly the only reason I don't move my guild to a stacked server is they don't stay that way. People still wind up moving so often the cost to me isn't worthwhile. Of course I get around this to some degree by having multiple accounts some of which are on more populated servers that still want to compete. I'm seeing more and more of a ktrain mentality and it sure looks like Anet is pushing us towards that direction.

    Guild leader for Goats of Thunder. No pants allowed.

  • Baldrick.8967Baldrick.8967 Member ✭✭✭

    @lare.5129 said:

    @TheGrimm.5624 said:
    I am not sure I understand your point. So you want less players in WvW?

    I am not absoliutly worried if we drop 30%-50% wvw players. I think we have enough players on wvw, on Friday and weekend is to much for me.

    Do you deny the game mode has been the worst of all others for drop over the last 6 years? Why would we expect new players to join in when they have such hurdles to reach?

    We have legendary sets, legendary back, a lot of skins, a lot of achievements, and gift of battle, that needed mostly everywhere.
    Why we should ask more ?

    So instead of 4 players on a map there would be 3 or 2?

  • lare.5129lare.5129 Member ✭✭✭

    @Baldrick.8967 said:
    So instead of 4 players on a map there would be 3 or 2?

    why not?

  • TheGrimm.5624TheGrimm.5624 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @lare.5129 said:

    @TheGrimm.5624 said:
    I am not sure I understand your point. So you want less players in WvW?

    I am not absoliutly worried if we drop 30%-50% wvw players. I think we have enough players on wvw, on Friday and weekend is to much for me.

    Are you in T1? As I said I am on a linked server, but the host server is in T2 and we are pretty line in prime time in T2. I would hope that if we lose even 30 more than T3 & T4 are rolled up into T1 & T2. And that also a problem I would prefer that we be inducting enough people so we could reopen T5 & T6.

    Envy the Madman his musing when Death comes to make fools of us all.
    De Mortuis Nil Nisi Bonum.
    TheGrimm PoTBS/GW1/WAR/Rift/GW2/MWO/ESO/WoT/WoW/D2/HoTS/Civ6/CU/AoC

  • TheGrimm.5624TheGrimm.5624 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Rednik.3809 said:

    @Sovereign.1093 said:
    you are familiar with wvw community website ranking guilds based on kills. id like to see something like this but official. i.e. my guild is in the top 10, climbing the ladder is enough for my guild. the rewards besides from that intangible altruistic feeling of killing the enemy is nice.

    So it will be a list of the best EBG farmers.

    I actually hadn't seen that site before, will have to check more into it.

    Envy the Madman his musing when Death comes to make fools of us all.
    De Mortuis Nil Nisi Bonum.
    TheGrimm PoTBS/GW1/WAR/Rift/GW2/MWO/ESO/WoT/WoW/D2/HoTS/Civ6/CU/AoC

  • TheGrimm.5624TheGrimm.5624 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Gop.8713 said:
    EDIT: Sry, private poll so my post didn't make sense. Pretend that it started with a purple square that said 'No' and then continued . . :

    But like everyone else, I'd be for it if anet could force balanced matchups . . .

    Agree, again posting this to have a conversation about rewards for winning. I fight to regain land, but I know more people that have left because that wasn't enough for them. And as we have seen we get more players when there is something to work towards, so what is that? The people that remain are mostly in it for the fight as well but that just leaves us with the odds of getting little others back and that's what needs addressed. I am picturing this kind of system in conjunction with some other balancing/anti-stacking mechanisms. I think other mechanic will need tweaked after alliances since to everyones point, some players will try and game the system.

    Envy the Madman his musing when Death comes to make fools of us all.
    De Mortuis Nil Nisi Bonum.
    TheGrimm PoTBS/GW1/WAR/Rift/GW2/MWO/ESO/WoT/WoW/D2/HoTS/Civ6/CU/AoC

  • TheGrimm.5624TheGrimm.5624 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @nthmetal.9652 said:
    @TheGrimm.5624

    Yes sure, let's throw additional rewards on the servers / skirmishes that are already being won. I cannot see how this could possibly go wrong and generate further incentive for overstacking. No way people will be even more motivated to join the side that already is winning, and, on the other hand, people on the losing side will be further demotivated. Surely this will help create balanced fights a lot.

    In a balanced scenario, more rewards / better rewards will surely help. I'm all for better rewards, but this only helps in scenarios already balanced. And often enough we don't have those. If the current skirmish / matchup feels, as if you can win it, better rewards hopefully generate more motivation to fight harder and win. Better rewards work. But only when the players feel as though fate is actually in their hands.

    The problem we're facing IMO: We're already facing issues where achieving a win is unlikely, even if the single player or team performance is better than that of the opposition. Very often numbers matter more than skill. Very often builds and zerg composition matter more than skill. The result are a stale, one-sided meta, and the results are one-sided fights, or fights that can only be won through a very high effort (if at all) with a very high likelyhood to go south if things are not working out. If things do not work out, rewards are basically already thrown at the winning side more or less for free.

    None of the choices in the poll really reflect my stance here. I would like better rewards, but we need rewards, that actually help the system and not create additional incentive for further misbalance.

    I understand your point, have the same hesitations, and no I am not proposing this while on server that wins each week. Again one of the reason I throw the random card out there. As others have pointed out it still gives more organised/more 24hr servers better odds of gaining more, but with random, we have some players that after playing for 6 years have never gotten a precursor drop. I do like server and personal incentives to come out to the mists more though but will be sad to see the day we becomes random names every 8 weeks. The alliance system will be great for the larger & more organised groups and for the drifters and havocs it will just be like EoTM, who are we? So yes picturing this system embedded in something that is balancing the matches. Part of the answer might be moving it to something related with the skirmish periods and only award points to the goal when the periods are balanced across all 4 maps. So if a side is just "night-capping" no points to the reward goal is rewarded if others are not present.

    Envy the Madman his musing when Death comes to make fools of us all.
    De Mortuis Nil Nisi Bonum.
    TheGrimm PoTBS/GW1/WAR/Rift/GW2/MWO/ESO/WoT/WoW/D2/HoTS/Civ6/CU/AoC

  • TheGrimm.5624TheGrimm.5624 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Gorani.7205 said:
    Voted no, because I strongly believe that individual rewards should not be tied to server rankings.
    I do believe in the need for better rewards by tweaking things we get from skirmish chests (replacing the fine category warped bundles with rare ones and adding a few more mystic coins and amalgamed gemstones).
    More reasons to win could still be rewarded by non-material rewards that promote "server/alliance pride"

    Maybe the server side rewards are a different type of chest and could see that working here too. To promote people to work together, even if its passively (gogo roamers) I think both server/alliance and personal goals should be in the mix. I think the personal ones would still act as incentive for all of the people that are still WvWing to go and do even if newer members come and go and act as a balance even if their server/alliance did not win the week.

    Envy the Madman his musing when Death comes to make fools of us all.
    De Mortuis Nil Nisi Bonum.
    TheGrimm PoTBS/GW1/WAR/Rift/GW2/MWO/ESO/WoT/WoW/D2/HoTS/Civ6/CU/AoC

  • TheGrimm.5624TheGrimm.5624 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited September 6, 2019

    @Fatherbliss.4701 said:
    I'm seeing more and more of a ktrain mentality and it sure looks like Anet is pushing us towards that direction.

    Worried there too, especially each time defensive options are reduced. Bright side is the statement that they are looking at increasing rewards when people are going for hardened objectives. Devil will be in the details, but from a 10K feet paper view it sounds good.

    Envy the Madman his musing when Death comes to make fools of us all.
    De Mortuis Nil Nisi Bonum.
    TheGrimm PoTBS/GW1/WAR/Rift/GW2/MWO/ESO/WoT/WoW/D2/HoTS/Civ6/CU/AoC

  • TheGrimm.5624TheGrimm.5624 Member ✭✭✭✭

    To all so far, thank you for feedback. Not saying this is a solution but for people sometimes ideas spark ideas and I think for those of us playing we like WvW but I also think many agree that more the merrier, or at least for the servers below T1. Ok now I need more coffee, be back.

    Envy the Madman his musing when Death comes to make fools of us all.
    De Mortuis Nil Nisi Bonum.
    TheGrimm PoTBS/GW1/WAR/Rift/GW2/MWO/ESO/WoT/WoW/D2/HoTS/Civ6/CU/AoC

  • For weekly rewards, I'd like to see players earning tokens that can be used to purchase Warclaw mount skins. The number of tokens earned would depend on where a server finished at the end of the weekly match.

  • Gop.8713Gop.8713 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @TheGrimm.5624 said:

    @Gop.8713 said:
    EDIT: Sry, private poll so my post didn't make sense. Pretend that it started with a purple square that said 'No' and then continued . . :

    But like everyone else, I'd be for it if anet could force balanced matchups . . .

    Agree, again posting this to have a conversation about rewards for winning. I fight to regain land, but I know more people that have left because that wasn't enough for them. And as we have seen we get more players when there is something to work towards, so what is that? The people that remain are mostly in it for the fight as well but that just leaves us with the odds of getting little others back and that's what needs addressed. I am picturing this kind of system in conjunction with some other balancing/anti-stacking mechanisms. I think other mechanic will need tweaked after alliances since to everyones point, some players will try and game the system.

    Okay, then if you're looking at rewards as a way to draw more ppl in rather than more 'fairly' compensate the ppl who are already here there is another factor to consider, and that is the kind of player would rewards attract. The vast majority of wvw's problems are player-driven, evidenced by the fact that we need anet to force balanced matchups. If players were in it for the gameplay they would naturally gravitate towards balanced matchups by themselves. Adding rewards to attract players would probably attract more of the kind of players that create these sorts of problems . . .

    So instead of creating persistent weekly rewards, wvw is better served by these one-offs, like gob, the mount or weekly events, that attract new players, some of whom will enjoy it and stay, and others won't enjoy it and won't return. Keeping more of that second group would be a detriment . . .

  • Acheron.4731Acheron.4731 Member ✭✭✭

    I voted yes. Why not get rewarded for winning in some way? It is common sense. Don't try to over-analyze things.
    People are gonna stack to win regardless if this system is present or not.
    I think the system used to already exist anyway with the 1 or 2 extra loot boxes upon leveling up

    A true friend of the crown

  • Ben K.6238Ben K.6238 Member ✭✭✭✭

    I'm not against the general idea, because winning should be better than losing. However, it wouldn't be recommended to implement this before population fixes, as the easiest way to get the best reward would just be to transfer to Blackgate.

  • Acheron.4731Acheron.4731 Member ✭✭✭

    You will have your chance soon enough. BG is bleeding players just like every other server.
    Dead game-mode

    A true friend of the crown

  • I was gonna make a similar thread so thanks for saving me the effort :D
    So far I was never really aware that you don't actually get anything for beeing on the server that finishes in first place but that just so happened to happen to my server yesterday. Since then I've been thinking about what that reward could be if we had one and weather having one would make sense.
    Obviously you're already beeing rewarded by getting more pips when playing on the winning server which is probably the better way to reward people since it doesn't encourage jumping servers as much as other options. However just getting more pips than the loosing servers doesn't feel as much like winning as a golden reward chest at the end of the week would and I do believe that it would encourage people to pull through a little more.

    So: Yes, I could see that. But I imagine a different reward as what you descibed. I've been thinking that it's probably best to only give the reward chest (Bronze/Silver/Gold, based on how the Server finished) to those players that have finished Wood Tier (Minimum) and the Rewards in the final Reward Chest at the end of the week should scale based on which reward tier the player has reached.
    The content of the Chests should be something like this:

    (In the following I will shorten the Skirmish reward tiers as follows: Wood - w, Bronze - b, Silver - s, Gold - g, Platinum - p, Mithril - m, Diamond - d)
    Amount of each Item will depend on the achieved reward tier.
    Bronze:

    • WvW Skirmish Claim Tickets w:1, b:2, s:4, g:6, p:8, m:10, d:12
    • Memory of Battle w:1, b:2, s:3, g:4, p:5, m:6, d:8
    • Mist-Warped Packet wbsgpmd:2
    • Mist-Warped Bundle sgpmd:1
    • Mystic Coin sgpmd:1
    • Grandmaster Mark Shard sgpmd:1

    Silver:

    • WvW Skirmish Claim Tickets w:2, b:4, s:6, g:8, p:10, m:12, d:14
    • Memory of Battle w:2, b:3, s:4, g:5, p:6, m:7, d:9
    • Mist-Warped Packet wbsgpmd:4
    • Mist-Warped Bundle sgpmd:2
    • Mystic Coin sgpmd:2
    • Grandmaster Mark Shard sgpmd:2

    Gold:

    • WvW Skirmish Claim Tickets w:3, b:5, s:7, g:9, p:11, m:13, d:15
    • Memory of Battle w:3, b:4, s:5, g:6, p:7, m:8, d:10
    • Mist-Warped Packet wbsgpmd:6
    • Mist-Warped Bundle sgpmd:3
    • Mystic Coin sgpmd:3
    • Grandmaster Mark Shard sgpmd:3

    Numbers are somewhat inspired by the current reward tiers so that it stays somewhat fair and encourages actually playing WvW instead of just finishing wood tier to get some reward.

    I personally would really like something like this as it would feel very rewarding after having spent time and effort to keep the server on first place and it rewards the community effort as well and not just the efforts of those that can afford to spend the most time in the game (as is currently the case with pips beeing the only scaling reward).

    As the old worlds fall behind
    Our spirit reaches wide
    With no fear breathing new life
    Awaken from the dark dark slumber

    Wintersun - Awaken from the dark slumber (Spring) - Part II The Awakening

  • Syrus.2174Syrus.2174 Member ✭✭✭

    I think that giving rewards for winning the match up would just encourage and worsen the amount of winning-team-joining and server stacking that is already happening.
    There are already rewards depending on position during the skirmish ticks, pip amount can make quite a difference.

    Overall I'd rather wish to see more rewards for flipping objectives, especially when it's a more defended one, as well as more rewards for fighting. Currently a zerg fight is only good once, and when you kill a zerg a second time, usually somewhat shortly after, there is barely any reward from it, especially the WXP amount drops significantly. It should be much more dependend on what the player you killed did before they got killed again, if they "participated" a lot, they should also be worth more, like when the dealt a lot of damage, healing or killed someone, etc.

    As much as I would overall want a reward for winning a match up, I just don't think it would work with the current matchup and server system. Servers would get stacked to oblivion, one server in top tier would probably always be stuck as second place, ...
    In my opinion a focus on the smaller scale might be better than on the large scale, winning skirmishes and such, taking and defending objectives, winning zerg fights...

  • Out manned servers, and defenders should be rewarded more.

  • X T D.6458X T D.6458 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited September 7, 2019

    I have never personally been in favor of rewarding servers for winning. I prefer rewarding individual progress and activity. I think the current system is really good and gives us pretty much most if not everything we need. We have reward tracks, can earn ascended gear, and can even make legendary armor not to mention a lot of other things we can acquire. I can still remember the older days when you could spend an entire night in WvW and never have to clean your inventory because you barely received any loot or rewards.

    Somewhere chasing bags....

  • Strider Pj.2193Strider Pj.2193 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @starhunter.6015 said:
    Out manned servers, and defenders should be rewarded more.

    I guess I would ask what your definition of ‘outmanned’ is?

    On a map?

    In a time zone?

    For a whole matchup? (And then how is that defined: available players choosing not to play? Server status? )

    Thank You for the {MEME}

  • lare.5129lare.5129 Member ✭✭✭

    ma be we should ask decrease reward? yesterday we was stick on squad on one map and was possible to rejoin on other server without queue.

  • Gorani.7205Gorani.7205 Member ✭✭✭

    @starhunter.6015 said:
    Out manned servers, and defenders should be rewarded more.

    Individually or for server scoring? It makes a difference.
    Individual out manned players already get a big boost by the +5 pip bonus (and their impact on gaining better skirmish chests faster).
    The low population server only profits passively from "Outnumbered" (as the enemy does not get a war score for killing the underdog player). While outnumbered situation can pre provoked in fairly even matches, it currently is not factored in, for the low population server, who might be outnumbered on three out of five maps all the time, because it just can't get enough players on the battlefield.

  • Acheron.4731Acheron.4731 Member ✭✭✭

    @Syrus.2174 said:
    I think that giving rewards for winning the match up would just encourage and worsen the amount of winning-team-joining and server stacking that is already happening.
    There are already rewards depending on position during the skirmish ticks, pip amount can make quite a difference.

    Overall I'd rather wish to see more rewards for flipping objectives, especially when it's a more defended one, as well as more rewards for fighting. Currently a zerg fight is only good once, and when you kill a zerg a second time, usually somewhat shortly after, there is barely any reward from it, especially the WXP amount drops significantly. It should be much more dependend on what the player you killed did before they got killed again, if they "participated" a lot, they should also be worth more, like when the dealt a lot of damage, healing or killed someone, etc.

    As much as I would overall want a reward for winning a match up, I just don't think it would work with the current matchup and server system. Servers would get stacked to oblivion, one server in top tier would probably always be stuck as second place, ...
    In my opinion a focus on the smaller scale might be better than on the large scale, winning skirmishes and such, taking and defending objectives, winning zerg fights...

    It is a shame you can't award a winner because the game is so mismanaged in how transfers and stacking are allowed.
    Anet can't really regulate that, though, if they aren't watching or even care since THEY are rewarded for the unfair movement.

    A true friend of the crown

  • Offair.2563Offair.2563 Member ✭✭✭
    edited September 9, 2019

    I suggest every winner gets 10 more junk items in their bags.
    edit; And a green ofcourse.

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

  • Gop.8713Gop.8713 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Gorani.7205 said:

    @starhunter.6015 said:
    Out manned servers, and defenders should be rewarded more.

    Individually or for server scoring? It makes a difference.
    Individual out manned players already get a big boost by the +5 pip bonus (and their impact on gaining better skirmish chests faster).
    The low population server only profits passively from "Outnumbered" (as the enemy does not get a war score for killing the underdog player). While outnumbered situation can pre provoked in fairly even matches, it currently is not factored in, for the low population server, who might be outnumbered on three out of five maps all the time, because it just can't get enough players on the battlefield.

    The way outnumbered works in general doesn't really make any sense. It needs to be more localized so players can't benefit from the fact that there are fifty enemy players on the other side of the map while they're Xv1ing some poor sap in a camp over here. Unfortunately I suspect players will learn to game any system anet develops :/

  • TheGrimm.5624TheGrimm.5624 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @lare.5129 said:
    ma be we should ask decrease reward? yesterday we was stick on squad on one map and was possible to rejoin on other server without queue.

    I think that is more about participation and outnumbered. Which is a bit of a different conversation. It would be good if the system accounted for effort. Example: is there more value in a solo/havoc taking a keep or zerg. The zerg would pay more people but the solo meant that the zerg could be fighting more numbers elsewhere. But again that is a different topic.

    Envy the Madman his musing when Death comes to make fools of us all.
    De Mortuis Nil Nisi Bonum.
    TheGrimm PoTBS/GW1/WAR/Rift/GW2/MWO/ESO/WoT/WoW/D2/HoTS/Civ6/CU/AoC

  • TheGrimm.5624TheGrimm.5624 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Offair.2563 said:
    I suggest every winner gets 10 more junk items in their bags.
    edit; And a green ofcourse.

    A green!? I was looking at a blue here, you are a noble soul indeed.

    :)

    Envy the Madman his musing when Death comes to make fools of us all.
    De Mortuis Nil Nisi Bonum.
    TheGrimm PoTBS/GW1/WAR/Rift/GW2/MWO/ESO/WoT/WoW/D2/HoTS/Civ6/CU/AoC

  • TheGrimm.5624TheGrimm.5624 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @X T D.6458 said:
    I have never personally been in favor of rewarding servers for winning. I prefer rewarding individual progress and activity. I think the current system is really good and gives us pretty much most if not everything we need. We have reward tracks, can earn ascended gear, and can even make legendary armor not to mention a lot of other things we can acquire. I can still remember the older days when you could spend an entire night in WvW and never have to clean your inventory because you barely received any loot or rewards.

    Don't get me wrong, I agree we moved up, but I don't think we are as of yet on par with the other game modes and for a long time we have had players asking for a bit more incentive to winning. Looking for a two prong solution. I play today knowing that winning means just moving up, and I think the core we have left are the same or think on it that it doesn't matter at all. We have accounted for all those people, but I feel we have had others leave because they feel opposite of the core that remains. Some are still in game, so how do we appeal to them.

    I quite often havoc or roam and zerg surf from time to time, hence I agree with individual rewards but you need server rewards as well to keep people from just going in getting their own personal done and think, ok I am done. Now part of a smaller guild but could also see guild incentives and weeklies that could tie into this system as long as it was scaled on guild size. Afterall once servers are removed we are only left with individual, guild and alliance pride. The random named grouping will be meaningless since it will be dissolved each 8 weeks.

    Envy the Madman his musing when Death comes to make fools of us all.
    De Mortuis Nil Nisi Bonum.
    TheGrimm PoTBS/GW1/WAR/Rift/GW2/MWO/ESO/WoT/WoW/D2/HoTS/Civ6/CU/AoC

©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.