What incentive would you like to play wvw more?

To attack, defend?

what do you want implemented?

for the mount to have 1k health.

so I'd be the more "attacking" option I guess.

@"sephiroth.4217" said:for the mount to have 1k health.

so I'd be the more "attacking" option I guess.

how would you want attacking options that exist to change? i mean eventually everyone will have a mount

Not sure, at this point I don't think many need the incentive anymore - they should learn by now it's not going to go well asking for incentives.

@DemonSeed.3528 said:Not sure, at this point I don't think many need the incentive anymore - they should learn by now it's not going to go well asking for incentives.

how does having no incentive help? i mean isnt that the reason why wvw is bleeding out?

I understand, but everytime many have asked it's always been ignored or shot down. I do want some incentives but this is the great wall of anet we speak to when it comes to these things unfortunately. I truly do like playing WvW, I play mainly to improve my skill on every single class, build, weaponset possible and other niche/gimmick forms of playing but I would certainly not mind other incentives as this is my primary mode and thus is hard for me to keep myself geared and rewarded at the same time, but also some edgy competitiveness for having the upper hand would be nice (but this is also the part I am afraid of for the game mode in general, being rewarded for that). Improvements in reward tracks would be a start though.

@DemonSeed.3528 said:I understand, but everytime many have asked it's always been ignored or shot down. I do want some incentives but this is the great wall of anet we speak to when it comes to these things unfortunately. I truly do like playing WvW, I play mainly to improve my skill on every single class, build, weaponset possible and other niche/gimmick forms of playing but I would certainly not mind other incentives as this is my primary mode and thus is hard for me to keep myself geared and rewarded at the same time, but also some edgy competitiveness for having the upper hand would be nice (but this is also the part I am afraid of for the game mode in general, being rewarded for that). Improvements in reward tracks would be a start though.

staying silent confirms the status quo, so we must continue to make noise =).

what change in rewards would you prefer?

I'm not sure for specifics, but when it comes to rewards we have to think about people who are beginners or casuals (what would be useful for them and not take too long to acquire), and then there are those who have what they need in forms of gear like veteran players and those that have played since beta, I don't know what rewards those kind of people would like/need.

@DemonSeed.3528 said:I'm not sure for specifics, but when it comes to rewards we have to think about people who are beginners or casuals (what would be useful for them and not take too long to acquire), and then there are those who have what they need in forms of gear like veteran players and those that have played since beta, I don't know what rewards those kind of people would like/need.

knowing specifics will help anet focus on what to develop. so i hope players will ask specific things, especially the category you mentioned.

=)

Remove mounts/gliding completely.Remove stealth/invuln/evades if not on dodge/stun or skill locking CC's but keep movement CC's/clone spam/health from being hit.Give each server a map, in a square array, you can either defend your borderland or be an invader in any other servers borderland, scores/tiers have never mattered.After all these years there's still no little tricycle with tassels "travel toy" on gem store to fly kites on in the WvW quaggan marches.

@Sovereign.1093 said:

@"sephiroth.4217" said:for the mount to have 1k health.

so I'd be the more "attacking" option I guess.

The game wasn't balanced around this imbalance for the previous 6 years leading up to it, that is player vs mount. If anything were to Change it would be an entire balance overhaul done across 27 classes.. that's a lot work. I won't propose something like that but I will propose to make a change to something else that will accomplish the same goal.

This would make "attacking" more viable.

now odd part is... this also ties into defending.

while a zerg attacks durious, I can float near blue keep and attack or kill any scouts or players looking to get into the tower to use siege on my zerg which means I am also actively defending.

Im sorry I dont have a strait forward answer like "increase siege damage" but balance is a tricky subject because its like an ecosystem that effects everything including "attacking" and "defending".

Well I used to play more than I do now and the big change for me was the defensive nerfs. So I'd be more incentivized to play if those nerfs were reverted. Note that I DO NOT think anet should actually revert those nerfs bc the game is probably more appealing to more ppl with the nerfs in place. But the nerfs did make the mode less fun for me so yeah, I'd like those switched back . . .

I don't really need a ton more incentives.

The main reason I choose not to play when I could is that it's too easy for a zerg to just roll over everything without effort. I don't mind temporary population imbalance, but when it leads to me becoming about as effective as a dying house fly, why bother showing up? I fight to upgrade stuff, I spend all sorts of resources, then 10 bozos decide to hop maps and wipe everything without ever stopping to breathe. Obviously, I can't expect to hold out against 10 people, but it'd be nice to at least be noticed.

@"Gop.8713" said:Well I used to play more than I do now and the big change for me was the defensive nerfs. So I'd be more incentivized to play if those nerfs were reverted. Note that I DO NOT think anet should actually revert those nerfs bc the game is probably more appealing to more ppl with the nerfs in place. But the nerfs did make the mode less fun for me so yeah, I'd like those switched back . . .

For me I understand this sentiment too - I wouldn't mind [just for me, personally] some things to be changed, but I am willing to overlook those things "for the better of the mode" as it appeals to a certain crowd to keep them in. However there is only so much one can take to overlook, and just like you, I too have ended up playing significantly less, or have found myself less motivated.

@sephiroth.4217 said:

@Sovereign.1093 said:

@sephiroth.4217 said:for the mount to have 1k health.

so I'd be the more "attacking" option I guess.

starting from general going to specific is how things are fixed. i ask things like this to show that if we players can figure it out, they should be able to do it to. and if not, they owe us hehe.

but if we dont know what we want, then it becomes difficult and it also shows why nothing is change.> @Gop.8713 said:

Well I used to play more than I do now and the big change for me was the defensive nerfs. So I'd be more incentivized to play if those nerfs were reverted. Note that I DO NOT think anet should actually revert those nerfs bc the game is probably more appealing to more ppl with the nerfs in place. But the nerfs did make the mode less fun for me so yeah, I'd like those switched back . . .

what defensive nerfs in particular do you want changed back? :) maybe if it could be pinpointed, atleast its out here and can be read.

@Sviel.7493 said:I don't really need a ton more incentives.

The main reason I choose not to play when I could is that it's too easy for a zerg to just roll over everything without effort. I don't mind temporary population imbalance, but when it leads to me becoming about as effective as a dying house fly, why bother showing up? I fight to upgrade stuff, I spend all sorts of resources, then 10 bozos decide to hop maps and wipe everything without ever stopping to breathe. Obviously, I can't expect to hold out against 10 people, but it'd be nice to at least be noticed.

This is also another thing I felt sad about - not worth defending stuff as you'll get wiped by the bigger force most of the time. With the snowball effect, it just gets magnified and demoralises servers that many don't log in when their server is just getting dominated. For those with alt accounts or who like outnumbered won't be affected much, but the general populace always takes a hard hit and return to dormancy.

No incentives or rewards will do anything to help the game if they focused on things like K/d ratios , structures taken and held and the like as all this leads to is people flocking to one server as it easier to earn rewards. You can see that today with the limited rewards offered and everyone transferring to a singular server so they can join the KTRAIN blob and roll up maps.

Rewards and incentives are pointless until population imbalances addressed unless a way can be figured out where these rewards are easier to earn on lower population servers and that it is much more pronounced then that existing.

In essence the biggest incentive to play is trying to make it fun to play and I personally do not find 10 VS 60 as fun.

@Sovereign.1093 said:

what defensive nerfs in particular do you want changed back? :) maybe if it could be pinpointed, atleast its out here and can be read.

Specifically the hp nerf to tiered walls and gates. The ac nerf hurt a lot too, but acs were just ridiculous when used en masse so that one was definitely necessary. I'd rather they went with limiting the number that could be deployed in an area rather than limiting their effectiveness, but w/e . . .

@DemonSeed.3528 said:

@Sviel.7493 said:I don't really need a ton more incentives.

The main reason I choose not to play when I could is that it's too easy for a zerg to just roll over everything without effort. I don't mind temporary population imbalance, but when it leads to me becoming about as effective as a dying house fly, why bother showing up? I fight to upgrade stuff, I spend all sorts of resources, then 10 bozos decide to hop maps and wipe everything without ever stopping to breathe. Obviously, I can't expect to hold out against 10 people, but it'd be nice to at least be noticed.

what would you suggest?

@babazhook.6805 said:No incentives or rewards will do anything to help the game if they focused on things like K/d ratios , structures taken and held and the like as all this leads to is people flocking to one server as it easier to earn rewards. You can see that today with the limited rewards offered and everyone transferring to a singular server so they can join the KTRAIN blob and roll up maps.

Rewards and incentives are pointless until population imbalances addressed unless a way can be figured out where these rewards are easier to earn on lower population servers and that it is much more pronounced then that existing.

In essence the biggest incentive to play is trying to make it fun to play and I personally do not find 10 VS 60 as fun.

how do you propose to balance population?

10v 60. haha that sounds like my guild. we get wiped a lot >.<

i hope my core of 10 go online though. sometimes its only 4 to 5 of us with some non guildmates. and its hard to run with someone not running my build design.

@Sovereign.1093 said:I don't know what I can suggest which won't be drastic hehe. Even putting an artificial map queue/cap for the server outnumbering opponent on that map might be a bad idea. Right now there's a lot of factors that would probably remain the same even with healthy populations. Should they try to get skills or class balance into range first or concentrate on the population disparities? Which issue cuts deeper is the one we should quell first.

@DemonSeed.3528 said:

@Sovereign.1093 said:I don't know what I can suggest which won't be drastic hehe. Even putting an artificial map queue/cap for the server outnumbering opponent on that map might be a bad idea. Right now there's a lot of factors that would probably remain the same even with healthy populations. Should they try to get skills or class balance into range first or concentrate on the population disparities? Which issue cuts deeper is the one we should quell first.

thats worth researching. since sometimes we either have no one to play with or theres to many oponents. :/

so, if i were asked, how to get players playing wvw and continue playing is the most important question.

Removal of tacs, stealth and banners. Basically just reintroduce skill back into WvW.

Balance which will probably never happen so there is no incentive.

@Loosmaster.8263 said:Balance which will probably never happen so there is no incentive.

Balance in a large scale game without ‘structure’ is impossible.

Making it so more professions/type of toons are involved in group play is possible. We’ve seen it before, and most recently until some of the recent balance changes.

Population balance is where we have more probability to come close. And even then....