Jump to content
  • Sign Up

Future Plans: Competitive


Recommended Posts

@"Stephane Lo Presti.7258" said: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.

Mini-Seasons

hi steph, thanks for the update.a thought just occurred to me. what if we had 4 "hot zones" (one for na, eu, ocx, and sea) during the day where warscore is more valuable? these zones would occur during each time zones primetime and last for maybe 2-4 hours (4 is a safe and generous amount, would make sense to start every zone an hour early I think).

stoked for mini seasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 127
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Our current plan is that ONCE the system is ready,ONCE we’ve addressed issues coming from thereUNTIL after swiss tournaments are completeWe DON'T have a timeframe for that change

So what DO you have? This is textbook classical typical A-net lingo. When it comes to 2's AT tournament, since LAST OCTOBER, how many of those happened? None. Oh but don't worry guys a-net said they wanted to do multiple 2's tournaments, has it happened? No. Don't believe a word they say. When the 2's tournament came out tons of people joined, you said you'd use that as a gauge to get an idea of player interest, what more could you possibly need? Splitting the playerbase? Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the overall goal to collectively get more people into Heart of the Mists? Like lets play a hypothetical and say 2's comes out tomorrow and had it's own que. Would people arguably leave conquest to go play 2's in which is easier to form a team, and you don't have to play with randoms? Yes. But the downtime to the game mode would only be temporary. As long as it's done right, has it's own que, and is successful, then then new influx of players would easily be worth conquest taking a hit for a month or two.

You people are so scared to pull the trigger it's insane, you'd rather sit there and make false promises, "actually promises implies you following through on what you say, that couldn't be farther from the truth" while your game decays, slowly. Ok sorry about the rant, back to classic wow.

Countless

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you guys also re-poll cannon blueprints? I think that people would be more likely to accept additional blueprints if placeable cannons were balanced by decreasing their damage or range, or increasing their supply and currency costs. They were close to being added to the game, but people voted no as they were too powerful at the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really would like to see modes in wvw, such as capture the flag, Connect the nodes, domination (wvw already is that) but adding some pvp aspects.Assault mode humans vs cpu; in which objectives had to be met.So like adding dungeon aspects and fractals to it, but with a modern warfare feel to it.Rifles only mode.Alternatively fire weapons only mode.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Tinnel.4369 said:

@"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."

To me it reads as "We're trying to reprogram the core system on which wvw and in fact even the actual core game servers operate from the ground up, as well as establishing an entirely new and untested sort system that works out fairly for the players and it's turning out to be a way bigger undertaking and much more difficult than we first anticipated." Maybe that's my programming background, but that's what I hear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Stephane Lo Presti.7258 said:

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.

Agreed that world restructuring isn't going to address those issues, and it's good to hear you've identified this, even if the pace is slower than we might like.

I don't suppose there's a target season, or even year, for completing the first step?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Stephane Lo Presti.7258" said: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.Not sure what this means. You already had the concept of time-limited seasons / tournaments to provide true competition without burning the ppl out too much.

Besides, I really like the current reward system that rewards just for playing the game.

You could also reward ppl in short terms for winning the current skirmish, just to avoid burn out.

I doubt that you can pull off a good concept where winning the matchups is rewarded. That would imo only lead to more toxicity, bandwaggoning / switching to alt accounts. Alliances will most likely increase the gap between casuals and pro's, so adding rewards for competitive play might not be a good idea in a game mode where match- / team-making is not skill-based.

So maybe have a 1-week-competitive matchup every 4 weeks, where competitive players / alliances are matched together in T1-2 and casuals are matched in T3-5, according to their quality? But that would require a ranking system for players / guilds / alliances, that you don't want to provide (according to a former Anet post on alliances).

You can't just throw "PPT-competitive Alliance A" into the same world with "PPK-competitive Alliance B" and casual Guilds and Randoms, and reward for winning.

So, the new system should not move Worlds "one Tier up / one Tier down" every week, but instead Alliances / Guilds / Randoms, dependent on their contribution over time (and thus create new worlds every week). So, you would have casual play in Tier 3-5 and competitive play in Tier 1-2. True competitive play doesn't require significant rewards for winning. But for that you would have to introduce such a said ranking system.

EDIT: just discovered that this thread is in the PvP section, so I might post this in WvW instead

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of good points raised here by the player base. I have not read them all, but I want to make sure one of my pet points is made: Dev resource for Alliances needs to increase. As striderpj said in the first non-dev post, it is taking far too long for Alliances to be delivered, and so more dev resource needs to be added to the project in order to ensure it is delivered in full and largely without bugs in 2019.

(I am not questioning the committment or skill of those working on Alliances, I am questioning management's decision to under-resource the project.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry but talking about cultural nuances of norns and charrs but not talking about wvw in your announcement was a hint enough. It is already more than 15 months that alliances were discussed. Rewards have always been a problem in wvw yet you introduced asc foods, which can be used in wvw but can be crafted only with pve.

This post is just put here for some damage control after todays disappointment for wvw players. We are stilk sufferring from visual bugs, map bugs and lags yet no one even bothers to fix them.

Ps: As my original post was deleted rightfully, I would like to share my thoughts on this again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Answers in BOLD.

@Stephane Lo Presti.7258 said:Hello everyone!

During our Live Event today, we dropped some hints about our future plans for the competitive game modes. We wanted to go into a bit more detail here. This list is not all-inclusive, but has some of the bigger things that are currently on our list. Please keep in mind, this list is not carved in stone. Many of these plans could be changed dramatically or outright cancelled depending on changing priorities.

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.You need to thing in peole that cant find a Zerg or play with friends... the roaming players. We need to receive rewards too, but not a small reward and not the big one, but a decent reward, because we play, alone, but play.

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.The same answer I gave above, even though it is a multiplayer game, there are still cases that you play alone, I think you should make it possible somehow and have smaller challenges for those who play alone and challenges for those who are in a party / squad.

sPvP

Monthly Tournaments

Getting monthly tournaments back on, is currently our #1 priority for PvP. We’re working on this as fast as we can. (Note: Fixes may already be live by the time this post is up.)

Swiss Tournaments

Swiss tournaments remain our top priority for sPvP. Our current plan is that once the system is ready, we’ll create some special tournaments using the swiss format. Given the complexity of the automated tournament system, there is almost certainly going to be issues that we cannot discover until the system is stressed with real players and teams. Once we’ve addressed issues coming from there, we will convert all automated tournaments to the swiss format.

Special Tournaments

At this point, we’re holding off on the return of special tournament formats (2v2, 3v3, Tournament of Legends), until after swiss tournaments are complete. But now that some other bugs have been resolved, we’re hoping to get these going on a more regularly cadence.

Mini-Seasons

We are currently planning on experimenting with mini-seasons with alternate game modes (2v2, 3v3, etc.) during what would normally be off-season time. The key tech we’re missing for this is currently getting additional rating types, as we currently only have ranked and unranked. We don’t feel it’s appropriate for your 2v2/3v3 rank to have any bearing on your conquest rank. We don’t have a timeframe for that change, however, it’s something we’re very interested in doing. Having conquest seasons not overlap with ranked queue for other game modes alleviates most of the concerns we have for splitting the population base.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah I see this as just a smoke screen of "really really really we plan on doing something in pvp"

while also

"hey look every month there is shiny new items to buy chairs, mounts, armor, gliders, mailers, weapons, gizmos, gadgets, and other worthless junk!". "We even have a brand new giant map with story every few months".

Pvp with small maps and easy fixes must be way harder then building a new map section with story and side quests. Odd, almost like there is a total lack of caring but acting as there is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"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."

so capturing a garrison T3 with a few roaming group that takes walls down quietly while forcing swords in other maps, hiding between walls, waiting a while for teammates to resupply for inner door, then coordinating with a public or private badge to attack objectives simultaneously so the roam group gains some seconds, getting inside, fight in small scale 5vs5 while those five are calling for the zerg to defend, fight the lord at the same time and manage to win and then cap before main zerg arrives....ALL THIS STRATEGY COORDINATED PLAYING should be less rewarding than 50 guys fighting each other inside a keep, with half of each team just pressing button ONE without any knowledge about WvW?

I have seen you playing ANET in streams and I know you have no skills and knowledge about GW2 WvW, but, do you pretend all WvW players to be like you? Why all changes are in the "favor the random" direction? Why you promote mindless zerguing in this game? I imagine you have statistically analized data and these randoms are the ones buying your black lion things but you must know that the quality of play is dramatically decreasing because skilled players are leaving. You must work in two parallel paths, promote newbies and skilled at the same time. Skilled need challenges, they do not want rewards just by pressing ONE with a zerg. Skilled are not looking for rewards, they are looking for challenges and acknowledgement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When will you guys work on the spvp points system? The current system is really outdated compared to other games who have ranked stuff. It seems like it takes a lifetime for you to rank up, since you gotta win a bunch of matches in a row (which is quite hard most of the time because the balance of teams is also broken).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Trigr.6481" said:Our current plan is that ONCE the system is ready,ONCE we’ve addressed issues coming from thereUNTIL after swiss tournaments are completeWe DON'T have a timeframe for that change

So what DO you have? This is textbook classical typical A-net lingo. When it comes to 2's AT tournament, since LAST OCTOBER, how many of those happened? None. Oh but don't worry guys a-net said they wanted to do multiple 2's tournaments, has it happened? No. Don't believe a word they say. When the 2's tournament came out tons of people joined, you said you'd use that as a gauge to get an idea of player interest, what more could you possibly need? Splitting the playerbase? Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the overall goal to collectively get more people into Heart of the Mists? Like lets play a hypothetical and say 2's comes out tomorrow and had it's own que. Would people arguably leave conquest to go play 2's in which is easier to form a team, and you don't have to play with randoms? Yes. But the downtime to the game mode would only be temporary. As long as it's done right, has it's own que, and is successful, then then new influx of players would easily be worth conquest taking a hit for a month or two.

You people are so scared to pull the trigger it's insane, you'd rather sit there and make false promises, "actually promises implies you following through on what you say, that couldn't be farther from the truth" while your game decays, slowly. Ok sorry about the rant, back to classic wow.

Countless

I just want to reinforce this post. Stop worrying about imaginary problems and let players decide what's good for them or not. PvP already a dying mode, giving us more ways to spend our time there won't hurt anyone and if it does, you can just roll back, BUT GIVE A DARN CHANCE TO BEGIN WITH.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Stephane Lo Presti.7258 said:

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.

Can you give any comment on how confident you are in this feature progressing further? You are not comfortable with releasing a target date, but what does that mean?

Do you believe your current theories/algorithms have been successful in making balanced alliances based on however you test/simulate them, and are moving to implement the calculations?

Are you working on prepping the tech needed to move people onto teams with guilds and other considerations?

Are you working on interface? Is there any serious risks for alliances simply not working in balancing the teams?

If your testing/simulation is failing to get good results:

  • Are you confident that you can write logic that succeeds?
  • Are you willing to concede that team balance may not be workable.
  • Have you considered other ways to improve how WvW is played, or is alliances a must succeeded feature with no alternatives?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...