Jump to content
  • Sign Up

Weekly Ranked Rewards


TheGrimm.5624

Recommended Posts

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 alreadyNo, would like the focus to be elsewhere.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 69
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

@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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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 ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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?

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...