Weekly Ranked Rewards

[lare.5129]

@Baldrick.8967 said:So instead of 4 players on a map there would be 3 or 2?why not?

[TheGrimm.5624]

@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.

[TheGrimm.5624]

@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.

[TheGrimm.5624]

@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.

[TheGrimm.5624]

@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.

[TheGrimm.5624]

@"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.

[TheGrimm.5624]

@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.

[TheGrimm.5624]

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.

[monk seal.8079]

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.8713]

@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.4731]

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

[Ben K.6238]

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.4731]

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

[TwilightSoul.9048]

I was gonna make a similar thread so thanks for saving me the effort :DSo 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).

[Syrus.2174]

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...

[starhunter.6015]

Out manned servers, and defenders should be rewarded more.

[X T D.6458]

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.

[Strider Pj.2193]

@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? )

[lare.5129]

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.7205]

@"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.4731]

@"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.

[Offair.2563]

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

[Gop.8713]

@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.5624]

@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.

[TheGrimm.5624]

@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.

:)