Coverage vs. Coverage — Guild Wars 2 Forums

Coverage vs. Coverage

Dinas Dragonbane.2978Dinas Dragonbane.2978 Member ✭✭✭

A WvW change proposal that can function well with or without their new restructuring

Coverage vs. Coverage
All servers become UNLINKED
MATCHES last 4-ish hours, replacing current SKIRMISH
Each match consists of ONE map, changing at random with each new Matchup

Each Match TIME BRACKET is its OWN glicko or 1up 1 down system, making it so that the servers with the strongest coverage in one time bracket will eventually face each other during that time bracket. Example: Server A has weak coverage in the hours of 12 noon to 4pm, but in this system they won't be fighting servers they struggle against, but will be fighting against other servers(Servers B and C) that also have weak coverage during this time bracket, for a more balanced fight. Same goes for stronger servers fighting other strong servers in that time bracket. Some of these weak servers might have much better coverage in the NEXT time bracket and will fight the stronger servers in that time bracket instead of picking on those weak ones they were evenly matched with.

During big downtimes(like SEA OCX or European) Worlds likely will be linked so that there won't be a ghost town, although only having one map should lower the time it takes to locate fights.

Immediate Pros:
No "night capping"
No T3 structures bristling with defensive siege
Supply always important(no more fully stocked +10 garrisons at nearly all times)
No map swapping to avoid fights or blitzkrieg a structure
Server Population SHOULD theoretically spread out a bit more
Less empty(and sometimes fully upgraded) maps, because there's only one!
One map will also make fights more constant and consistent...you shouldn't have a 40 man zerg show up out of nowhere

Immediate Cons:
Large servers and guilds will suffer queues(nothing new here though)
Players that like to build and defend their entire home borderland likely won't be able to do so

Comments

  • A few side adjustments I also want to add but never finished in a manner I thought was balanced is as follows:

    Players begin each match carrying 5 supply

    Eternal Battlegrounds stays the same, Borderlands Bloodlust gains a timed event which happens at a slightly random interval (every 35 mins to 1 hour but always 5 minutes into the start of each matchup). During the timed event the server which captures the bloodlust will also gain access to a supply drop in the center of the bloodlust objectives(like eotm's supply)
    All structures will regain automatic upgrades, although yaks delivering will still be important to expedite upgrades and supply will be needed in general.

    Righteous Indignation- The server in 1st place will have no RI on anything they capture, 2nd place will have 5 minutes on
    anything they capture, and the 3rd place server will have 10 minutes of RI on anything they capture.

    Points for PPT will likely change to accomodate the fact that there will only be 1 map

    Waypoints-Cannot be used unless you are dead or invulnerable(at spawn) although Emergency Waypoint being the exception

    I have stuff for making rewards interesting as well but I have to sleep tonight so any questions I will try to reply to tomorrow!

  • MUDse.7623MUDse.7623 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited May 6, 2018

    changing the match to 4hr based to balance coverage would help with that problem of yours.
    but why do you want to change all the other stuff? like that it will be just ktrain+bagfarm, upgrading and defending structures will be pointless so you might as well replace them with just a champ ( for that champ bag) and a capture circle.

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

    This idea is totally borked.

    If your only stipulation is that servers get unlinked then how the heck is an entire server supposed to fit on one map?
    Plus it would also make the mode all about coverage and nothing else. Either you go hard into a matchup and upgrade all your objectives, there is zero chance anyone else can win after 2 hours (exponential PPT gains ensures that). Or you just lazily suppress them for 2 hours and then schedule the main raids to roflstomp them the last 2 hours.

    Considering we would also meet new enemy servers every 4h, combat fatigue would set in within a couple of skirmishes and then no one care anymore. WvW would die. The entire charm of WvW is the conflict between the server communities. Not just large scale, but on the small scale too. If I see a guild [cry] that I got ganked by 1v2 and then we ganked them 3v2, I want to know that yes, we could see them again anytime this week, to fight again. Maybe not now, maybe not in 4h, maybe not even today. But the conflict is there for an entire week and all of us know it. 4h is not a matchup. Its a fleeting moment in time no one cares about.

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

  • Trajan.4953Trajan.4953 Member ✭✭✭

    This again

  • @MUDse.7623 said:
    changing the match to 4hr based to balance coverage would help with that problem of yours.
    but why do you want to change all the other stuff? like that it will be just ktrain+bagfarm, upgrading and defending structures will be pointless so you might as well replace them with just a champ ( for that champ bag) and a capture circle.

    The one thing I want more than ever is LESS karma training and bagfarming, as the blobs are too popular in the game mode and small group action is in terrible shape. I had more to elaborate on but I don't have much time to post as that just takes out of my 9-11 hours I get to play wvw a week. I had originally intended this thread to become more of a collaboration of thoughts and ideas but I apparently just confused people, I'm sorry.

  • @Dawdler.8521 said:
    This idea is totally borked.

    If your only stipulation is that servers get unlinked then how the heck is an entire server supposed to fit on one map?
    Plus it would also make the mode all about coverage and nothing else. Either you go hard into a matchup and upgrade all your objectives, there is zero chance anyone else can win after 2 hours (exponential PPT gains ensures that). Or you just lazily suppress them for 2 hours and then schedule the main raids to roflstomp them the last 2 hours.

    Considering we would also meet new enemy servers every 4h, combat fatigue would set in within a couple of skirmishes and then no one care anymore. WvW would die. The entire charm of WvW is the conflict between the server communities. Not just large scale, but on the small scale too. If I see a guild [cry] that I got ganked by 1v2 and then we ganked them 3v2, I want to know that yes, we could see them again anytime this week, to fight again. Maybe not now, maybe not in 4h, maybe not even today. But the conflict is there for an entire week and all of us know it. 4h is not a matchup. Its a fleeting moment in time no one cares about.

    The mode would become ALL about coverage and nothing else....only if a server wanted to be the top spot in every single time bracket, like one server seems to currently do. Ever heard of a server being in a tier they shouldn't be just because they have coverage when the others don't? In this system those hours would not affect what matchup that server gets in OTHER time brackets, just that time bracket(like they could be t2 in that time they have lots of coverage but t6 in regular and prime time hours)
    If matches are every 4 hours, everybody would try to go hard into a matchup, just like reset....right? Is that better than not caring after a day or two into the match? Lazily suppressing wouldn't be wise either as both enemy servers should be present as it is only one map, so good luck lazily suppressing both.

    Your second paragraph is the most intersting in my view. Meeting new enemy servers every 4 hours would cause some to not care anymore, but week long matches doesn't? How many servers actively AVOID T1 because they would NOT care about playing if they got there? The entire charm of WvW was the conflict between server communities, but most all servers nowadays seem to be a few pug commanders with a sizable militia and 3-4 fight guilds that run for a few hours, a shadow of what servers used to encompass. My view has changed over the years from being able to play 60 hours a week to the meager amount I play now, mostly focusing on roaming, mid size, and small group fights. My server also is a Link server, so going from place to place for 2 months at a time doesn't show off much if any of any real character of a server's community. All these things are on the negative end of the wvw spectrum so my viewpoint is a bit different than the norm, but most everybody here wants the same thing, WvW to be fun, invigorating, and interesting to everybody involved.

    Nobody seems to be interested in my idea though which is not surprising on this forum so I'm not gonna bother describing any more, thanks for the few that read it for your time!

  • joneirikb.7506joneirikb.7506 Member ✭✭✭✭

    I talked about something similar once, but ended up finding too many problems. Another thing to consider is that every 4 hours when going from one server to another, you'd basically be throws out of wvw for the equal to reset/linking, and this can take quite a few minutes. So this would break up every 4 hours, throw everyone out of wvw, etc.

    My original idea was to designate 3 servers as off-time coverage and for some way try to get/encourage etc the off-hours crew to gather up on those servers. And then essentially link them with every other server in a single matchup at night time. Essentially cut down from 4 to 1 tier out of prime time. But way too many technical problems with that idea.

    The more I think about it, the more I end up with just thinking "It's just an inherent problem with WvW's 24/7 system." Starting to doubt there is any way to actually "fix" coverage without removing the 24/7 part of the game mode.

    Elrik Noj (Norn Guardian, Kaineng [SIN][Owls])
    "Understanding is a three edged sword: your side, their side, and the truth." - J. Michael Straczynski
    "GW2 is a MSOFGG: Mass Singleplayer Online Fashion Grinding Game" -me

  • Rampage.7145Rampage.7145 Member ✭✭✭
    edited May 7, 2018

    I think 4 hours matches would be much more fun than whatver WvW is right now with dead zones tbh, this is the real solution to WvW in my opinion, alliances might help a bit but to be honest there is no way in hell arenanet can balance the population arround 24h coverage, specially not since the game population is divided between NA and EU, for example NA alliances will not include EU and asian guilds that play on EU servers, so it will still be a wasteland during those hours and lacked up during NA, same problem in EU since they lack people during NA timezones aswell, and arenanet cannot shrink the number of servers/matchups to a point where ques during primetime will be out of control.
    The real solution to WvW is to divide the game in timezones so the number of available maps can dynamically increase or decrease according to the population playing, this is the only way we can save the game mode tbh.
    EoTM had the right idea, u just implemented it terribly, 1st is a terrible map wiht a lot of gimmicks and WvW players hate that kitten 2nd the colors are based on WvW matchups and not on strength of the forces fighting, so you get all the good servers on the green color for example, big mistake, 3rd there arnt any auto anti snowball mechanic in place to prevent the score from snowballing too early into the matchup, for example, if green is killing everything, red and blue colors could pop cap could increase to counterweight the stronger force, just like on PVE maps a pop up could show up for players on different instances to go to the map where green is wrecking everybody and give the players who make the switch increased rewards etc for going there.

    VR Driver
    Salty beavers top guild 2 years in a row back to back, the double champs
    https://saltybeavers.com/

  • Mokk.2397Mokk.2397 Member ✭✭✭

    What needs to happen is the benefits to over populating servers needs to change .People will congregate to to high populated servers because of a guaranteed reward.The battle mechanics need to change so that oversized groups receive no reward for overpowering very small groups.I explained this farther here https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/comment/507673/#Comment_507673
    This would spread out the population ,create smaller groups ,eliminate gank squads ,significantly reduce "Bag farming",and Guilds would move to servers that would be more rewarding for their time zone .

  • hunkamania.7561hunkamania.7561 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Mokk.2397 said:
    What needs to happen is the benefits to over populating servers needs to change .People will congregate to to high populated servers because of a guaranteed reward.The battle mechanics need to change so that oversized groups receive no reward for overpowering very small groups.I explained this farther here https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/comment/507673/#Comment_507673
    This would spread out the population ,create smaller groups ,eliminate gank squads ,significantly reduce "Bag farming",and Guilds would move to servers that would be more rewarding for their time zone .

    No.

    Big battles are part of the game. The problem is one server has a blob and other servers have nothing. That's a balance issue.

    Ferguson's Crossing Server Leader

    WVW LEADER

    VR

  • Mokk.2397Mokk.2397 Member ✭✭✭

    Y> @hunkamania.7561 said:

    @Mokk.2397 said:
    What needs to happen is the benefits to over populating servers needs to change .People will congregate to to high populated servers because of a guaranteed reward.The battle mechanics need to change so that oversized groups receive no reward for overpowering very small groups.I explained this farther here https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/comment/507673/#Comment_507673
    This would spread out the population ,create smaller groups ,eliminate gank squads ,significantly reduce "Bag farming",and Guilds would move to servers that would be more rewarding for their time zone .

    No.

    Big battles are part of the game. The problem is one server has a blob and other servers have nothing. That's a balance issue.

    You obviously didn't read the link so I'll post the comment here

    A lot of the problem is't all skill balancing.Although a lot needs to be done when you consider the current meta but that can be discussed some where else for now. .The problem is when a large group encounters a very small group the rewards are the same as a balanced fight .This includes kill points or PPk .As long as the defeated player gets hit a reward is given to whom ever hit that person.So all anyone has to do is tap as many people they can and a reward is given for each tap .Very rarely will a blob (zerg) seek a fair, evenly matched fight.Large groups will intentionally avoid other large groups and pursue the small easier groups for easy rewards . No one can say this doesn't happen with a straight face . What needs to happen is serious diminished returns for unbalanced fights .This can be calculated by "ratio in proximity" .The AI already knows where everyone is on the map so the numbers of opposing players in a given area would be easy to calculate . The actual area may be different but I'll use 3000 as an idea.Since the concentrated battle might occur with in a 3000 diameter battle area or target-able area the ratio of opposing players would determine the rewards . If the ratio is 1:1 that would give the best returns .If the ratio goes to 2:1 then the rewards are less 3:1 or 4:1 then no rewards are given. Gankers would receive lesser or no reward if the ratio goes to high.No more 5:1 gank squads .Large blobs would get lesser or no rewards if they fight groups that are very small.This would virtually eliminate large blobs farming smaller groups for bags .This would break up blobs into smaller groups and promote a higher skill level as opposed to a higher population level. PPk can be adjusted accordingly to ratio as well .A group of 20 defeats a group of five they would receive no PPK because the ratio is 4:1. The smaller group gets point for point on the kills it makes .Theirs no honor in mismatched fights so make it a part of the mechanics.

    This proposal wouldn't effect large battles provided that they are balanced .Over populated servers would disperse because there would be no benefit overpowering servers with smaller groups .

  • SkyShroud.2865SkyShroud.2865 Member ✭✭✭✭

    Most guilds don't run everyday.

    Founder & Retired Leader of Equinox Solstice [TIME], a Singapore-Based International PvX Guild
    Henge of Denravi
    https://discord.gg/P5dj7fd

  • hunkamania.7561hunkamania.7561 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @Mokk.2397 said:
    Y> @hunkamania.7561 said:

    @Mokk.2397 said:
    What needs to happen is the benefits to over populating servers needs to change .People will congregate to to high populated servers because of a guaranteed reward.The battle mechanics need to change so that oversized groups receive no reward for overpowering very small groups.I explained this farther here https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/comment/507673/#Comment_507673
    This would spread out the population ,create smaller groups ,eliminate gank squads ,significantly reduce "Bag farming",and Guilds would move to servers that would be more rewarding for their time zone .

    No.

    Big battles are part of the game. The problem is one server has a blob and other servers have nothing. That's a balance issue.

    You obviously didn't read the link so I'll post the comment here

    A lot of the problem is't all skill balancing.Although a lot needs to be done when you consider the current meta but that can be discussed some where else for now. .The problem is when a large group encounters a very small group the rewards are the same as a balanced fight .This includes kill points or PPk .As long as the defeated player gets hit a reward is given to whom ever hit that person.So all anyone has to do is tap as many people they can and a reward is given for each tap .Very rarely will a blob (zerg) seek a fair, evenly matched fight.Large groups will intentionally avoid other large groups and pursue the small easier groups for easy rewards . No one can say this doesn't happen with a straight face . What needs to happen is serious diminished returns for unbalanced fights .This can be calculated by "ratio in proximity" .The AI already knows where everyone is on the map so the numbers of opposing players in a given area would be easy to calculate . The actual area may be different but I'll use 3000 as an idea.Since the concentrated battle might occur with in a 3000 diameter battle area or target-able area the ratio of opposing players would determine the rewards . If the ratio is 1:1 that would give the best returns .If the ratio goes to 2:1 then the rewards are less 3:1 or 4:1 then no rewards are given. Gankers would receive lesser or no reward if the ratio goes to high.No more 5:1 gank squads .Large blobs would get lesser or no rewards if they fight groups that are very small.This would virtually eliminate large blobs farming smaller groups for bags .This would break up blobs into smaller groups and promote a higher skill level as opposed to a higher population level. PPk can be adjusted accordingly to ratio as well .A group of 20 defeats a group of five they would receive no PPK because the ratio is 4:1. The smaller group gets point for point on the kills it makes .Theirs no honor in mismatched fights so make it a part of the mechanics.

    This proposal wouldn't effect large battles provided that they are balanced .Over populated servers would disperse because there would be no benefit overpowering servers with smaller groups .

    Ya, I read it and it seems like a lot of work for nothing. SOME PEOPLE LIKE TO FIGHT OUTNUMBERED! Hell, you don't even get that many rewards for blobbing guys down most those blobbers are terrible and need all the help they can get. Taking their rewards away means even less players getting involved with WVW in a already REWARD deprived gamemode. i like fighting big blobs just gimme a solid team to play with and i'm good. That's the bigger problem tho, a lot of times you either have a big blob with nothing to fight or the other servers have blobs and you have nothing. The games balance is the core issue. Lack of rewards and purpose to the gamemode are another terrible thing that needs fixing.

    Ferguson's Crossing Server Leader

    WVW LEADER

    VR

  • Crius.5487Crius.5487 Member ✭✭✭

    The issue of population balance has been a thing ever since launch and this is what the world restructuring aims to resolve. The population of the game is also not what it use to be. IMHO a better topic would be how to attract new players to the game mode or bring back veteran players to the game.

©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.