Jump to content
  • Sign Up

Alliance Design That Stops The QQ


Swagger.1459

Recommended Posts

THE GOALS OF THESE SUGGESTIONS:

  • To fix the same complaints we have seen for 6 years over and over and over and over...
  • To keep the progress made with World Restructing systems and use it for balancing Factions.
  • To eliminate stacking by removing the transfer system entirely.
  • To pool ALL players into one big playground and create an epic 3 sided Alliance war.
  • To encourage ALL types of players to get involved.
  • To cater to ALL different play styles.
  • To provide a place where ALL players can contribute to their side in many ways despite possible queues.
  • To make “scoring” more about personal and guild rewards instead, and placement means reward PACE.
  • To make WvW into a “living” WvW experience that receives closer to equal amounts of attention from the developers.
  • To make a space that both developers and players CARE MORE about.

Imagine a Alliance WvW MIST WAR like this…

WHAT ALLIANCES WOULD LOOK LIKE:

  • 3 Alliance Factions made up of ALL players pooled together fighting against each other. OBVIOUSLY NA and EU are NOT connected.
  • Alliances, guilds and individual players are reshuffled every 2 months to create 3 new Factions
  • Faction Names change every 2 months.

THE 1st ALLIANCE UPDATE WOULD INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING:

MAPS MADE FOR "BLOBS", WITH A 100 PLAYER MAP CAP PER SIDEThese maps are the “No PvE” zones that remain conducive to quality open space and structure capture mass pvp.

  • 1 Eternal Battlegrounds with SM CASTLE.
  • 1 Alpine Borderland.
  • 1 Desert Borderland.
  • 1 NEW Arctic Borderland.
  • 1 Edge of the Mists.

PLUS... (These would be the EotM factions inspired borderland maps.)

  • 1 NEW Badlands Borderland with a castle.
  • 1 NEW Frostreach Borderland with a castle.
  • 1 NEW Overgrowth Borderland with a castle.

(SO 8 MAPS WITH 4 CASTLES FOR "BLOBS" TO FIGHT OVER)

MAPS MADE SPECIFICALLY FOR SMALL GUILDS, SMALL TEAMS AND SOLO ROAMERS WITH A 50 PLAYER MAP CAP PER SIDE

  • 6 Guild Wars inspired PvP/PvE Maps http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/The_Mists
  • Let’s call these “Hot Zones” (for this discussion) that draw elements from GW lore.
  • Players fight against each other and NPCs here.
  • These maps have *MOSTLY OPEN AREA CAPTURE POINTS, EVENTS AND META EVENTS as well.
  • WvW wide alerts can be given to indicate a meta event will occur on a map.

(SO 6 MAPS MADE MOSTLY FOR SMALL OPS AND SOLO ROAMERS WITH A MAP CAP OF 50 PLAYERS PER SIDE)


THE 2nd ALLIANCE UPDATE (RELEASED AT A LATER DATE) WOULD INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING:

"SAFE SPACE" HOMELAND PVE MAPS WHERE NEW PLAYERS CAN LEARN THE BASICS OF WVW PLAY AND CONTRIBUTE TO THE MIST WAR

  • I’d like to take NPCs and Factions from EotM and WvW and expand on them. Let’s give them a purpose for their existence in the Mists, an open world story for players to go through and a compelling reason for players to be fighting the Mist War with them.
  • Homeland maps would be the entry zones for WvW depending on the Faction side you are on. From here you can portal to other maps. These homeland maps do not have to be just 1 map for each side, multiple smaller maps could be used as well or added later.
  • Enemy players cannot enter opposing sides PvE homelands.
  • These maps are treated and played like any Tyria PvE maps, but tailored to teach players about wvw and help contribute to "war score".
  • Players are not forced into other types of WvW maps, they are only encouraged by rewards.

GENERAL STUFF FOR ALL MAPS

  • Would be cool to have some underground maps and areas utilized more in the Mists. Homeland and "Hot Zones" would be great for this.
  • Add tunnel systems, like in EotM, to various maps for strategic use and map travel.
  • It would be great to have a cohesive story and fixed groups of npcs for each faction across all maps.
  • Outnumbered "Blob" maps gets a bit of extra help from their homeland faction NPCs. Have an additional Champion, with tough minions, spawn to help protect friendly structures against enemies. Only structures, not supply camps

NO MAP COPIES EXCEPT FOR HOMELAND PVE MAPS

  • Ideally I’m looking to create 1 Mist “world” for this "war", but feel the PvE maps would need to use the map copy function like we have in PvE.

MAP TOTALS RECAP

  • 8 PvP maps (EB, AB, DB, Arctic B, EotM, BB, FB, OB) with 4 castles in total (EB, BB, FB, OB). Total fixed max capacity across these 8 maps would be 2,400 players.
  • 6 PvP/PvE Hot Zone meta event maps. Total fixed max capacity across these 6 maps would be 900 players.
  • 3 Homeland PvE maps, with a few extra area maps for learning about wvw and contributing to your Faction.

(So a total of 3,300 players can be participating in wvw, at any given time, across 14 maps. While pure PvE style maps allow for tons of players due to the map copy function)

SCORING AND REWARDSI’m going to try to bring up a basic outline of scoring and rewards. I feel the ideal "scoring system" would have more of an emphasis on reward pace, NOT just about 1st, 2nd and 3rd place rewards. To do this, I’d like to see a tiered reward vendor system (similar to Dry Top) based off of “war score”. Tiers would either scale up in quality for purchasable goods and rewards, or lower in cost for purchasable goods and rewards. Badges of Honor and gold are used as currency to purchase items.

  • ALL maps contribute to the Mist War score total for each side. Yes ALL. The purpose behind this is to have ALL players contribute to the war effort in the way THEY feel comfortable.
  • Personal reward tracks and Pip/Ticket stuff all remain in place.
  • Loot as normal from player kills, npc kills, events and capturing objectives.
  • ALL maps have unique crafting materials to gather, and these materials are only found in the Mists. These can be used for components in any new crafted items introduced to the game so they become part of the global economy.
  • HIDE SCORING FROM PLAYERS, and only use it as an internal Dev stats tool every 2 months when Alliances and players are reshuffled.
  • GET RID of 2 hour Skirmish stuff.
  • Faction mix and match rotations done every 2 months.
  • NO TOURNAMENTS.
  • Continue with WvW "special event weeks"
  • Outnumbered Buffs are still in place on maps
  • REMOVE THE SERVER TRANSFER SYSTEM because you will not need it for this design.

CASTLE DESIGNS

  • I feel it would be a great change to have multiple capture points to castles. This would require some changes to EB, but feel it’s worth it.
  • I’d like to see more reasons to take and hold castles. Perhaps gaining access to a unique vendor with unique personal and guild goods.
  • Increased Magic Find, WXP, BoH drops and PiPs while holding a castle. Stacking reward bonuses for each castle in possession of your Faction... Stuff that doesn’t give an advantage during combat.

THESE IDEAS WOULD BE BETTER FOR THE LONG RUN...It would be smoother for the long run to balance 3 sides total instead of multiple different match ups. I think the 1 “world to fight over', with 3 sided designs concept, would provide more population stability overall, and better coverage, for everyone. Shifting players and guilds every couple months keeps things "fresher'. Removing the "score" for player eyes, and focusing on personal and guild rewards, changes the emphasis from a "numbers" war to more of a "mist war".

I HAVE SOME EDITS COMING...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FACTION CONCEPT EXAMPLES USING GW LORE

GREEN FACTION

Why Balthazar on green?

RED FACTION

“Abaddon, with the help of Dhuum and Menzies, was almost successful, but was stopped by the Order of the Sunspears and the Order of Whispers, who entered the Realm of Torment to defeat him. In his final moments, Abaddon’s power threatened to run out of control and destroy Tyria, but it was absorbed by Spearmarshal Kormir, who became the Goddess of Truth using a power that had been granted to her by the Five Gods.”

BLUE FACTION

WHY ARE THE FACTIONS FIGHTING?I’m still figuring out a good tie-in for these factions to be at war. I was thinking perhaps going with like a “Battle of Champions” type thing, but with the bad NPCs thrown into the mix....

Maybe the Factions are trying to win control over the…

http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Scepter_of_Orr OR http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Staff_of_the_Mists

To control… http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Titan and http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Demon for extra NPC support for their Faction.

...IDK, just tossing out some story line ideas that add more substance surrounding the "Mist War".

Thanks for reading!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the gist of what you are trying to describe but remain sceptical about most of the approaches you suggest. I understand that describing approaches in such a broad outline is nigh impossible. However let me poke at some of the things so you can consider them.

A ) The singular RvR idea (as in one WvWvW) with a map carousel is good. Concept-wise that is what can be salvaged from EotM. However, you have not adressed how those maps will be populated and score will be attributed beyond saying that they will all do so and that outnumbered effects will still be in place. There have been plenty of similar suggestions on these forums that have adressed those points and come further in their proposals. That leaves room for improvement, especially as this may be the core aspect (or at least the strong suit) of your overall idea.

B ) You mention maps conducive to quality open space content but then go on to mention EotM, DBL and underground areas which are generally not conducive to that specific thing. It is also to a large degree why those maps are impopular. While some players always come to claim how much they enjoy them I have a strong feeling that they only do so because they are not populated by enough players to exploit the issues built onto those maps. The issues players have had with those maps have always been exactly that, they are not conducive to open gameplay and delve down into boring exploits such as cliff/bridge pull-wars or choke-wars that lead to pirateship standoffs. I'm not saying you can't have versions of those maps or have an underground theme akin to HoT maps just keep in mind that your target point was maps that are conducive to WvW gameplay and those examples are not (regardless of scale).

C ) The scoring system you propose is both not fleshed out to the point where it is understandable and also seems to be void of any competetive aspect. It sounds more like a system where everyone get access to stuff at the end of a stretch with no outline to how, what or the effects of contribution. If a server is capable of keeping another server out of access to their shinies then scoring balance is still extremely important (and 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or winners and losers, are still a thing). Granted, that is still more appealing than "everyone is a winner" or "everyone is a winner unless you self-implode" approaches seen in PvE event maps because it would still reflect PvP where you can impact your opposition. Again, I'm not saying a tiered system is bad, it can be really good. However, you are vague about the competetive aspects of it and thus the need for balance of it.

D ) The things you call Hotzones are already either here or are being worked on. There is the PvP Stronghold mode for your PvE/PvP/Moba/GW1 niche it's just that no one seems to play it. I don't see why it has to be salvaged into WvW and there seems to be little to no demand for it. It was also mentioned during the new TDM/Arena 2v2 maps stream that Anet were working on larger such maps at least as custom arenas (up towards 10v10, but hopefully with the presence of mind to build in support for even larger groups if they spend time and resources on code for it now - it would be hilariously Anet-like to spend time coding a system that breaks the 5v5 limitations without realizing that such an environment would be better for Obsidian Sanctum-like content as well or that they would choose not to build that possibility into the system for personal reasons rather than player demand or possibility only to spend years trying to re-fix it later :3 ). Anyway, the map variety you propose seem a little superfluous even if the idea of having a map carousel and perhaps more a lobby with training areas for new players (as opposed to calling it a PvE map) are both solid.

If you trim the fat and flesh out the vague (thus flush out the vague) off your suggestions then is basically boils down to what alot of other players have suggested in lieu of the alliance system even since before the alliance system design was revealed: Megaserver (EotM, overflow), no queues, map carousel with more maps (conducive to open spaces), lobby, population/score balance on maps/outnumbered, additional rewards once scoring is balanced, TDM-type maps on the side (and of course class/mechanics balance with attention to WvW/sPvP needs). That is not a bad thing, it is a good thing. Having good ideas with aspects that derive/improve upon design is better than having unique ideas :) .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Dawdler.8521" said:Oh it's a great suggestion...

... for GW3 since all that would easily take 3+ years to make.

For GW2, it's not viable.

I disagree!

The beauty of the line of ideas that this thread also stems from is that it draws upon existing tech and moving parts that are already in the game.

  • Lobby, exists for PvP
  • Megaserver, exists for EotM/PvE/PvP
  • Overflows/no queue/per-squad, exists for PvE
  • Maps, Anet has hopefully learnt alot about them going into PoF as they keep claiming that themselves (and from WvW-mistakes)
  • Anet obviously have the resources to make beautiful maps and they could churn out 20 variations of EB's core design and we'd be happy
  • More sPvP modes and interactivity between WvW and sPvP is being done with TDM maps
  • Better interactivity between WvW and sPvP is being done with "the competetive team" (includes the balance team for skill splits etc.)
  • Scoring, outnumbered effects already tracks active numbers on maps which is the superior way to adress 24h pop imbalances and score
  • Once those pop balances are solved a venue for new rewards opens up (whether it is tiered and based on success/stretch goals or not)

All of that exists in GW2.

That is literally everything we need. If they want to do alliances for the three megaworlds, fine, but that is the least important aspect of it albeit fundamental. It is important in itself to balance the worlds but everything else balances the gameplay to make the worlds less of an issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"subversiontwo.7501" said:I like the gist of what you are trying to describe but remain sceptical about most of the approaches you suggest. I understand that describing approaches in such a broad outline is nigh impossible. However let me poke at some of the things so you can consider them.

A ) The singular RvR idea (as in one WvWvW) with a map carousel is good. Concept-wise that is what can be salvaged from EotM. However, you have not adressed how those maps will be populated and score will be attributed beyond saying that they will all do so and that outnumbered effects will still be in place. There have been plenty of similar suggestions on these forums that have adressed those points and come further in their proposals. That leaves room for improvement, especially as this may be the core aspect (or at least the strong suit) of your overall idea.

ALL NA players are pooled into 1 NA Mist World and divided out by 3. Same for EU. NA and EU remain separate. Alliances are still used so the devs can have more control over the numbers being divide out.

B ) You mention maps conducive to quality open space content but then go on to mention EotM, DBL and underground areas which are generally not conducive to that specific thing. It is also to a large degree why those maps are impopular. While some players always come to claim how much they enjoy them I have a strong feeling that they only do so because they are not populated by enough players to exploit the issues built onto those maps. The issues players have had with those maps have always been exactly that, they are not conducive to open gameplay and delve down into boring exploits such as cliff/bridge pull-wars or choke-wars that lead to pirateship standoffs. I'm not saying you can't have versions of those maps or have an underground theme akin to HoT maps just keep in mind that your target point was maps that are conducive to WvW gameplay and those examples are not (regardless of scale).

Maps design preference differs from person to person, and maps can be worked on for improvements based off of community feedback

C ) The scoring system you propose is both not fleshed out to the point where it is understandable and also seems to be void of any competetive aspect. It sounds more like a system where everyone get access to stuff at the end of a stretch with no outline to how, what or the effects of contribution. If a server is capable of keeping another server out of access to their shinies then scoring balance is still extremely important (and 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or winners and losers, are still a thing). Granted, that is still more appealing than "everyone is a winner" or "everyone is a winner unless you self-implode" approaches seen in PvE event maps because it would still reflect PvP where you can impact your opposition. Again, I'm not saying a tiered system is bad, it can be really good. However, you are vague about the competetive aspects of it and thus the need for balance of it.

We have a great scoring system already in place to use for this. Nothing really changes that here. The exception is that score totals are hidden from players and only used by the devs to remake, and rebalance, Factions every 2 months. Players can still look on the maps to see who own what, and get an idea of who is ahead at the time. New reward vendors scale off of reward tiers similar to what happens in Dry Top. Personal and guild rewards are mostly based off of personal contribution, nothing to do with score

D ) The things you call Hotzones are already either here or are being worked on. There is the PvP Stronghold mode for your PvE/PvP/Moba/GW1 niche it's just that no one seems to play it. I don't see why it has to be salvaged into WvW and there seems to be little to no demand for it. It was also mentioned during the new TDM/Arena 2v2 maps stream that Anet were working on larger such maps at least as custom arenas (up towards 10v10, but hopefully with the presence of mind to build in support for even larger groups if they spend time and resources on code for it now - it would be hilariously Anet-like to spend time coding a system that breaks the 5v5 limitations without realizing that such an environment would be better for Obsidian Sanctum-like content as well or that they would choose not to build that possibility into the system for personal reasons rather than player demand only to spend years trying to re-fix it later :3 ). Anyway, the map variety you propose seem a little superfluous even if the idea of having a map carousel and perhaps more a lobby with training areas for new players (as opposed to calling it a PvE map) are both solid.

The "hot zones" would be tailored for smaller groups, and solo players, to be able to contribute away from the "blobs"... "Blob" QQ is common for smaller groups and roamers, and mostly flipping camps isn't really exciting. Think of these maps like any game that is designed for PvPvE, and similar to if Anet designated 6 maps in Tyria into PvPvE zones.

If you trim the fat and flesh out the vague (thus flush out the vague) off your suggestions then is basically boils down to what alot of other players have suggested in lieu of the alliance system even since before the alliance system design was revealed: Megaserver (EotM, overflow), no queues, map carousel with more maps (conducive to open spaces), population/score balance on maps/outnumbered, additional rewards once scoring is balanced, TDM-type maps on the side (and of course class/mechanics balance with attention to WvW/sPvP needs). That is not a bad thing, it is a good thing. Having good ideas with aspects that derive/improve upon design is better than having unique ideas :) .

The only maps that would have copies would be the PvE homeland maps. NONE of the other maps would be copied for player to play on, not even EotM. ALL maps are in play at the SAME time, and again, only the PvE homeland maps would have overflow maps. Map capacity for each blob PvP map would be 300 total. Map capacity for the hot zone PvP/PvE maps would be 150 total. PvE maps get the copies so idk what the map caps would be, depends on what size and how many.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would like some kind of NPC boss summon like we had in old AV in Vanilla WoW and I liked how NPC were much stronger compared to players in Vanilla then after the first expansion released the npc were nerfed to be weak and they lost their appeal and threat after that. I would like hard hitting npc like that in WvW that can turn the tides of battle. Casual players can be contribute to the team by running whatever quest/heart objective is necessary to summon the NPC units. The game has a similar concept but the NPC are super weak and easily passed on because they serve no impact on the battles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Swagger.1459" said:Maps design preference differs from person to person, and maps can be worked on for improvements based off of community feedbackNo, we don't need to argue about people having different preferences or iterative work being good work. Isn't really points for argumentation, it is beside the point.

I argued that people who enjoy the current (or initial) iterations of EotM and DBL only do so because they are not subjected to the cancerous state of those maps being properly populated. Much like you, I enjoy all aspects of WvW so I both blob and roam (and everything inbetween). There is no difference if I roam with two friends or am in a squad how those maps are not conducive to fun open fights, catching up with friends or taking objectives. When those maps are fun that is not down to map but rather to the target-environment present on them - eg., the blobs not being there and smaller less organized groups or other roamers being there. When they are not, the map is not better and when they are on other maps those maps are at least equally good.

I remember the obstacle fences initially on DBL and I've claimed oversized cliff-perched objectives on DBL as a roamer the other day. I've pulled my fair share of new players from bridges when EotM was new or tried to get to a GvG spot through automatic cannon fire on it more recently. None of it is good design. That people decide not to exploit those maps now or that they are not populated enough to spread those exploits does not take from the point that they can be exploited and will drive people off them (and indirectly out of the mode) again. It isn't iteration either, they are built around those design flaws.

*We have a great scoring system already in place to use for this. Nothing really changes that here. The exception is that score totals are hidden from players and only used by the devs to remake, and rebalance, Factions every 2 months.No, we have a terrible scoring system that makes off-timezone gem-transfers more valuable than primetime players and splits the community into PPT- and Fight extremes at most other times of the week than evening-to-midnight reset-night (friday 19:00-24:00). It is literally only reset night that behaves as WvW was intended and first did most days of the week during prime time. There is no higher tiered "PPT server" that is not a night-capping server (predominantly so, often to the point of being incapable of creating good primetime content, so they create imbalance at all hours). Reset nights you rarely hear people talk about PPT vs. Fight because everybody both fights and fight over objectives.

That said content is not reproduced every day is entirely down to what is broken in the scoring system. People still have preferences sure, but reset night proves that they are not to such extremes as being distinctly separate server cultures when maps are roughly population-balanced. I'd like to think most players like fighting and fighting over objectives or caring about score when that is feasible and designed responsibly. Now it isn't and forms behaviour.

The "hot zones" would be tailored for smaller groups, and solo players, to be able to contribute away from the "blobs"... "Blob" QQ is common for smaller groups and roamers, and mostly flipping camps isn't really exciting. Think of these maps like any game that is designed for PvPvE, and similar to if Anet designated 6 maps in Tyria into PvPvE zones.

I never see any notable roamers complain about blobs. I see blobs being complained about when it comes to class and mechanics design. I see blobs being complained about by inexperienced players. That is more down to no one being around to teach them or set them straight though. That you can only flip camps as a roamer is a gross understatement even if it may be the first thing you suggest to an inexperienced player who asks what they can do. Experienced roamers can take any objective, act as scouts, defend/stall objectives, re/back-cap objectives, havoc-cap objectives, havoc-party around commanders, zergbust the few medium-sized groups that still exist and go into sPvP for other forms of TDM-, CTF- or lord-smashing content. That is besides fighting other roamers or fighting other roamers over objectives (or duel) which presumtively is their main content.

The only maps that would have copies would be the PvE homeland maps. NONE of the other maps would be copied for player to play on, not even EotM. ALL maps are in play at the SAME time, and again, only the PvE homeland maps would have overflow maps. Map capacity for each blob PvP map would be 300 total. Map capacity for the hot zone PvP/PvE maps would be 150 total. PvE maps get the copies so idk what the map caps would be, depends on what size and how many.This is you trying to be unique rather than good. There is no motivation to why it should work like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@subversiontwo.7501 said:

@"Swagger.1459" said:
Maps design preference differs from person to person, and maps can be worked on for improvements based off of community feedback
No, we don't need to argue about people having different preferences or iterative work being good work. Isn't really points for argumentation, it is beside the point.

I argued that people who enjoy the current (or initial) iterations of EotM and DBL only do so because they are not subjected to the cancerous state of those maps being properly populated. Much like you, I enjoy all aspects of WvW so I both blob and roam (and everything inbetween). There is no difference if I roam with two friends or am in a squad how those maps are not conducive to fun open fights, catching up with friends or taking objectives. When those maps are fun that is not down to map but rather to the target-environment present on them - eg., the blobs not being there and smaller less organized groups or other roamers being there. When they are not, the map is not better and when they are on other maps those maps are at least equally good.

I remember the obstacle fences initially on DBL and I've claimed oversized cliff-perched objectives on DBL as a roamer the other day. I've pulled my fair share of new players from bridges when EotM was new or tried to get to a GvG spot through automatic cannon fire on it more recently. None of it is good design. That people decide not to exploit those maps now or that they are not populated enough to spread those exploits does not take from the point that they can be exploited and will drive people off them (and indirectly out of the mode) again.

*We have a great scoring system already in place to use for this. Nothing really changes that here. The exception is that score totals are hidden from players and only used by the devs to remake, and rebalance, Factions every 2 months.No, we have a terrible scoring system that makes off-timezone gem-transfers more valuable than primetime players and splits the community into PPT- and Fight extremes at most other times of the week than evening-to-midnight reset-night (friday 19:00-24:00). It is literally
only
reset night that behaves as WvW was intended and first did most days of the week during prime time. There is no higher tiered "PPT server" that is not a night-capping server (predominantly so, often to the point of being incapable of creating good primetime content, so they create imbalance at all hours). Reset nights you rarely hear people talk about PPT vs. Fight because everybody both fights and fight over objectives.

That said content is not reproduced every day is entirely down to what is broken in the scoring system. People still have preferences sure, but reset night proves that they are not to such extremes as being distinctly separate server cultures when maps are roughly population-balanced. I'd like to think most players like fighting and fighting over objectives or caring about score when that is feasible and designed responsibly. Now it isn't and forms behaviour.

The "hot zones" would be tailored for smaller groups, and solo players, to be able to contribute away from the "blobs"... "Blob" QQ is common for smaller groups and roamers, and mostly flipping camps isn't really exciting. Think of these maps like any game that is designed for PvPvE, and similar to if Anet designated 6 maps in Tyria into PvPvE zones.

I
never
see any notable roamers complain about blobs. I see blobs being complained about when it comes to class and mechanics design. I see blobs being complained about by inexperienced players. That is more down to no one being around to teach them or set them straight though. That you can only flip camps as a roamer is a gross understatement even if it may be the first thing you suggest to an inexperienced player who asks what they can do. Experienced roamers can take any objective, act as scouts, defend/stall objectives, re/back-cap objectives and go into sPvP for other forms of TDM-, CTF- or lord-smashing content.

The only maps that would have copies would be the PvE homeland maps. NONE of the other maps would be copied for player to play on, not even EotM. ALL maps are in play at the SAME time, and again, only the PvE homeland maps would have overflow maps. Map capacity for each blob PvP map would be 300 total. Map capacity for the hot zone PvP/PvE maps would be 150 total. PvE maps get the copies so idk what the map caps would be, depends on what size and how many.
This is you trying to be unique rather than good. There is no motivation to why it should work like that.

People like different maps for different reasons.

The scoring system becomes hidden, except for certain vendor unlock tiers. All players on ALL maps contribute to the war score and you have every US player, or Every EU player, contributing to their faction score. Players are fighting on 1 world for their Faction, and that would be akin to having 8 NA server vs 8 NA servers and 8 NA servers fighting it out for that 1 world (or EU 9 servers vs 9 servers vs 9 servers), with PvE players contributing. ALL time zones are covered, and all actions on 1 side contribute to that side with a system like this... That is why there would be all these maps to play on. The suggestion is not an EotM overflow design.

There are complaints about blobs, on the forums and in-game, all the time.

I'm trying to resolve issues with WvW and get the dev team to treat WvW like the rest of the game. Go look at what Camelot Unchained RvR game is offering and think about what I've brought up. You might get a different perspective. https://camelotunchained.com/v3/bsc-design-docs/rvr-map/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Swagger.1459" said:People like different maps for different reasons.Sure, people have alot of preferences, we've talked about that. This is getting somewhat circular. They also often form them into statements without arguments. That is rarely interesting and does not really invite to discussion.

What is interesting is why they have those preferences, if those preferences are valid enough to take into considertion and if those preferences are superior to other alternatives that they could keep an open mind towards. That is how you discuss.

All players on ALL maps contribute to the war score and you have every US player, or Every EU player, contributing to their faction score /.../ The suggestion is not an EotM overflow design.If the servers play separately but contribute to pooled score you still run risk of massive- and content-stifling imbalances. If "US-green" is pooled together with "EU-green" but EU-green is largely made up of south americans on spanish servers and french canadians on french servers while "US-blue" is largely made up of aussies that stack servers in that server group then you have the same recipe for disaster as there is now. For interactivity on maps, the servers are split into different regions for what is likely to be taxation reasons and is unlikely to change.

This is a discussion forum not a snowflake suggestion box (even if I am admittedly unsure at times). You are free to ignore me but I am also free in trying to engage in discussion with you. You may not have have suggested an EotM overflow design but I am arguing that it is superior to what you are suggesting. That is an appeal for you to consider what I am saying and then formulate a thoughtful response that can drive the discussion forward.

There are complaints about blobs, on the forums and in-game, all the time.

From players who do not know better, sure, we've already talked about that. They also complain about alot of other things that are completely unfounded and wrong.

I'm trying to resolve issues with WvW and get the dev team to treat WvW like the rest of the game. Go look at what Camelot Unchained RvR game is offering and think about what I've brought up. You might get a different perspective.CU looks nice from a server engineering standpoint. Even in CU an active population balance would be superior to the EVE-like "let's see where the players take this engineering beast" approach they have vetted so far. They have some 15-years of experience to analyse there. I am doubtful that CU will have a better combat engine and will be better than what GW2 has the potential be. I will likely play it if/when it comes out but GW2 could still keep me playing it more if heads are taken out of rear ends. That is also why you, I and most other people who post here do post here and are trying to resolve issues with WvW and try to get the dev team to treat WvW better :3 . We see the potential and try to be constructive even if we do not adress it with blind positivity.

That goes for this thread too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@subversiontwo.7501 said:

@"Swagger.1459" said:People like different maps for different reasons.Sure, people have alot of preferences, we've talked about that. This is getting somewhat circular. They also often form them into statements without arguments. That is rarely interesting and does not really invite to discussion.

What is interesting is
why
they have those preferences, if those preferences are
valid
enough to take into considertion and if those preferences are
superior
to other alternatives that they could keep an open mind towards. That is how you discuss.

All players on ALL maps contribute to the war score and you have every US player, or Every EU player, contributing to their faction score /.../ The suggestion is not an EotM overflow design.If the servers play separately but contribute to pooled score you still run risk of massive- and content-stifling imbalances. If "US-green" is pooled together with "EU-green" but EU-green is largely made up of south americans on spanish servers and french canadians on french servers while "US-blue" is largely made up of aussies that stack servers in that server group then you have the same recipe for disaster as there is now. For interactivity on maps, the servers are split into different regions for what is likely to be taxation reasons and is unlikely to change.

This is a discussion forum not a snowflake suggestion box (even if I am admittedly unsure at times). You are free to ignore me but I am also free in trying to engage in discussion with you. You may not have have suggested an EotM overflow design but I am arguing that it is superior to what you are suggesting. That is an appeal for you to consider what I am saying and then formulate a thoughtful response that can drive the discussion forward.

There are complaints about blobs, on the forums and in-game, all the time.

From players who do not know better, sure, we've already talked about that. They also complain about alot of other things that are completely unfounded and wrong.

I'm trying to resolve issues with WvW and get the dev team to treat WvW like the rest of the game. Go look at what Camelot Unchained RvR game is offering and think about what I've brought up. You might get a different perspective.CU looks nice from a server engineering standpoint. I am doubtful that it will have a better combat engine and will be better than what GW2 could be. I will likely play it if/when it comes out but GW2 still has the potential to keep me playing it more if heads are taken out of rear ends. That is also why you, I and most other people who post here do post here and are trying to resolve issues with WvW and try to get the dev team to treat WvW better :3 .

I don't think this is really the time to break down map styles exactly. Kind of moot for this thread.

I clearly stated that NA and EU remain SEPERATE. NA and EU will NEVER be linked for WvW play.

I'm not talking game engines here. I'm talking what feature will be offered and what designs they are projected to have for RvR gameplay. WvW was modeled/inspired by DAoC. CU is the next gen DAoC++. GW2 WvW needs love.

We can't get ahead of ourselves in certain areas. I'd focus more on the concepts, and what they mean for WvW, as opposed to specifics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of the stuff would be good, some would be bad.

My main worry would be the two month long match-ups. Right now we see activity drop hard as the week progresses and one side starts winning over the other two servers. Now stretch that over two months. Factions would get demoralized and get too far behind to care. Personal rewards are great and all, but you need at least a pseudo-competitive framework that people can invest in. And two month long match-ups determined after the first week are going to turn people off of WvW, and drop activity in the game mode.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Problem here is some people do not want alliance faction as simple faction of randoms. Some people want to be in control of the alliance, people and guilds of their choosing.It is relatively easy to create a shuffle balance if we do not have to share control with the players themselves but anet want to share control with the players, that is why the balance is in so much mess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Caliburn.1845 said:Some of the stuff would be good, some would be bad.

My main worry would be the two month long match-ups. Right now we see activity drop hard as the week progresses and one side starts winning over the other two servers. Now stretch that over two months. Factions would get demoralized and get too far behind to care. Personal rewards are great and all, but you need at least a pseudo-competitive framework that people can invest in. And two month long match-ups determined after the first week are going to turn people off of WvW, and drop activity in the game mode.

yeah I agree, it might help if these 2 months were always some wvw tournament like we had back in the day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Good ideas overall but personally I don't like the idea of artificially separating blobbing and roaming into different maps.Some guilds/roamers enjoy poking at large blobs (zerg surfing etc.) and trying to separate them is a wrong move to begin with.Also there is nothing really to enforce the type of activity that a player should or should not do in the maps.A blob map could end up being made up of 10 small guilds and various roamers all doing separate stuff.A small guild map could end up being made up of 1 entire blob.It would be just like how it is now with how there are sometimes 1 commander in the map and everyone blobs around him, or sometimes there are 2-3 commanders in the map who don't work together and the blob is separated.Regardless of whichever way was supposedly more efficient, players gravitate towards commander tags and if there is 1 tag, you have 1 blob. If there are 2 tags, you get 2 zergs. 3 tags, smaller parties. and so on.So when you say a blob map, it could just be small groups of tags fighting separately and a roamers map, could be just 1 big 50 man blob tag fighting with each other.You can't really tell them 'This is how you should play on which map' even if you make it more efficient for the maps to be blobbed or for many small groups to operate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"EremiteAngel.9765" said:Good ideas overall but personally I don't like the idea of artificially separating blobbing and roaming into different maps.Some guilds/roamers enjoy poking at large blobs (zerg surfing etc.) and trying to separate them is a wrong move to begin with.Also there is nothing really to enforce the type of activity that a player should or should not do in the maps.A blob map could end up being made up of 10 small guilds and various roamers all doing separate stuff.A small guild map could end up being made up of 1 entire blob.It would be just like how it is now with how there are sometimes 1 commander in the map and everyone blobs around him, or sometimes there are 2-3 commanders in the map who don't work together and the blob is separated.Regardless of whichever way was supposedly more efficient, players gravitate towards commander tags and if there is 1 tag, you have 1 blob. If there are 2 tags, you get 2 zergs. 3 tags, smaller parties. and so on.So when you say a blob map, it could just be small groups of tags fighting separately and a roamers map, could be just 1 big 50 man blob tag fighting with each other.You can't really tell them 'This is how you should play on which map' even if you make it more efficient for the maps to be blobbed or for many small groups to operate.

Players can choose where they want to play. The differences are the map designs as noted, so I'd read through that again.

You like "blob' maps then go play on the "blob" maps. Some other players may not like the "blob" maps, so they have a choice of the other maps.

Edit- I'll be extra helpful...

"MAPS MADE FOR "BLOBS", WITH A 100 PLAYER MAP CAP PER SIDE

  • These maps are the “No PvE” zones that remain conducive to quality open space and structure capture mass pvp."

"MAPS MADE SPECIFICALLY FOR SMALL GUILDS, SMALL TEAMS AND SOLO ROAMERS WITH A 50 PLAYER MAP CAP PER SIDE

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...