joneirikb.7506

Put boon strips on ALL combo combinations, friend and foe alike.

Quick from memory (since I haven't looked at rewards in years): EotM has: * Same/similar WXP * Same/similar Karma * Slightly less Reward track progress * Thus slightly less XP (from tomes from reward track) * No PIPs (being the major offender) If you enabled PIPs, even at a slightly lesser rate (similar to the reward track), the map would probably become plenty popular again. Just for generally being seen as a more casual WvW experience with more karma trains and less try-hards, so more popular with a lot of players wanting to avoid the more hard-core feeling of the normal maps while still getting rewards. And as has been pointed out, back when EotM map had more rewards than normal-WvW (back before Pips), it was very popular, so popular that a lot more players player EotM than normal-WvW and they struggled to fill those maps. And we had dedicated EotM guilds that got commanders in on all 3 sides, and taxied in people in order to turn the map into a pure PVE karma-train, and would yell and scream at anyone trying to do PvP there. QoL: * Mount + Glider (Just because these two are expected game mechanics in the game now, near muscle memory for every player.) * Make any daily objectives count in EotM ---- Regarding points in EotM PPT/PPK: Just can't work, because of how the map/mode works with all the servers added together. Example say Blue side has server A and server B. Server A had a lot of players/guilds in EotM and basically zerging/karma-train the EotM map. Then Server B might not have a single player in EotM, but the system would still carry points over to their match-up. If they wanted to add more "cross-overs" between EotM and normal WvW, they'd have to do more similar to the bonus supply system, have goals/things that adds bonuses for the side/colour in the normal-WvW, but doesn't directly affect the outcome/match-up. But to be honest, the whole match-up/ranking is a joke anyway, so breaking that principle would have less practical function, and more of a breaking a purity of purpose/design. More of a "We know the ranking system is a joke, but we try not to talk too loud about it, so please don't OBVIOUSLY undermine it in that way!" kind of thing. ---- Regarding mixing team colours: Well honestly this won't be an issue once WR comes out anyway, as then all teams gets er-structured every X time, and thus re-balanced somewhat. Then EotM system will again group the new-mixed teams using the RGB system anyway. So the whole system will be even more granular than it already is, and it already was the most "balanced" part of WvW. And they can't put the map/mode into proper WvW, because of the whole multi-server aspect of it, and also because of the instancing opening up multiple copies, closing, and remaking every 4 hours. All of those run completely counter to how normal-WvW works, it's a dedicated overflow map and it works almost perfectly for that (except that players doesn't want to play there, even when queue's, mostly because of rewards).

Having any system reward the non-active hours could be a very good system, but it would never go past the care-bear-rule, and would cause friction between player base, as those in the most active-time would feel like they where mistreated/lesser-citizens etc.

From another perspective, once per month might not draw in as many at the same time, but at the same time it would be less queues each time, and possibly slightly more patient veterans on their own side willing to assist or give advice?

Where would and FFA map fit into WvW? Would it be its own new map type under the WvW menu, like an off-shot of EotM? It's a very big shift from the basic concept of WvW, with its realm vs realm and 1vs1vs1 setup. Obviously it wouldn't be tied into the scoring/points/ranks. It just feels so different I don't know if it even belongs in the WvW menu. I could definitively see some ways to have fun in a FFA map though, especially if you can make teams with parties/squads/guilds etc. Reminded of a game mode I saw explained where guilds went once a week to claim castles, and keep them through a few timers, and battle other guilds wanting to take them back. And whoever had it at the end of the time, kept control over it for the week. Which might have been an interesting alternative to Reset. ---- I'll admit the only "building system" I can remember from the game is the decorations in Guild Hall? As much as I enjoy open ended systems (and building in Valheim), I'm struggling to see how to get that to work practically inside a WvW map. Now if ANet did manage to make it work, with say having a very simple system of an area of flat stone that you can build upon as a limiter, and players having to bring supply from camps and protect a builder/architect player while they build so they don't get interrupted or ganked, could be an interesting experience. The idea of working together to build something can be very rewarding for groups of players. If the building blocks where fairly large and simple blocks that wouldn't be too fiddly etc, for example I'd probably say keep most of it simpler than Valheim's system for a compare, probably want to build big wall blocks. It would certainly open up the Sandbox aspect, and I'd appreciate that. (Though, I'd probably not be allowed to do my favourite thing in Valheim, which is to make hidden underground bases where no one can find them). But to be honest, I think you could also get a lot of that same feeling without the build system, if ANet made a map with more custom-able towers, bring supply to upgrade and build, give options for them, and some deployable options like barricades etc to create funnels inside the tower before enemy breeches walls etc. Option for expanding the tower to make it actually add extra sections etc. An ok sized tech tree with different advantages that you can pick from but not get all etc. ---- It really feels like an entirely new mode more than an extension of any existing mode. The more I think about it, the more it feels like it "doesn't belong anywhere" sorta. End up feeling that it would be interesting, would like to see how it turned out, not really sure what I'd expect of it, and as something I can't imagine ANet doing/spending resources on, nor really have the vision for anything past WR and basic fixes.

Basically the game mode is structured around X maps, so a new map would replace an existing map (one of the 2 Alpine borderlands, specifically), and thus not open more slots. It's part of the whole server size aspect, which was originally meant to create a sense of competition between the servers etc. EotM works differently, and works closer to PVE and just creates new instances as needed, and also combines all red teams into the same team etc. But EotM doesn't have scoring/points so doesn't count for the weekly matchups/ranks (and more importantly for most, no PIPS).

This just sound like some kind of far fetched idea of "elite servers", that in practical effects would just be "run-afk-into-walls servers". This looks like making a big problem out of something in order to stack servers harder.

"Git out of my Combo-fields ya little whipper-boon-snappers!" This was what the Combo system was meant for at launch, and how it worked the first 3 years (until HOT-pocalypse, etc). A seamless system for any class to work together in various ways, dynamically on the field. Rewarding both organisation as well as on the spur strategies, and almost more importantly, punishing spamming buttons. Some classes/weapons where better at some things than others, so if you have 5x staff eles you got all the combo fields you could imagine and barely any blasts to use them. Unfortunately, it's another system forgotten and ignored, and nowadays the only thing people use it for is perma-stealth on thief. It "was" honestly one of the better designed systems I've seen in a coop game, and I'm saddened that it basically got trashed as seemingly the majority of players didn't like/use it, and just complained that they couldn't click buttons to give boons and healing to entire party.

Uh-oh, now I actually have to pay attention to what I say! 😉 But anyway, the thread is rather fraying and not very coherent. My post there was in reply to a single post talking about making a dedicated "Structured WvW" sort of, so those two posts are the only ones talking about that in the entire thread. (And mine was a rambling mess) ---- Competitive: Just to clarify my personal view on "competitive" in this case. I believe that a "competitive game/mode" is one that creates as fair a chance for both teams, and rewards skill and organisation first and fore most. So I'd consider sPVP to be a "competitive mode" (set team size, set time duration, rewards skill and organisation). Where I consider WvW to be more of a casual pvp mode, you compete against other players, but the format itself puts focus on numbers, coverage, and basically avoiding fair fights as much as possible. Like that video about the soccer team that just puts 200+ players on the field. It's a bit of a narrow definition, as the word "competitive" can be used in a lot of situations. Like for example anything in which you compete against another human being, like Yatzee, but I don't consider Yatzee to be a "competitive game", rather I consider it a game with some elements of competition. To be completely honest/fair, it would be better to find another word to use to describe this, but it's generally the word most people know/use, so kind of been stuck with it. I do think that players can make their own fun and competitive activities in the mode, like Duels and GVG etc. But I personally don't think the game mode itself is built toward or encourages it, which is what separates it in my mind. That said, I do think that's part of WvW's charm, that it isn't this full blown "Competitive mode". It's a large part of what I've enjoyed in WvW, that it's a casual sandbox open world pvp, similar to what Open World is for PVE compared to the Instanced/Structured content. ---- Improvements for EotM map: What would be needed to make EotM into a decent/good map? Not talking perfect here, but enough that it won't turn a lot of people off? I'd expect at minimum: * PIPS (Obviously, rewards draws players) * Mount/Glider (QoL, expected mechanics) Another point would be the bottomless fall off the sides. Glider might solve some of that, by letting you glide to some of the lower underground passages, so you can walk up again. Another option I've seen mentioned is put water at the bottom, so you can swim back to the bottom areas. ---- (unleash the Valheim) Ugh, you're almost tempting me to fire up Valheim again! >_< Personally suspect that adding even a simplistic building system to the game, especially with multiple players at the same time, likely will get very complicated very quickly. It certainly would be interesting, but something I feel is beyond the scope of what they're ever going to do with WvW. (Might make another reply about this topic later, when I got more brain juice to spare) ---- I'll have to come back and re-read and reply to more of your post later. Interesting stuff as usual.

Even the NPC's are abandoning WvW, and making robots to do their thankless jobs for them ?

*Thinks* Nope, I don't even remember what Memories of Battle are... Been too many years since I even bothered looking at currencies or rewards in this game. So I guess I have no clue, sorry.

Make Arrow Cart do +100% damage per extra target hit. Would solve all issues/problems with zergs and boonballs.

As much as I'd appreciate and enjoy the Chaos, I think it would come with too many drawbacks. * One week links would essentially turn normal WvW into EotM. * It would remove any kind of team building/community building with links, making them even more strangers that will just drift through (like EotM) * And as you said, will make Tiers meaningless as the populations will change each week. I do appreciate how upset it would make server-stackers though! Especially when they realise that if they transfer every week, they'll never get rewards! \m/ ^_^ \m/ Overall your idea has merit if you're willing to abandon the "Progression" (24/7) system of WvW. And make it purely rewards/drop in-out driven. Which is essentially EotM. Overall, I think you could accomplish the same, certainly easier, and probably better, by just enabling rewards (pips) in EotM. (And as I've said before in this thread, also Mount+Gliding).

This is an idea that has been brought up regularly over the years, and I agree that if you want an actual "competitive" way to play WvW, this is the only way/solution. Xen makes good points as usual. And while I think this is an interesting topic in its own right, and would love to see a new topic about it. It is not really relevant to what the Original Poster is saying, so I'll have to reply to it in terms of the topic. (Basically, what the OP is saying, will be done by World-Restructure anyway, so not that much to harp about). But the closest we could have to a "ranked" system to use for normal WvW would be a more informal "drop in" system. Which, basically is EotM. Open World PvP (WvW) with Instanced maps, regular resets, no real stakes, drop in/out, somewhat team balance for hundreds of players. From a technical and design perspective EotM is brilliant. But the majority of players really doesn't like it. 😛 (Guess ANet needs to give them more rewards, so they'll like it!) ---- If on the other hand you where to try to focus on the "competitive" aspect, then yeah I don't think anything short of something similar to your idea would cut it. The whole design of WvW (24/7, variable player numbers, variable player hours, variable player skill, variable player dedication, no Team restriction/recruitment/kick systems, etc) leaves that impossible. I think the closest you could get would be my "idea" above to limit the game to just EBG, to make it easier for servers to focus a single map for actual Progression/scoring. And thus letting everyone that doesn't care about the Progression/scoring to go to other maps.

Re-reading the original post again, the whole topic really is about population-balance, so this will be "fixed" with World Restructure anyway. And a reminder that Alliances sub-system of World Restructuring doesn't really have anything to do with the population balance by itself. And the whole "practise wvw" really needs to be something irrelevant of servers. Which is why I think EotM is the best place for that. (Or possibly a own map in each match-up that for some reason is easier or less appealing to veterans) And absolutely any system involving the current servers has to start with: Remove Transfers, and probably implode them and let people pick servers anew. Or we'll never get rid of the 10+ years of server stacking and problems we've had. ---- @blp.3489 I agree, I'd miss the borderlands maps myself, I said it was the easiest solution, not the best! 😛 Assumptions: * This idea assumes that World-Restructure isn't going to happen/doesn't exist. * Trying to make healthy(er) tiers * Handle large amounts of players/differences in team size, without ruining matchups * Retain the Progression (24/7) format Progression: * Limit to a single EBG map, remove other maps from normal WvW. * This focuses all Progression focus down to a single map (points, upgrades, match-up relevant things) * This limits the match-up to only resolve around a single maps population cap instead of 4 (1x~70 instead of 4x~70) * This further limits the impact of timezones, both by having less maps/points to impact, but also by forcing what players are active in these zones into the same map in order to concentrate the action/activity. * This will allow several of our current servers/teams to be able to be large enough to cover EBG by themselves, and thus doesn't need links. * Links system can/would still be used to link together smaller servers that can't compete by themselves. Overflow: * Enable Pips, Mount, Glider in EotM. * This alone will make the mode much more popular. * Players that doesn't care for the Progression can still get anything else in EotM (rewards, fights, roaming, capture objectives, ganking, zerging, dailies, etc). * And as per existing, not being tied to the Progression makes it a more casual/relaxed experience for new players. Optional: * Add more maps to EotM (Example the Borderlands, since there isn't any Progression in them anyway, it doesn't even matter if they're unbalanced toward home position). This would be what I consider the "easiest" solution for ANet to solve the population issues. Because by reducing the match-up to a single EBG you don't need nearly as many players, and they could use the existing linking system on top of that to adjust for very small servers. And since EotM (with rewards) handles the entire overflow, and as long as they get rewards and don't have to deal with as many try-hards, the majority probably would be ok with that. The main benefit of this "Idea", is that it uses the existing systems ANet has in place, with very little to no changes, and adapts it to scale better to the mode/servers. They could basically slap this together in a basic state in a couple of days if they wanted to. Set map cap to 0 for all borderlands (easy numerical change they've done several times in the past), and enable pips in EotM, set a new number for linking algorithm, and you'd be 90% there. That said, none of this will matter, because World-Restructure is a thing (eventually). ---- Essentially: EotM And your last section did happen, back when EotM had better rewards than standard WvW. It wasn't until they added PIPS to the game and made sure EotM didn't get that, that EotM basically "died overnight", and players followed the rewards (as they always do) to populate the main WvW maps instead. (Which I addressed in the idea above)

I liked a lot of what Xen wrote. I'd also recommend finding a guild on your server to play WvW with, find nice people to play with and almost everything will be more fun. And as a Roamer (well kinda retired) myself, playing alone really is kitten, even roaming it's more fun with a couple of buddies/guildies around.

To be honest, the easiest solution would probably be to: * Remove the BorderLands. * Only run 1 EBG per matchup. * Enable Pips, Mount, Gliding in EotM. * Fix so you can do all dailies/etc in both. Let the ones that care about matchups and teams and the continuity of the game mode etc play in EBG. Let all the reward driven players go in EotM.

Note: Are you also planning to stop transfers? Because I can't see how this would work at all without completely closing down transfers, or entire BG/Maguma/Etc would just transfer to another server. Atm the splitting of teams is the main way the game has to try to break up stacking (yeah, it doesn't do a very good job), and making server pairings permanent it will just open up for more server stacking again, possibly even more than back before Linking. Also, they tried some of this back when they first added World-Link system, and tried not pairing the top servers in NA, you can also look to EU for the result, as people move about and the servers evens out more and more, the top servers just can't compete alone. I'd expect the end result of this to be your Tier1 servers to all be permanently stuck in Tier3, making a "fake tier 4". And as blp said, I'd expect the Tier4 to be stuck with a lot of those "fight guilds" that likes to farm pugs to feel good. There's also the problem with having the "non-competitive/practise" match-up determined by server pick/transfer. Depending on what server you pick, you get a very different experience of WvW, potentially getting no "training wheels" or not getting to try the "real thing" at all. (and also I'd prefer to see EotM be this) Note: Feels just weird to not see: Kaineng, Eredon Terrace and Anvil Rock, in the "New Tier8".

Maps is a very touchy subject for a few reasons: * A large part of the player base doesn't like DesertBL or EotM maps much, and they've been the only 2 maps added since launch. As such the reception for both has been pretty poor. (For a variety of reasons, and not everyone agrees on every part/point etc, as per usual "people subjectivity" stuff.) * It's something that involves a fairly large resource investment from ANet (Time, Money, Developers, which also takes those same resources away from things ANet believes will make more money). * Generally put, the playerbase in general is too split about what they want, so anything they make at this point (with lots of resources) is likely going to further split the population in terms of subjective opinions. It's simply impossible to make "everyone happy". There's also a few Design issues: * The way WvW is designed around static 4 maps, 1 BG + 3 BL means that they'd have to make another BL map. * Which would make players go into a bickering match of "This BL is better than that" and "it's unfair that X team has Y BL! They're always outnumbered and should get Z instead!" etc. * The whole 1 BG + 3 BL system is very poorly scaling, and is a large cause for much of the complaints about outnumbered, runaway score, and other population related problems. Like how a night crew can be so much more effective on score than prime time, as 10 players can take all 4 maps unopposed against a team with no night-team. Personally, if they where to make more maps I'd wish they went a very different direction: * Make more BG style maps. * Possibly try to re-balance/make some quick changes to the BL maps to make them work closer to a BG map. * Run 1 EBG map + X other BG maps (EotM, new ones, remade BL maps into BG), and turn them on and off depending on the population. (Map caps probably 4, and ferry the remaining into the EotM-Mode). * Also instead of making more EBG style maps which we generally have plenty off, I'd like to see them make more different maps with different play-styles. So players can go to maps that encourage/works better for whatever play style they'd want. Leave EBG as the "all-rounder". (Maps for zerging, sieges, roaming, etc)

Adding new content to PVP and PVE are two very different things. Just slapping in Events, story, npc's, maps, and what not doesn't really do as much for PVP as it would for PVE. The main "content" in PVP is the actual PVP, which means that any content has to add to the PVP itself, and that's much more complicated to do properly, but when done right it will generally add more "effective-content" out of less "content" in the way PVE terms it. But most people that suggest "more content for WvW" doesn't take that into account/doesn't think about this. And just wants "moar!". If they add more content without any consideration to how to incorporate it into the existing game/system/pvp, then you effectively just make more of the stuff players been complaining about since HOT to current day. Which is to say that every single thing they've added since 2014 (Stability change, and build change, and HOT+) has largely been negative for the PVP aspect of WvW, and generally complained about in various amounts (some QoL aside). ANet haven't made any "good pvp content" to WvW since launch, and probably don't have devs left with the experience/knowledge to do so since before HOT. And adding more "PVE content" to WvW is just going to backfire more as we've seen for 9 years now, and just going to keep watering down the PVP aspects ever further. This really is a case of "Careful what you wish for, you might just get it..."

It might be different for a rating system like this, at least if it is invisible (as DeceiverX said above). If it's public info, it would probably hit the "ANet Care-Bear Rule". Then one that they always want you to be happy to see another player, and thus never penalise you for having another player nearby. Which is naturally the main cause why we'll never see a change away from the Zerg-style, it's part of why both OW-PVE and WvW will always be casual formats (among other things). So yeah, if they added a system like this, it would have to be invisible to the player. That said, it would probably have just been an adoption of the PVP ranking system. And I don't see a particular purpose/need for this myself, considering how casual WvW is.

Oh definitively/agreed. Just trying to get the point across without a huge overly verbose article again. People already struggle to read posts, so I was trying to keep it as short and simple as possible so they'll even bother to read it.

They've explained that they take play hours into account. So: 10 players that players 10 hours each is the same as 100 players that plays 1 hours each For good or bad. Stack 500 players with insanely high play hours, and they'll get much less "player/hours" on their team. And will have to carry more by themselves. Granted, theoretically, if someone somehow managed to make a 500 man guild(/alliance) with coverage and all day/time activity to fill one map in prime time, and some commanders. They likely would dominate anything. But it's countered by being extremely difficulty to organise, high burn out ratio, and just in general human beings being human beings and hating each others guts and breaking up groups constantly. It might happen now and then and quickly break apart again.

I guess the most interesting thing to see how plays out, is how many people are going to be affected by being stuck with maxed out 5 guild slots, and unwilling to drop one. This forum have a habit of making vocal minorities feel bigger than they are. So it's usually very misleading to go by the posts talking about it. (Could be a nice poll for you Xen!) I mean, I can see why people would be upset about the need to use a guild slot for a community-wvw-guild, if they have 5 guilds they really love/life and are active in. (Personally I don't even remember if I've maxed out the 5 slots so it isn't going to affect me in any way, and I'll just rep my wvw guild anyways.) But realistically speaking, how large a part of players are in that situation ? The entire Alliance system was essentially supposed to be a "Guild+" system (A "guild of guilds"), that didn't take a guild slot. Made to mostly appease the people that where big on "Servers" (Either community or power). So I'd assume those would be the ones least happy about this change. On the bright side, once WR gets added, at least EU should finally get rid of their tier5 problem.

Everything I've seen and heard so far about the Alliance system, indicated that it has no more control over match-ups than a Guild would have. It is for all practical terms a way to make "a guild" by combining multiple "normal guilds" without having to use a guild slot. If ANet has stated plans for more features than that, I haven't seen/heard it, and would appreciate a link or other reference. (They did say they wanted to do more with it down the road, but that was undefined and not anything they had planned to do on alliance release.)