Korgov.7645

June 30, 2019

@zinkz.7045 said:
@Korgov.7645 said:WvW used to be competitive.

WvW has never been competitive.

Servers used to tick for 500+ at various off-peak times because they had more players on than the other two servers combined (go see Vizunah right back at the start of the game for example), playing when your opponents are asleep, at work / school does not make for a competitive game.

Nightcapping and population were the major topics back then. Because players cared about winning.

Nowadays the discussions revolve around events, how Warclaw or rewards could be improved.

Themepark is a great model. There are lot of successful references, new content requires no innovation, and development cost is minimal due reuse of assets. When you attach the best rewards on new content, the players will come. No matter how poor the content is. For an investor this is a no brainer.

I feel the competitive minded players have moved on and got replaced by a different demographic. Thus this poll.

June 30, 2019

Which design model would you prefer for WvW?

SandboxWvW used to be competitive. Commanders were revered, players took proud presenting their worlds, high tier ranking was a glory reward worth fighting for. Players created the contents.

ThemeparkPast few years ANet has removed all competitiveness and world identity from WvW. It has become a place were you work towards events, or Warclaw, or next armor skin. Winning a matchup is completely irrelevant. ANet creates the content.

June 16, 2019

@Zephyra.4709 said:Here's another one to add to your lovely list:

Yeah. Just saw that. The WvW developers are so lost.

June 16, 2019

Gliding, Warclaw, Repair Hammers, Portable Cannons, Haybales, Jump Pads, Shield Generators, Golem Rush Event, Pips… and now tinkering with the World Linking. You have a more important thing to do: World Restructuring!

June 16, 2019

@"grouchybhaal.4275" said:Were server links really necessary? Came back to this abomination. Would love the old system back

Yes but the world linking was a product of its time.

The old system = No world linking. No megaservers. Each world was rated and competed on the leaderboard. Worlds were matched up against 2 equally rated worlds each week. Winning a matchup would give a small boost in PvE game mode.

Players were proud of their worlds, inclusive and tried to win matchups to improve their world rating. It was a thing to rally other players in Lion's Arch to assist in defending key objectives in WvW.

There were too many tiers for the populations, too many worlds. The lower tier matchups were desolate.

In 2016 there were some options: world linking, world merges, forced migrations, or revamping the whole system. The linking was the most popular choice.

In 2014 megaservers dissociated WvW and PvE. PvE still drives profession balancing in WvW, though.

The 1-up-1-down system was adopted 2017. The worlds were no longer matched up against equal strength worlds.

These systems came with a lot of ill effects. World pride is gone, players do not care about winning matchups, public commanders are not seen as champions of their worlds. There is bandwagoning and tanking down - not to win but to get to cozy steamroll matchups.

Instead we have private "fighting" squads who go at similar opposing squads, not objectives. Exclusiveness even to a point where other players joining the fights would be frowned upon.

June 12, 2019

2016-05-09"In conjunction with population rebalancing, updating Scoring allows us to decide a winner of a match more fairly, and thus reward players more fairly"Source: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Let-s-Talk-Scoring/page/1

2017-01-06"Population imbalance is a different problem that we are working on solving outside of changing the skirmish score values."Source: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/New-Scoring-System-2/page/5#post6456530

2018-02-01"It is important to keep in mind that we still are investigating and working on this system."Source: https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/26547/world-restructuring/first

2018-07-02"At this time, we do not have a date to share with the community but we are actively working toward internal milestones."Source: https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/45856/world-restructuring-update-1/first

2018-11-30"I want to stress that while there has been a lot of work done, and we have made some really good and exciting progress, we are still a ways out from the launch of World Restructuring and Alliances."Source: https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/61986/world-restructuring-update-2/first

Oh look at the time fly when having fun. I don't want come across impatient but another update soon?

June 12, 2019

@"c space cowboy.2764" said:After two years of wvw as my main game play in guild wars, I've come to the realization that the only reason to win or lose a weekly matchup is to go up or down tiers.
Wheres the incentive to win?

This is a known issue and ANet is working really hard to address it. Maybe in the next patch; keep reading those release notes.

"Currently we can’t give out worthwhile rewards for winning, as most match-ups are already decided before they begin"Source: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Let-s-Talk-Scoring/page/1

June 11, 2019

@JonnyForgotten.4276 said:I voted to keep mounts. I tend to run very high speed thief builds, so actual travel time hasn't been affected much for me, but I do like not having to constantly do my travel rotation to stay at speed. :)
I do think, however, that there need to be some tweaks, namely:
Make an instant dismount skill that acts on both the player engaging and the one being engaged.
Make the mount somewhat vulnerable to CC. Essentially give the Crippled effect if it gets hit with Cripple, Immob, or Chill.
MAYBE lower the hp, although this may not be necessary if 2 happens.

I voted to remove mounts.

I feel ANet is wasting development hours on this completely irrelevant feature. Now that Warclaw is in the game people are asking for improvements - more waste.

Cut the losses, remove the mount and use the saved hours on real WvW issues instead.

April 16, 2019

@L A T I O N.8923 said:
@Dawdler.8521 said:
@"DemonSeed.3528" said:They did mention of possibly considering rentals, but up till now they have not updated any news on this. If they choose not to, that will be sad indeed. They could even do one for gliders, just give both a really ugly default skin.

The "sad" truth of WvW is that you need PoF to truly compete anyway. Its quite obvious that the mount is just another incentive to buy the game. And honestly... I think that is fine. GW f2p is just a taste of the game and HoT is very, very old now. Not that its impossible to play it without either, but you do get pigeonholed in your choices.

Personally I would prefer it if instead of renting mounts, they added multi-seat mounts. Warclaw should be able to take 1 passenger.

Like An asura taking a charr in his backpack?

That would be so funnyThe passenger hanging onto the Warclaw's tail flailing around as they go. :P

March 25, 2018

@Svarty.8019 said:
@Korgov.7645 said:
@Svarty.8019 said:
@"Gallagher.3146" said:They need to just remove the moving AoE around the player's body, having a zerg of even 5-10 people run at you with a pulsing AoE combined with the ground targeted shroud spam is simply too much damage.

They won't change the core mechanics of a class. It's hugely disappointing, but this shitshow is our lot for the next two years. :( IMHO, PoF was a disaster.

They will change numbers on the skills: damage coeffs, base damage, number of conditions...

Now let the number to change be: How many seconds enemy player is immune to the skill once getting hit by one. Increase that number from 0 to 1 for all Scourge skills in WvW only. Problem solved. No?

Does that exist? Or do they have to write this immunity from scratch? Does their code mean they have to make it by putting a link to every single skill into this faux "ability" ... seems like the work of a few days! Do they have that amount of time spare? Will it impact the performance of the game? We don't know the answers to these questions.

Already in the game. For example: https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Power_Block or https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Wilting_Strike.

As for performance... if this trait (https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Enchantment_Collapse) can exist, then skill immunities can too.

On the other hand, if you need immunities to balance the game, your game design is rotten. :rolleyes: Resistance, Stability, Winds of Disenchantment, perma evade, unblockable skills :rolleyes: But to fix those we would need to rollback 2 expansions and have a good, long look at the core mechanics from WvW point of view.

March 25, 2018

@Svarty.8019 said:
@Gallagher.3146 said:They need to just remove the moving AoE around the player's body, having a zerg of even 5-10 people run at you with a pulsing AoE combined with the ground targeted shroud spam is simply too much damage.

They won't change the core mechanics of a class. It's hugely disappointing, but this shitshow is our lot for the next two years. :( IMHO, PoF was a disaster.

They will change numbers on the skills: damage coeffs, base damage, number of conditions...

Now let the number to change be: How many seconds enemy player is immune to the skill once getting hit by one. Increase that number from 0 to 1 for all Scourge skills in WvW only. Problem solved. No?

March 18, 2018

Worlds have a Glicko rating. It determines the world's placement on the leaderboard. When a world wins or loses against the expectations the rating goes up and down respectively.

How is the Glicko rating calculated when new worlds are created? Do players carry the rating with them to the new world?

Or will the Glicko be removed altogether? Then what lasting reward is there to winning a season for alliances/guilds/players? If there is none then all worlds will be like the current guest worlds with no incentive to win.

February 26, 2018

@DemonSeed.3528 said:
@Korgov.7645 said:
@Kylden Ar.3724 said:
@Strider Pj.2193 said:
@Celsith.2753 said:
@Raymond Lukes.6305 said:
Agreed and that's why we might not even do it. We need to take a detailed look at the data and see if it's even possible to meaningfully spread out off hour populations without making the game less fun for those people. This is something that we'll be looking at a lot while developing the system.

If you don't find a way to do this and make it work, this system change will solve nothing.

For the time zones that people consider 'off hours' there is no 'good' way to accomplish. Merging NA and EU would solve (most of ) the coverage but destroy the playability for one or the other

Manually splitting up alliances so that every tier has equal OCX/SEA coverage would do it, except most would leave the game if it became that draconian,

Forcing, based on play hours from the previous year a cap on numbers of people based on those play hours would do it, until people decided to play in different zones that what they have.

There are not enough SEA and OCX people to populate 4 tiers on NA, and I would probably bet the same problem exists in EU.

It is still going to come down to 'unfair' coverage regardless of the change.

The only way to even attempt to balance it is if the scoring in the 'off hours' for the matchup is less than the scoring for the 'prime time.'But this is still unfair to those in the off hours who might get rewarded the same, but feel like they have less impact.

Sadly, I don't really see a way to make WvW work better timezone wise, unless ANet tries to make sure alliances are split evenly between time zones.

I definitely think ANet should consider time zones when setting alliance limits and especially when creating worlds.

As for how to make it work ANet could reduce playable area during off hours. Like close down all borderlands at night so that EB will have enough activity.

Further if BL maps were 3-way balanced like EB, you could have ABL+DBL+EB all open at peak hours, EB+ABL open during the day and EB only at morning/noon.

So off hour people don't get to play the map they want? Sounds pretty fair already.

True. Then rotate which map gets closed.

February 26, 2018

@Kylden Ar.3724 said:
@Strider Pj.2193 said:
@Celsith.2753 said:
@Raymond Lukes.6305 said:
Agreed and that's why we might not even do it. We need to take a detailed look at the data and see if it's even possible to meaningfully spread out off hour populations without making the game less fun for those people. This is something that we'll be looking at a lot while developing the system.