Whiteout.1975

@"Cal Cohen.2358" You muuhst B whon of dem Dev fellerz... We aint see many of U's in deez purts mhmm (spits in a well established jug on the ground)... Whelcome ? In all seriousness... I hope you enjoy this video B) In my opinion, there needs to be a higher sense of trade-offs happening. Especially when you have people supporting other allies like with boons for example. Which can, to some degree, negate certain trade-offs. Like say you have low precision, but someone gives you fury outside of you already giving yourself fury... Maybe. Well now you could have just easily pretty much negated what would have been a trade off for you, the player, with low precision. And again, that's just 1 example. Maybe not the best example, but I just chose fury because 20% more crit chance can go a long way. When you give something... You should take something away at the same time. Whether it be reaching a certain "power-level" or whatever. And I would keep up with that philosophy on a fairly regular basis so that players remain ether "this or that". Or else you have something like this when players can take part in a bit of everything... Lastly, just be more involved in the community more so. Learn from them, generally speaking. Even learn from experience so you can get a taste first hand. Don't just ask... See. Form your own judgments from there. That would be my honest advice. Enjoy the rest of your day :)

So if your team wins matches and move up tiers with balanced populations between worlds. Will that be because of skill or an "unconcerned" matchmaker? For example: Does this mean a player can just choose a WvW Guild, not really participate, but essentially just get carried to whatever awaits them through that guild/alliance? I'm just curious. move up? Teams reset and move players around. Are you familiar with moving up ranks for example like in sPvP? Because that's basically similar to what I was thinking of. You do good... You move further up because you are good.

lol well I hope that a good thing. I completely agree though, I'm in the same boat of playing with like-minded people over skill. What I'm referring to when I say "skill"... I'm basically referring to like skill as team together. Not from an individual to individual basis. Like "oh that team is skilled". So when players win a match through this World Restructuring System I was wondering how that would look as a team. Will the "team" be considered "skillful" if certain people are still carried too much? OR will you just win due to random chance this time, not so much population imbalance and skill as a team gets disregarded ultimately because of it? I think it's important that people feel their accomplishments when they actually deserve them because that just makes sense to me. So I'm just curious :)

Decided to hunt the post down I was referring to earlier: https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/85879/future-plans-competitive/p1 Basically what I've been wanting for WvW for a long long... Oh so very long time. Population balanced with plans to actually make "winning mean something". Along with plans for better rewards. Sounds absolutely amazing... Great news @Anet! Though, I don't see that happening with "24/7" matches. With 24/7 there is just too much room for real life to take away from any truly competitive nature otherwise to be had in a match. This should go without saying, but everybody's time is different and can/does change at any moment. Just gotta figure out a fair match time. Like I said I think matches should be approximately 1 hour for WvW, but hey. If Anet can encourage and establish quality participation system for WvW. I think that will get them a lot farther with "World Restructuring" than without. If people lose... Well, they generally won't feel as bad because quality participation was encouraged and likely experienced. Similar to if you win, that would just feel better too knowing you actually won as a team because you actually played and participated as a team. And it should also go without saying that you can't have quality population balance without quality participation. Anyways, I would really focus on the participation element if I were Anet and ways to make that a more enjoyable experience for all sides involved, but hey maybe that's just me :)

Unfortunately, the devs can’t solve the “human element” variability issue. Matchups, at any time of day or night, will be more balanced or less balanced, but will never be perfectly balanced. Players will play when they want to play, and that’s how it will continue on. The only things guilds and alliances can do is manage their guilds and alliances, and those will be left for players to handle with autonomy. I completely agree. I think part of the problem is that matches are 24/7 for a week, but mostly the fact that they are 24/7. 24/7 just doesn't even attempt to care about you at the very least eating/sleeping irl lol. I think the mode would be better with a more realistic time frame if it can be done. Which I'm sure there is a way. Though, I do recall there was a post somewhere from Anet saying how they were running into problems because matches are 24/7. Not sure where the post is at this moment. However, it's pretty clear to me, at least in my opinion that 24/7 needs to go and they need to find a more realistic number to strive for and structure around that value. My opinion is I think attempting to structure around 1 hour matches is more realistic, but is that completely ideal? idk for sure. I do know that it is more realistic than 24/7 though lol.

The main thing I see here is a potential issue with participation. More so than your typical afk at spawn in WvW. Does Anet really want guilds/alliances to be a potential gateway to not so great participation, but still reward growth? Growth in status, maybe wealth or whatever it is to the come? Or should participation be encouraged more so for the sake and dignity of WvW as a game mode? Guess we will find out (if alliances ever come).

Guilds will continue to police themselves as they see fit. No need for the devs to get involved with guild politics. I agree with that statement. I'm just not sure that it's solely "guild politics" at this point as much as it is WvW politics let's say. Here is more info... “ Playing with Guild Mates We want to make sure that playing with WvW guild mates is easy in this new system. Guilds will be able to specify if they are a WvW guild. This essentially means the World Restructuring system will consider that factor at the start of each season when assigning the guild to a world. On an individual player level, once a player's guild has specified they are a WvW guild, the individual player will be able to set ONE of their guilds as their personal WvW guild. When World Restructuring happens at the start of a season, as long as you have specified your WvW guild, you will be assigned to the same world as everyone else in your WvW guild, guaranteeing you will be able to play with your guild mates. Creating Alliances We also want to make sure that existing WvW communities can play together in this new system. A WvW guild will be able to invite other WvW guilds to their WvW Alliance. WvW Alliances function as a party for guilds. When World Restructuring happens, the system assigns all members in the WvW guilds that make up the WvW alliance to the same world. These WvW alliances will have certain restrictions on them, such as a finite number of guilds or number of players. Our current plans for alliance size are somewhere between 500-1000 members, and we are still considering the technical and match-making ramifications of the number that we settle upon.”Thanks, I remember reading this. This is the one thing that really stood out to me personally out of all that was mentioned before. It just still seems a little vague on what's right or wrong here despite what they want. For instance, should being able to set a personal WvW guild require a guild permission... Kinda like how you need permissions to create teams? Because you are basically joining a team here when setting yourself as WvW player under that guild. I just think Anet needs to clarify all this a bit further personally.

Guilds will continue to police themselves as they see fit. No need for the devs to get involved with guild politics. I agree with that statement. I'm just not sure that it's solely "guild politics" at this point as much as it is WvW politics let's say.

I was thinking maybe have a default system where if a player doesn't participate they get dropped from their WvW guild. Maybe even that particular world. Of course we would have define some respectable form of "participation" here though. I don't mean the actual guild though. Just the "WvW" player status in it.

So if your team wins matches and move up tiers with balanced populations between worlds. Will that be because of skill or an "unconcerned" matchmaker? For example: Does this mean a player can just choose a WvW Guild, not really participate, but essentially just get carried to whatever awaits them through that guild/alliance? I'm just curious. I was quoting Raymond Lukes, the Dev. “Does this mean a player can just choose a WvW Guild”... Since when does the player get to decide what guild they will be in? Well, it would stand to reason that if a player does “not really participate”, then they don’t progress their rank, get tickets, badges of honor, wvw chests or reward track progress. And if that player does “not really participate” to help their guild and alliance they could get kicked. Right? Maybe. It is a good thing to think about, I was thinking the same myself. I just tried to remember from experience that it really just depends on the standards of whatever guilds are out there. Some standards of course being higher than others. I'm just not really sure that would be fair to other players as a whole; if that did happen is all.

So if your team wins matches and move up tiers with balanced populations between worlds. Will that be because of skill or an "unconcerned" matchmaker? For example: Does this mean a player can just choose a WvW Guild, not really participate, but essentially just get carried to whatever awaits them through that guild/alliance? I'm just curious.

I want to talk about something important regarding alliances; assuming alliances will still be a thing. That something is friends vs skill... And I feel it's important because the two don't necessarily always go hand in hand. Just from an honest perspective. So, based on my understanding. The "Alliance System" wants to make playing with friends/certain guild mates easier. Besides the whole population imbalance etc. Though, how would you account for these two factors of "Friends" & "Skill"? (Assuming that Alliance's are attempting to establish some "skill" based ranking system for the worlds that are created.) How should "friends" fit into this system? Example: A world wins a match primarily due to skill/outsmarting their opponents. Instead of winning (like currently) ultimately because of a higher coverage population.Please discuss :3

I'm gonna be honest... I really don't want world servers to be saved. There are plenty of things that bother me about them. One thing that does personally, is that a random PvE player, for example, can just join a T1 server. Had never contributed to earn that ranking, but still be accepted as if they earned that place themselves. I don't blame them because that's just how it is. Though it just doesn't feel respectable. I want there to be firstly good general reasons to participate and a respectable form of participation. So whatever you get/rank you earn. You get that because you actually earned it along with everyone else who actually participated. The current sever system just doesn't do that... It just doesn't feel all that respectable at the end of the day for friend or foe. The whole playing musical keeps "just cause" and fighting "just cause" has gotten pretty old all in all. WvW needs a reason to put respect on it's name and it is just not there yet unfortunately.

Not really. I view it as a valid form of play that may or may not be annoying sometimes. Really just basing that on how much the spying interferes me. Basically what @Acheron.4731 said...

I respect the effort. Even if I can't agree with all of it... Or what is to come perhaps as well. For now I'm just gonna comment how the post comes across to me as a reader... "Why?" I honestly think you @Diku.2546 didn't give this post enough room to breath for further clarification as to "why?" things should happen as how you present them here. Some of us may not need that "why?" answered as much as others depending what the topic is... But as the author of this post yourself, I think it would be wise to assume not everyone is going to be on the same page as you through and through. So the post could have used some more detail in my opinion based on that assumption of not knowing "why?" initially. Not saying this to put you down or anything. Just how it comes across to me as a reader. I just want to know what more precisely and specifically brought you to such conclusions.The Layout The next thing is the layout of the post. I think this should have acted much more like a library for general remarks about "WvG". I think it's going to be hard to stay on track as a reader here because there is just so many many different topics/points to talk about in greater detail. This is almost like starting out reading a chapter out of a book, the first page or two and then suddenly jumping around from page to page (randomly) till the reader is finished. I think the post would have been more clean if for each of the topics like "REDESIGN WvW - Re-Purpose Server Guesting for WvG & encourage Healthy Competition" had their own separate posts to discuss in greater detail and focus on there respectively. Then mentioning this ideally (what should have been) more library-like post, here, within them.Timing I think you should have typed what you typed at the very least 90% of all you wanted to say and then submitted it. Though, I'm not saying everyone is going to think of every single they want to say initially. However, I am saying that as a reader, I need the bulk of what needs to be said... Said. This isn't like a book in the sense where I'm waiting on the next book in the series to come out. Instead, what we have here, is a plan of action with some steps on how to go about it. While I and others wait for the rest to come into play. When a plan is presented in this manner it gives the sensation that not everything have been entirely thought through at least initially. Given why it's taking extra time to even present more of the basics to that plan. Which, should be the only valid reason why I/others should be waiting on even just see the rest of the basics to this plan. Therefore, leaves me feeling especially uneasy about going through with it. Again not saying this to put you @Diku.2546 down. Just my take on reading how this was presented. Take it or leave it. The choice is your's. On the bright side... Like I said, I respect the effort here. Thanks for reading.

(Looks around in confusion)... What? Lol... That's the exact opposite of what I want. I'm talking there being "too many AoEs" as also recognized by @"Ben Phongluangtham.1065" here: https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/34498/bring-pvp-passive-nerfs-to-wvw/p1 like I stated in the OP. I just happen to agree that there are times where there are again... "Too many AoEs". To me it doesn't matter if you're "melee" or "ranged". Only that this general "too many AoE" situation has negative gaming experiences on the player; regardless of class or build. It's true though I want to "win" about as much as the next guy; I think. However, I don't want to "win" OR "lose" in such a passive uninspiring/uninteresting/pathetic etc. way. That would otherwise keep me interested if more effort was given on my behalf as much as the enemy I'm facing also. I mean, I don't have reason to think that the want for there to be more effort... Leading into a creation of greater/better feeling of success among players as a whole (ally and foe)... Is wrong to want here. I want literally everyone to feel better about "winning" when they do win a battle/match or whatever.All I care about in regards to AoEs right now is this 1 general problematic scenario. No other skills used/present. Not who does the most (because how many of who does the "most" AoEs can easily change due to player choice). Not 10 AoE's on the ground/lesser non-problematic scenarios. Only when there are specifically considered "too many AoEs" in some point/duration of time we can call "The Sea of Red". While having some kind of effective safeguard in relation to that. In order to ensure more skillful play and less lag is far more present than without. That's literally it ?

It's not so much that I'm having "trouble" in the way that I think you are implying initially here. Rather it's that I'm having trouble finding the reasoning for this existing passive playstyle with all of it's common consequences (like lag) and why someone would find that acceptable; if they do. A playstyle that I and others have voiced few or many times as a problem. If there was any valid reasoning as to why that's a good playstyle to have exsisting... Well, then I'm sure our general problem with it would go away. Though, I'm not yet convinced this is a healthy playstyle to have given this particular "too many AoE's"/"Sea of Red" scenario and the problems I've at least listed with it. That sounds hilarious. How well does that actually work though? I mean if I were some low-skilled meatsheild noob (no offence to anyone who is)... I could understand more so because what else better can I do at that point (beside's perhaps trying to play a better build). However, if I'm tossing blueprints that have their own cast time... Is it really worth the trade off of casting my own skills instead? But much more importantly... Is it fun? Personally, I don't think that would be "fun" and therefore should be discouraged rather than encouraged, IMO. The problem outside of the common lag is again... The dull passive playstyle. Kind of like resorting to tossing blueprints around perhaps. In this scenario, the skill cap lowers almost unintentionally to some degree, but to where we are sort of blindly hitting one another (mostly through AoE's) in a way that becomes less interesting. And some of that passivness is okay to have I think because there can be too much to keep track of /going on in some situations for a lot of people anyways. However, there is this general point with "too many AoE's" where this passive play become's too friendly and rewarding for less effort. Which often ends up feeling not so "rewarding" because we've now then downgraded in our general efforts/ways of playing to achieve something (a win/advancement in a battle) for that lower effort given. Which, again is a scenario that I have trouble in understanding as to why that should be viewed as... Appropriate.

It's kind of hard to make a case for what is "fun" for something when someone has already created a frame for what is not fun around that very thing. Therefore, I'm especially not so sure what you'd personally find "fun" in WvW given what you've just stated at this point. Not that I disagree with you or anything. Instead, my suggestion is to learn something new in life that interests you. If you don't enjoy something... Then it's just in your way of finding or enjoying what you truly like honestly :)

Respectfully, I disagree. The good part, in my opinion, is if people are "asking" where what is. Then this encourages more communication... Which again, I think is good. Honestly though... I really rather not be seen by any spys or allies unless I want to be. The only way I would consider this change at all... Is if I, as an ally/player, had the option to allow myself to be seen on the map firstly. If an ally is let's say... Set to "discoverable". Then they are choosing to allow themselves to be seen. However, if they are "undiscoverable" instead... Well, then they cannot be viewed by random allies "on the map". Also, make players set to "undiscoverable" by default till they make that choice. If they are in a party or something, then they can still be seen within that party or whatever; to those respective members. All this would basically just give the option to not let random allies view other random allies. All done in the options menu; for WvW at least. That sounds much more fair and reasonable to me. Personally though, I don't care ether way, but if the option did exist... Then I would definitely like to have the option to even allow randoms to see me/others so easily in the first place. Lastly, something else to consider... Not saying this should be done, but... Possibly Have a rule that states: "A player must be discoverable themselves firstly, to view other discoverable players. So if a player is "undiscoverable" then they can't view those who are instead... Discoverable. To perhaps encourage players to play with other players whom are also actually wanting to be discovered. Also, to serve as a potential reminder; to serve that general playing preference of being "discoverable"; if that particular player is seeking discoverable players themselves respectfully. Sounds more fair this way to me :)

Every profession needs a "loot stick" of some kind to make up for the lacking risk vs reward system in WvW or better yet... Rather just a better risk vs reward system all around and forget the one dimensional stick IMO. However, let's be real... As if the guardian class in particular actually needs anymore reasons to be played in WvW lol since 2012...

That should have been basically the infinity gauntlet snap to this entire "OH, BuT DoN'T WHAnt mO FigHT DeN?" argument IMO; well done. Majority of WvW players acting like they're all about "fighting" when they use the Warclaw for the exact opposite (most of the time); unless they can ultimately outnumber their opponent... Then it's "oh now I suddenly want to fight". Because apparently they also need 3 long distance dodges with 10k extra health in order to fight as well? I mean it is logical... If that player is bad; not even joking. However, it's definitely not ideal for a healthy warzone game mode among all skill types. I could literally just say... "Let's just all never die then... k?". If we "never die" then we can just keep fighting and fighting... And fighting. Since us WvW players apparently just have this intense foaming out the mouth desire for "fighting" only; with no further context and thus having no breaks whatsoever. Warclaw easily and almost completely disregards the time it can take to succeed by offering greater chances to overwhelm; for those whom initially don't succeed. I and others don't just want "fights"... We want quality fights. So that we can feel truly successful. There has never been good "quality" in overwhelming your opponent and/or catching their skills on cooldown. Let's just all never die then "BEcaUse FIGHTZ!" and re-skin Warclaw into a Carebear that shits out rainbows every time it dodges ??????

Great points to look into IMO. I of course especially like the idea of putting a ideal hit cap on how many AoE ticks you can receive within a certain time frame. Maybe it is 10? Though the value & rate should definitely try to replicate something you would expect from absurd AoE spamming situations I think. So same amount of aoes in wvw fights, but with more rules to calculate that will contribute more to lag. Ok then... Yes to same amount of AoEs. No to more rules that will contribute to more lag. Those "more rules" are specifically there to prevent more lag as one factor. That is nearly whole purpose in having those "rules". The rest of the purpose is to better limit the dull passive gameplay of "too many AoEs". All while trying to maintain balance in fights... So that AoE's aren't carelessly nerfed in situations for which they are not a problem... Not "too many AoEs". My first and general response describes this in new detail outside of the OP... Assuming you didn't read it because of your response. If those "rules" for some reason don't live up to that purpose. Then they unfortunately just don't live up to that specific purpose. However, that does not take away from their intended "purpose"... And I currently have no reason to think they would otherwise. In this case, unlike population imbalance, quantity does not necessarily dictate a negative quality (experience). When the purpose of that "quantity" (of rules) is there the drive a very specific "quality" of "smooth & fun" game play; as stated in my general reply.I don't know if you remember the days when we had drastic caps (compared to now) to our conditions. We could only stack up to 25 conditions... This was a safeguard. That got taken away and IMO the lag got way worse and so did the power creep. However, there was also that set "rule" to limit conditions to "25" too. If it takes a specific, perhaps higher, but also careful quantity of rules with the purpose to create that "smooth & fun" quality. Then so be it.

Can't tell if joking or serious.

Great points to look into IMO. I of course especially like the idea of putting a ideal hit cap on how many AoE ticks you can receive within a certain time frame. Maybe it is 10? Though the value & rate should definitely try to replicate something you would expect from absurd AoE spamming situations I think.

I'm just gonna put this out here in general... We need a safegaurd/limit to the AoE spam. I like to think of this situation similar to IRL traffic. Imagine you have a high traffic area; with general methods to help keep traffic running smoothly. How fast you can go, sharp turn warning signs, speed bumps, traffic cones etc. What I am trying to do is offer a few ideas with "methods" (whatever deemed necessary) to help something worse from happening. Expect here we already reached the point of "something worse"... "The Sea of Red". Therefore, because I feel the need to add ideally and theoretically lesser calculations/other methods to prevent bigger "worse" calculations and player experiences from happening; to help create this ideal smooth & fun gameplay standard to live by. Well, quite frankly, then that's what I'm gonna look to do. We clearly know that the current processes behind there being too many AoEs is not at all working. Put "lag" aside for a moment. We are still left with Dull Gameplay where you are almost mindlessly and (from that point) also passively being bombarded with a sea of AoEs. Honestly, I don't find this really skillful at all at this point. Granted you can still have fun with their being a fair amount of AoEs on the ground. However, when you are almost having to practically swim through a sea of them... Skill gets lost in the AoE ocean that's created. It's not fun. Now bring back the "lag" and any sense of whatever slight feelings of "fun" might be left... Then that "fun" easily get's diminished. Thus, because if this dull, passive, laggy feeling of gameplay... Is exactly why there should be some kind of "limit" to the amount of overwhelmingly "high traffic" AoEs. There just simply needs to be a way of establishing an ideal limit here in response/respect to that high traffic. Say the AoE limit for the player is actually 15. That's literally still 15... fif-kitten-teen AoEs you can still get hit by maximum. If your group doesn't kill someone with 15 or even another round of 15 AoEs... lol wtf dude. Ether the game's horribly balanced or that group desperately needs to l2p at that point. Considering all the other skills too that exist outside of just AoE damage. 15 don't work for you? ok replace it with "20+" because we still haven't figured out what the ideal value is yet. Anyways, I like what @Dawdler.8521 said. My friend actually told me the same thing dating back to 2014 era... However, I was under the impression that this was an intended feature that just wasn't working properly at the time... Or maybe he was full of it lol. He doesn't play the game anymore because of life reasons, but I do agree that could be an ideal way of handling this as well. Unfortunately, we get what @"Sovereign.1093" was saying about the zergs not dying especially. However, if Anet could allow a fair amount of AoEs to remain active and some turn dormant (till it's their turn) or not dormant. That might work fine enough too. Aside from that... This is still just a matter of finding what ideal method to actually go by to keep the game better balanced, more fun and less laggy. And again, sometimes you just have to establish a safeguard that may involve some different (than the norm) calculations in order to prevent more the systematically strenuous/game breaking calculations,"something worse", from happening. We definitely need some kind of safeguard that absolutely establishes some kind of AoE effect limit on the players. While still leaving the vast majority of AoE highly purposeful in still reasonably assisting and effectively killing players. No changes for more zerg advantages. A fair, balanced, reasonable, effective anti-AoE spamfest safeguard is all I'm asking for. Not saying it's easy... But that would be ideal. ... Or Anet purges the vast majority of AoEs from the game. Which would still create dull game play; just on the other end of the spectrum, but hey... Maybe less lag at least.