Reward Structure Changes Mentioned in the Postmortem

[Leo.3428]

58 minutes ago, Ubi.4136 said:

Repairing and damaging are the same mechanic.  So, if you are removing participation time grants from repairing, you should remove it from damaging at the same time.  Unless, you are once again just trying to tell everyone that you do NOT want anyone defending, and instead only want blobs running around fighting doors.

Sometimes I wonder if things would turn more exciting if gates were removed altogether. Maybe there would be more defenders at them and we could get over the era of the circling zergs.

[Gotejjeken.1267]

18 minutes ago, Leo.3428 said:

Sometimes I wonder if things would turn more exciting if gates were removed altogether. Maybe there would be more defenders at them and we could get over the era of the circling zergs.

 

Kinda was thinking of this, maybe more a mass scale PvP instead of the walls/gates/siege mechanics?

 

As it stands now defending is useless and siege is imbalanced (claim buff for camp trolling, etc.).  They also aren't rectifying this by removing incentives for repairing or defending these structures.  

 

I mean just had an encounter now like any other; siege is used to get into something (in this case bay), but then superior numbers and claim buff win the defense instead of repairing and utilizing defensive siege.  

[X T D.6458]

Great changes announced in that blog post! Outnumbered pip boost was nice sure but it encouraged a lot of players to just tag and afk on a map. Removing the participation grace time for repairing is great and hopefully stops people from draining supply simply to keep participation up. Adding extra rank based pips...LOVE IT! This will really help me finish skirmish tracks with my limited play time much more quickly. Also hoping to see some tweaking of participation awarded for siege use. These updates encourage active play and progression and are the right steps to take. Cant wait for these changes to go live, great job Anet!

 

 

 

 

Edited October 22, 2021 by X T D.6458

[Ra Ra.9423]

I'm curious to know why there would be removal of participation refresh for repairing.  Support/defense gets little participation anyway, and this just seems to reduce even that.  I play with a small group, and at times find that my participation has run out, despite the fact that I'm scouting or refreshing siege, or various other things.  Sometimes opportunities for taking camps or towers is a little slow.  (or the map is overrun with zergs making solo/small group stuff pretty impossible)

 

I realize a system was created where you could join a commander tag and ask for them to designate you so you could share participation with the zerg.  However, our group teams up in a squad of its own, so we can easily see where each other is at.  When we've joined the commanders squad, it's harder to track whose blue dot is where; it just doesn't work as well.

My 2 cents..

[Lan Deathrider.5910]

Yeah, perhaps tweaking participation from repairing isn't a great idea.

 

This is a war mode, which while PvP is a large part of it, so is objective defense and upkeep. After all it's those objectives that determine warscore for the most part.

 

@Josh Davis.7865, if you guys do start removing/nerfing participation from repairs, then could you then shorten the decay rate once participation time runs out? Kind of a happy medium.

[Klypto.1703]

6 hours ago, Legionnaire.9478 said:

Out of all the game modes, WvW is the slowest, less rewarding, and the most tedious to do. Not to mention the GpH for WvW compared to PvE is awful. I think this will just make new players less likely to play WvW.  

 

 

I actually used it as a timer on the life of this game.  So I solo built a storage guild that when it was finished just for WvW content that either Alliances would happen or either the end of the game.  I finished it like a year and a half ago so all this talk they are doing is great but its more or less I'll believe it when I see it.

[Xenesis.6389]

2 hours ago, Leo.3428 said:

Sometimes I wonder if things would turn more exciting if gates were removed altogether. Maybe there would be more defenders at them and we could get over the era of the circling zergs.

 

Imagine fighting over only camps on the map, because that's what that would look like.

 

The zergs will still run because lazy easy boon balling is the path of least resistance, just run over stuff and ktrain a map, or you'll just get more small ppt havoc groups sneaking stuff with no fights. No one is going to set 5-10 defenders to every objective to scout and defend, unless the rebalance manages to populate all 4 maps with equal players 24/7. Sending a force of 20+ would make them run and an easy take with nothing to delay the enemy other than RI, you'd have to set RI higher to compensate for this change. Most attackers don't care to hold stuff in enemy territory, they just flip it and move on, you'll just make life harder for defenders which would just push the game further into an attack mode.

[def.7435]

The outnumbered pip was a system which encouraged anti-patterns in gameplay. To begin with, its such a a large bonus over the base rate (a new player in 3rd place getting outnumbered ... thats 62.5% of their pips for the skirmish), that it encourages following the bonus around purely for the bonus' sake (often even, semi-afking and using things such as the now removal wall repair participation), and not for gameplay reasons at all. This often brings the least invested or veteran players to outnumbered maps, who are only there because they need tickets for their conflux or whatever. Very rarely would people moving to an outnumbered map encourage a successful defense of an objective to occur. It encouraged Its also unfair to players in time periods  (peak NA/EU) where there is no outnumbered on any maps for most servers for 6+ hours. I'm sure that outnumbered accounted for very, very few of my pips. Generally speaking it was bad, and would be almost purely invalidated by alliances which, by balancing the teams better, would result in a significantly less outnumbered occurrences.

 

That being said, attracting players to empty maps is not necessarily a bad thing for all these issues, and for some servers, it was necessary to actually get players on maps on times. However for other servers, its a such a non-factor (once again, unfair, not evenly accessible to players). Maybe outnumbered pips should have simply been nerfed to 2 or 3 until alliances, when it could then be removed. However, its no contest between a perma +2 and outnumbered +5, i would take the +2 without a second of thought.

[Dawdler.8521]

6 hours ago, Soul SilverRose.6351 said:

K, let me break this down. Literally nobody here is arguing against the +2 we are getting. It's a good change. Very positive actually.

 

But the removal of Outnumbered is the topic for debate and everyone is basically saying don't remove Outnumbered pips. Roamers and others actually want to be outnumbered for those pips and it helps WvW servers as a whole.

 

Once again, nobody here is saying not to do the +2. You are defending something nobody was attacking.

Have you looked at how many of your pips are outnumbered? I bet it'll rarely exceed 20% of total even in a matchup where it feels like you are outnumbered all the time... And I'm saying that as a roamer often hunting outnumbered pips. +2 all the time will already be like being outnumbered almost half a entire matchup is today. Hence why I originally said sad but it'll probably make up for it. If Anet want to remove it thats fine tbh.

Edited October 22, 2021 by Dawdler.8521

[suialthor.7164]

According to the first post WvW goes from a full time job to a part time job (with overtime) for players with lower ranks.  How is this healthy for individuals or the community as a whole?  Burnout should be avoided instead of encouraged.

At the same time, those with high ranks will reach the cap a little more quickly and may have no use for the tickets.  If they continue to play they get weak rewards.  While playing is fun, they should be rewarded so they don't have to spend additional time farming gold in a mode they may not enjoy.

Hopefully this increase in pips is a bandaid until they change the reward system to something more balanced.  Otherwise the new "extra" pips should probably be more, and the higher ranks should probably get more of the other rewards (multiplier based on rank).

[Chariote Moonchild.1058]

If WvW is meant to be a separate play style to PVP and PVE then make it different... Reward people for making defenses, leveling keeps, towers and camps to higher tiers, reward them for claiming the strongholds on the map and for maintaining them, for sieging them up and for defending them, WvW is not about blob vs blob mechanics... sure people want to fight but they also take pride in leveling property and turning the whole map their own colour... Stop punishing those of us that love the difference WVW has compared to the single mindedness of pvp and the story of pve. it should be about siege placement strategy, about where is best to locate that treb and cata, it should be about where is best to place that arrow cart and ballista. It shouldnt be about can my 50 man blob kill that solo roamer. Make WVW strategic and stop giving in to the the PVP whingers who join wvw for moosive fights, want fights.. get off our borderlands and go back to PVP maps where you belong.

Edited October 22, 2021 by Chariote Moonchild.1058
fixing the background

[Xenesis.6389]

14 minutes ago, Chariote Moonchild.1058 said:

If WvW is meant to be a separate play style to PVP and PVE then make it different... Reward people for making defenses, leveling keeps, towers and camps to higher tiers, reward them for claiming the strongholds on the map and for maintaining them, for sieging them up and for defending them, WvW is not about blob vs blob mechanics... sure people want to fight but they also take pride in leveling property and turning the whole map their own colour... Stop punishing those of us that love the difference WVW has compared to the single mindedness of pvp and the story of pve. it should be about siege placement strategy, about where is best to locate that treb and cata, it should be about where is best to place that arrow cart and ballista. It shouldnt be about can my 50 man blob kill that solo roamer. Make WVW strategic and stop giving in to the the PVP whingers who join wvw for moosive fights, want fights.. get off our borderlands and go back to PVP maps where you belong.

 

This hurts my eyes.

[Crimson Warlcok.6834]

6 hours ago, Leo.3428 said:

Sometimes I wonder if things would turn more exciting if gates were removed altogether. Maybe there would be more defenders at them and we could get over the era of the circling zergs.

If you really wanted to remove the "era of zergs" and bring wvw into a more strategic style of play which it effectively is supposed to be the easiest things to change would be to

1. encourage defense at the same rate as encouraging attacking, reward distribution becomes more balanced

 

2. implement a mechanic which causes larger squads to be affected by the negative hp buff small scaling between squad sizes of 10 15. However begins to ramp up once groups of 20+ players are clumped together.

The reasoning behind this effectively means that running in large groups can half you hp or even worse. This would incentivizes that the servers with the best teamwork and communication would have the largest advantage rather than the group with the larger numbers being the winner. This would push away from a button smashing pve scenario to a more strategic play style that coincides with core elements of wvw; Attacking, defending, sabotage, coordination.

 

Yes #2 will kitten a lot of people off primarily, k-trains and individuals that want to play wvw because its pvp with more numbers. To cater to this group it is easy enough to bring back a smaller reward system to eotm as that what they after capping and fighting.

 

[Xenesis.6389]

1 minute ago, Crimson Warlcok.6834 said:

If you really wanted to remove the "era of zergs" and bring wvw into a more strategic style of play which it effectively is supposed to be the easiest things to change would be to

1. encourage defense at the same rate as encouraging attacking, reward distribution becomes more balanced

 

2. implement a mechanic which causes larger squads to be affected by the negative hp buff small scaling between squad sizes of 10 15. However begins to ramp up once groups of 20+ players are clumped together.

The reasoning behind this effectively means that running in large groups can half you hp or even worse. This would incentivizes that the servers with the best teamwork and communication would have the largest advantage rather than the group with the larger numbers being the winner. This would push away from a button smashing pve scenario to a more strategic play style that coincides with core elements of wvw; Attacking, defending, sabotage, coordination.

 

Yes #2 will kitten a lot of people off primarily, k-trains and individuals that want to play wvw because its pvp with more numbers. To cater to this group it is easy enough to bring back a smaller reward system to eotm as that what they after capping and fighting.

 

 

So instead of running one squad of 40 they'll just run two squads of 20? with nothing stopping those squads from running in the same area. The only way you're going to break groups up is if you force them to take multiple objectives at the same time, provided objectives even have any meaning for them to even bother to do so.

 

Either way, you won't break up zergs now because the game is built to mitigate damage with greater numbers, and also it's the easiest path for players to win, by outnumbering and running over opponents.

[Crimson Warlcok.6834]

Just now, Xenesis.6389 said:

 

So instead of running one squad of 40 they'll just run two squads of 20? with nothing stopping those squads from running in the same area. The only way you're going to break groups up is if you force them to take multiple objectives at the same time, provided objectives even have any meaning for them to even bother to do so.

 

Either way, you won't break up zergs now because the game is built to mitigate damage with greater numbers, and also it's the easiest path for players to win, by outnumbering and running over opponents.

No, if the squads are close enough that they can both engage in combat then they all receive the debuff.

[ollbirtan.2915]

Removing outnumbered pips is a really bad idea for exclusively romer players like myself. I avoid maps with tags like plague as I don't want to be running in a zerg. I spend 85% of my time on outnumbered maps roaming around, flipping objectives, killing enemy players etc. The removal of outnumbered bonus pip will kill the incentive to play for me, and in general will force everyone into mindless zergs. 
Also, it's an absolutely terrible idea to remove GRACE PARTICIPATION ---- As a roamer, I often find myself in outnumbered situations. And even with current 'grace system' I sometimes find my participation going down because I was busy diverting enemy groups and surviving without securing enough kills. Please rethink this absolutely ridiculous idea. 
As for structures, I can't comment for myself, but I know that there are people who 'guard' towers/keeps, repairing them...and sometimes, it's a matter of mere seconds between having a person repair the wall and ally zerg arriving vs the opposite. 
@Josh Davis.7865

Edited October 22, 2021 by ollbirtan.2915

[Xenesis.6389]

Just now, Crimson Warlcok.6834 said:

No, if the squads are close enough that they can both engage in combat then they all receive the debuff.

 

We've had this discussion in the forums already....

 

So are you limiting this to squads? cause players will just not run squads, we played without squads for 3 years in the beginning.

You're suppose to want to fight with teammates, not avoid them. You might as well go play spvp if you don't want engage big groups.

[Crimson Warlcok.6834]

Just now, Xenesis.6389 said:

 

We've had this discussion in the forums already....

 

So are you limiting this to squads? cause players will just not run squads, we played without squads for 3 years in the beginning.

You're suppose to want to fight with teammates, not avoid them. You might as well go play spvp if you don't want engage big groups.

No.... perhaps i didnt explain it well enough but that's entirely the opposite of what I'm implying the point is wvw is not pvp but its also not a pve gamemode. The point i am trying to make is instead of a glob incentives more strategic gameplay 3 squads of 15 people with a different objective when capping a keep one focuses on getting to lords the other acts a a distraction and the 3rd focuses on cutting off incoming players as they would all be in different regions of the keep they wouldn't receive the debuff. Infact you would be able to do this with the sub groups in a squad. proximity != being in a squad. 

[Xenesis.6389]

1 minute ago, Crimson Warlcok.6834 said:

No.... perhaps i didnt explain it well enough but that's entirely the opposite of what I'm implying the point is wvw is not pvp but its also not a pve gamemode. The point i am trying to make is instead of a glob incentives more strategic gameplay 3 squads of 15 people with a different objective when capping a keep one focuses on getting to lords the other acts a a distraction and the 3rd focuses on cutting off incoming players as they would all be in different regions of the keep they wouldn't receive the debuff. Infact you would be able to do this with the sub groups in a squad. proximity != being in a squad. 

 

And then they would not run a squad to avoid your penalty so they can all stack in lords. This also affects other guilds running in the same area especially on fights that have multiple groups involved, no one will want to constantly worry about your penalty.

All a squad does is prioritize where boons and heals land first, but all they need to do is keep the same group comps and run in a tight ball as usual.

 

Like I said they only way you will force them to be in separate places is to actually force them to separate objectives to complete the greater objective, not give them the option to run different sized groups. Like the ruins where you need to cap three in a certain time in order to capture bloodlust. You would have to do something like in order to capture smc you need one group on lords, and and another group on 2nd floor, and another group on 3rd floor, with rings with minimum of 5 people in to hold and capture together.

[Crimson Warlcok.6834]

1 minute ago, Xenesis.6389 said:

 

And then they would not run a squad to avoid your penalty so they can all stack in lords. This also affects other guilds running in the same area especially on fights that have multiple groups involved, no one will want to constantly worry about your penalty.

All a squad does is prioritize where boons and heals land first, but all they need to do is keep the same group comps and run in a tight ball as usual.

 

Like I said they only way you will force them to be in separate places is to actually force them to separate objectives to complete the greater objective, not give them the option to run different sized groups. Like the ruins where you need to cap three in a certain time in order to capture bloodlust. You would have to do something like in order to capture smc you need one group on lords, and and another group on 2nd floor, and another group on 3rd floor, with rings with minimum of 5 people in to hold and capture together.

Sorry but i suggest you re-read what i wrote as saying this "And then they would not run a squad to avoid your penalty so they can all stack in lords." Implies you're misreading my point. This "This also affects other guilds running in the same area especially on fights that have multiple groups involved, no one will want to constantly worry about your penalty." also would not occur due to a set combat radius being the deciding factor with the buff.

[Xenesis.6389]

sigh

I pointed out flaws and what people may do, because human nature always leads people to do the easiest and simplest things.

If you want to ignore that then fine whatever, but anet will never implement hitpoint penalty for running big groups in a game mode built for big groups.

[Sviel.7493]

The stuff about the beta is cool and all, but it was the bits of the end that really grabbed my attention.

Why are we removing participation from repairing again?  If I'm watching an objective and help defend it, should I then just leave it unrepaired?  Usually, I'll run supply from a nearby camp to avoid draining too much in case of another attack--but if that doesn't count as participating then what am I supposed to do?

This seems like another "we can't allow this because people might abuse it" change that makes non-zerg life such a chore.  Are there hordes of people abusing it unbeknownst to me that warrant this?

[Zyreva.1078]

9 hours ago, Gotejjeken.1267 said:

I mean just had an encounter now like any other; siege is used to get into something (in this case bay), but then superior numbers and claim buff win the defense instead of repairing and utilizing defensive siege.  

Have you considered that maybe one button gameplay shouldn't be the deciding factor?

[Dawdler.8521]

3 hours ago, ollbirtan.2915 said:

Removing outnumbered pips is a really bad idea for exclusively romer players like myself. I avoid maps with tags like plague as I don't want to be running in a zerg. I spend 85% of my time on outnumbered maps roaming around, flipping objectives, killing enemy players etc. 

Well, out of curiosity can you check how much you have this week then? Especially since its end of matchup. Pips in total and pips from outnumbered. Its visible in the window you see your chest progress (switch to match instead of skirmish).

[Zyreva.1078]

4 hours ago, Chariote Moonchild.1058 said:

If WvW is meant to be a separate play style to PVP and PVE then make it different... Reward people for making defenses, leveling keeps, towers and camps to higher tiers, reward them for claiming the strongholds on the map and for maintaining them, for sieging them up and for defending them, WvW is not about blob vs blob mechanics... sure people want to fight but they also take pride in leveling property and turning the whole map their own colour... Stop punishing those of us that love the difference WVW has compared to the single mindedness of pvp and the story of pve. it should be about siege placement strategy, about where is best to locate that treb and cata, it should be about where is best to place that arrow cart and ballista. It shouldnt be about can my 50 man blob kill that solo roamer. Make WVW strategic and stop giving in to the the PVP whingers who join wvw for moosive fights, want fights.. get off our borderlands and go back to PVP maps where you belong.

WvW is PvP. Even says so on the official GW2 web page. So if you don't like PvP, maybe you are the one who choose the wrong game mode.