[Beta 1 Feedback] Roamer Perspective

[saerni.2584]

I'm a long time roamer on primarily Northern Shiverpeaks on and off since release [Teef] being my primary tag these days. I'd like to offer my perspective on how the beta has gone so far from that viewpoint. 
 

Fights seem much more balanced. Roaming is better because you aren't just solo 100% of the time (hard to defend multiple spots against enemies if you have no allies). 
 

The bugs are a bit annoying but not insurmountable. I'm quite enjoying the fights and people are tagging up and getting stuff done. Everything feels much more alive than even during the no-downstate events. People are playing and fighting at the small and large scales (hi VIP!).
 

If anything the biggest issues are that people feel less motivated (it's a beta so no point fighting for your team to go up a tier) in part because the immediate rewards aren't structured to promote competitive play (you don't get anything for winning in a given week or matchup) (you also don't get a reward for winning individual skirmishes or much for successfully defending objectives). 
 

In the end, Alliances can only make the fights more fair. What we fight over has to be improved too (before EoD) so we can properly motivate players to stick with the mode and fight vigorously for their side. I'd strongly encourage Anet to implement rewards improvements before Beta 2 (presumably the beta in which guilds will be able to associate into Alliances for match making). 

[subversiontwo.7501]

My god, a sensible take on things.

This feels out of place, somehow.

😄

[Prophet of Flames.2783]

Yeah imagine getting your only positive feedback from a Thief roamer. You know you're done for then, bin the project asap. The class the mayority of WvW absolutely despises for how broken it is at roaming and how boring it is to play against thinks your beta is 'more balanced'. So that means it isn't by definition.

[SoftFootpaws.9134]

1 hour ago, Prophet of Flames.2783 said:

Yeah imagine getting your only positive feedback from a Thief roamer. You know you're done for then, bin the project asap. The class the mayority of WvW absolutely despises for how broken it is at roaming and how boring it is to play against thinks your beta is 'more balanced'. So that means it isn't by definition.

Alliances are vital for the majority of the playerbase; its not just about you. You may be stressed out right now but some of us have been stressed out by bad matchups for years, many of us half a decade or more.

 

The game mode was fundamentally broken especially due to bandwagoning.

Edited December 5, 2021 by Hannelore.8153

[saerni.2584]

1 hour ago, Prophet of Flames.2783 said:

Yeah imagine getting your only positive feedback from a Thief roamer. You know you're done for then, bin the project asap. The class the mayority of WvW absolutely despises for how broken it is at roaming and how boring it is to play against thinks your beta is 'more balanced'. So that means it isn't by definition.

I mean in terms of population it really isn't class dependent. I like having people to fight and people to fight with. I don't think that's thief specific. 
 

I won't deny that most people I meet 1v1 aren't that good and die 1v1. But that's on them. I've seen/fought monstrous Warriors, Rangers, Mesmers, Revenants, Guardians, Engineers and Necros (to name a couple I can recall off the top of my head) who were absolute beasts 1v1 (some on elite specs and others not). I've lost and won versus those players. I look forward to those fights because they are so hard to beat it makes me aspire to get better at a game I've played for 8+ years.
 

If you can't win 1v1 take that as a challenge and not just a reason to say "it's unfair and I can't win." 

[Prophet of Flames.2783]

47 minutes ago, saerni.2584 said:

I mean in terms of population it really isn't class dependent. I like having people to fight and people to fight with. I don't think that's thief specific. 
 

I won't deny that most people I meet 1v1 aren't that good and die 1v1. But that's on them. I've seen/fought monstrous Warriors, Rangers, Mesmers, Revenants, Guardians, Engineers and Necros (to name a couple I can recall off the top of my head) who were absolute beasts 1v1 (some on elite specs and others not). I've lost and won versus those players. I look forward to those fights because they are so hard to beat it makes me aspire to get better at a game I've played for 8+ years.
 

If you can't win 1v1 take that as a challenge and not just a reason to say "it's unfair and I can't win." 

Yet WvW fundamentally isn't about 1v1ing. To most of the players, you're just a nuisance that has specced himself completely to winning 1v1s vs people who haven't, because you refuse to play the game mode, instead looking to get easy feel-good kills on people who never intended to fight your low-counterplay class in the first place.

You don't want population because you're not fighting for objectives and WvW play. You just want easy targets to pick on, and Alliances makes that easier because there is fewer organisation and fewer commanders. I get that, but that makes it especially salient that you point that out this way. The annoying pest nobody wants in WvW likes the changes, because it means less WvW and more of whatever he thinks he's doing while refusing to just queue PvP because that would require actual skill vs people who have specced to beat you.

[Prophet of Flames.2783]

1 hour ago, Hannelore.8153 said:

Alliances are vital for the majority of the playerbase; its not just about you. You may be stressed out right now but some of us have been stressed out by bad matchups for years, many of us half a decade or more.

 

The game mode was fundamentally broken especially due to bandwagoning.

Alliances aren't vital to a majority of the playerbase though, that's made up. It's not just about you. Many people just want their world to remain their pairing because they aren't deeply entrenched in a specific guild or guild vs guild fighting anyway. They lose hard here, so that small groups of dedicated WvW guilds can have what they want (which they already can if they just agree on one server, but hey, why not ask for more).

Matchups won't get better, they'll get worse, because it's much harder to organise, coordinate and get better/train together if it's just loose groups of small guilds and random people rather than a server that gets to stay together and has people that know each other. You can't seriously think matchups will be better for anything but maybe the top 5% of hardcore dedicated WvW guilds. Those will profit, the rest will suffer. Just make a GvG pvp mode for them instead of ruining WvW for the majority of the playerbase.

[saerni.2584]

Just now, Prophet of Flames.2783 said:

Yet WvW fundamentally isn't about 1v1ing. To most of the players, you're just a nuisance that has specced himself completely to winning 1v1s vs people who haven't, because you refuse to play the game mode, instead looking to get easy feel-good kills on people who never intended to fight your low-counterplay class in the first place.

You don't want population because you're not fighting for objectives and WvW play. You just want easy targets to pick on, and Alliances makes that easier because there is fewer organisation and fewer commanders. I get that, but that makes it especially salient that you point that out this way. The annoying pest nobody wants in WvW likes the changes, because it means less WvW and more of whatever he thinks he's doing while refusing to just queue PvP because that would require actual skill vs people who have specced to beat you.

 
You are wrong. 
 

I defend and upgrade objectives. I scout. I make strategic use of tactics and divert resources from the opposing teams. 
 

I support larger groups in their fights. I kill people who fall behind a group trying to take a keep and help secure downs into kills.

 

I contribute as much or more than most players in the game mode. To say otherwise is not just factually wrong. It misunderstands the nature of the game mode itself.

[Prophet of Flames.2783]

1 minute ago, saerni.2584 said:

 
You are wrong. 
 

I defend and upgrade objectives. I scout. I make strategic use of tactics and divert resources from the opposing teams. 
 

I support larger groups in their fights. I kill people who fall behind a group trying to take a keep and help secure downs into kills.

 

I contribute as much or more than most players in the game mode. To say otherwise is not just factually wrong. It misunderstands the nature of the game mode itself.

Yes and you do all that while running around in permastealth with a shitton of DPS, and if you ever risk losing a fight you just cloak for eternity with dashes and mobility and wait for the opponent to get bored trying to chase or disengage and unable to do either and just let you kill them. We know. We've been there. We know why we hate your class. But everything I said above is right, you thrive on less organized groups, thinner servers, and more random people with less organisation and strategy exactly because of all the things you say you do. They become achievable for you because of that. And that is exactly the point, you thinking WvW is better is actually an indicator of decreased quality. You are the algae of WvW quality, if there's more of you and you're happy, we know the overal health is dropping fast.

[saerni.2584]

2 minutes ago, Prophet of Flames.2783 said:

Yes and you do all that while running around in permastealth with a shitton of DPS, and if you ever risk losing a fight you just cloak for eternity with dashes and mobility and wait for the opponent to get bored trying to chase or disengage and unable to do either and just let you kill them. We know. We've been there. We know why we hate your class. But everything I said above is right, you thrive on less organized groups, thinner servers, and more random people with less organisation and strategy exactly because of all the things you say you do. They become achievable for you because of that. And that is exactly the point, you thinking WvW is better is actually an indicator of decreased quality. You are the algae of WvW quality, if there's more of you and you're happy, we know the overal health is dropping fast.

I don't use permastealth but that's a nice attempt at a straw man. 
 

Maybe you should reconsider your obvious and inflated bias and sense of entitlement. It would improve your ability to relate to others. 

Edited December 5, 2021 by saerni.2584

[Prophet of Flames.2783]

1 minute ago, saerni.2584 said:

I don't use permastealth but that's a nice attempt at a straw man. 
 

Maybe you should reconsider your obvious and inflated bias and sense of entitlement. It would improve your ability to relate to others. 

The class you're defending has permastealth, so it is not a straw man by definition.

"Inflated bias" has no actual meaning, and I don't have a sense of entitlement but cute of you to try to win an internet discussion with not facts and arguments but empty words and terms, some of which you don't grasp the meaning of resulting in weird combinations like 'inflated bias'.

I'm merely pointing out that you thinking the game mode is better and more fun, are key indicators for it being the exact opposite. The class you play has never healthily contributed to WvW, sadly. And until they re-imagine and rework how it's supposed to and rebalance accordingly, it won't.

[saerni.2584]

2 minutes ago, Prophet of Flames.2783 said:

The class you're defending has permastealth, so it is not a straw man by definition.

"Inflated bias" has no actual meaning, and I don't have a sense of entitlement but cute of you to try to win an internet discussion with not facts and arguments but empty words and terms, some of which you don't grasp the meaning of resulting in weird combinations like 'inflated bias'.

I'm merely pointing out that you thinking the game mode is better and more fun, are key indicators for it being the exact opposite. The class you play has never healthily contributed to WvW, sadly. And until they re-imagine and rework how it's supposed to and rebalance accordingly, it won't.

Here's the problem with your "argument." 
 

You basically hate the thief class. That's "bias." It's obvious you think thief, regardless of how it's played, shouldn't exist in the game. That's fine for an opinion but it colors your position. It clouds your reasoning and it basically undermines your credibility because you start with a huge assumption (that everyone should and must agree with you). 
 

My point, that the game mode is more fun with more people to play with, hasn't been addressed by you. To the contrary, you attacked me for playing a thief (ad hominem logical fallacy for you kids in school). That hasn't been addressed and fundamentally I don't see how, in an MMO, you can credibly argue that more people to play with is a bad thing. 
 

Stop trying to cast the argument in terms of the "who" and more in terms of the "what." It will make your thinking better.

[Prophet of Flames.2783]

7 minutes ago, saerni.2584 said:

Here's the problem with your "argument." 
 

You basically hate the thief class. That's "bias." It's obvious you think thief, regardless of how it's played, shouldn't exist in the game. That's fine for an opinion but it colors your position. It clouds your reasoning and it basically undermines your credibility because you start with a huge assumption (that everyone should and must agree with you). 
 

My point, that the game mode is more fun with more people to play with, hasn't been addressed by you. To the contrary, you attacked me for playing a thief (ad hominem logical fallacy for you kids in school). That hasn't been addressed and fundamentally I don't see how, in an MMO, you can credibly argue that more people to play with is a bad thing. 
 

Stop trying to cast the argument in terms of the "who" and more in terms of the "what." It will make your thinking better.

I hate thief in WvW because it currently (and historically) doesn't have any healthy playstyles in the mode. I have no problem with thief in other game modes. This is not a bias if it comes from observation and analyses, if it were you could call every argument and also every opinion 'biased' because it comes from somewhere, which is a stupid point to be making. I'm also hardly the only person with this view. There is a reason some commanders even just straight up kick thieves when they see them.

I have multiple times addressed already that Alliances doesn't increase the playerbase and only makes WvW pairings better(/more organised) for the top 5ish% of WvW guilds. The rest get total chaos rather than organized servers, which makes many players drop out because they no longer have their own server community to play for and players who'm they've known for a time to play with, which means WvW will bleed dry.

If numbers was a real problem/the reason we need Alliances, they could've just combined more servers in Links/Pairings. Hence, it's not the problem apparantly, because they didn't go for that much easier and less disruptive fix. Don't claim alliances is here to fix something it clearly doesn't address, wasn't made to fix, and will probably only worsen.

[saerni.2584]

4 minutes ago, Prophet of Flames.2783 said:

I hate thief in WvW because it currently (and historically) doesn't have any healthy playstyles in the mode. I have no problem with thief in other game modes. This is not a bias if it comes from observation and analyses, if it were you could call every argument and also every opinion 'biased' because it comes from somewhere, which is a stupid point to be making. I'm also hardly the only person with this view. There is a reason some commanders even just straight up kick thieves when they see them.

I have multiple times addressed already that Alliances doesn't increase the playerbase and only makes WvW pairings better(/more organised) for the top 5ish% of WvW guilds. The rest get total chaos rather than organized servers, which makes many players drop out because they no longer have their own server community to play for and players who'm they've known for a time to play with, which means WvW will bleed dry.

If numbers was a real problem/the reason we need Alliances, they could've just combined more servers in Links/Pairings. Hence, it's not the problem apparantly, because they didn't go for that much easier and less disruptive fix. Don't claim alliances is here to fix something it clearly doesn't address, wasn't made to fix, and will probably only worsen.

I direct you to my first post in the thread about how numbers won't solve everything and we need rewards to help improve the game mode (rewards for promoting healthy gameplay). 
 

You admit your bias. You think because other people have similar beliefs you are "right." There's really nothing more to say. 

[Prophet of Flames.2783]

Just now, saerni.2584 said:

I direct you to my first post in the thread about how numbers won't solve everything and we need rewards to help improve the game mode (rewards for promoting healthy gameplay). 
 

You admit your bias. You think because other people have similar beliefs you are "right." There's really nothing more to say. 

Classic, you claim I don't address X (Increased number of players) which you claim Alliances brings and is important, which I say it doesn't. So I bring you the arguments why it doesn't, and you don't even address any of those but just shrug it off as "won't solve everything anyway" and bring up random other stuff.

You're not here to discuss anything because you know you're dead wrong and without substance, your'e just here to troll and gaslight.

There is really nothing more to say. Just another thief.

[Za Shaloc.3908]

40 minutes ago, Prophet of Flames.2783 said:

You are the algae of WvW quality, if there's more of you and you're happy, we know the overal health is dropping fast.

 

Wow. Where did the bad Thief touch you? 

[Nidome.1365]

6 hours ago, saerni.2584 said:

I'm a long time roamer on primarily Northern Shiverpeaks on and off since release [Teef] being my primary tag these days. I'd like to offer my perspective on how the beta has gone so far from that viewpoint. 
 

Fights seem much more balanced. Roaming is better because you aren't just solo 100% of the time (hard to defend multiple spots against enemies if you have no allies). 
 

The bugs are a bit annoying but not insurmountable. I'm quite enjoying the fights and people are tagging up and getting stuff done. Everything feels much more alive than even during the no-downstate events. People are playing and fighting at the small and large scales (hi VIP!).
 

If anything the biggest issues are that people feel less motivated (it's a beta so no point fighting for your team to go up a tier) in part because the immediate rewards aren't structured to promote competitive play (you don't get anything for winning in a given week or matchup) (you also don't get a reward for winning individual skirmishes or much for successfully defending objectives). 
 

In the end, Alliances can only make the fights more fair. What we fight over has to be improved too (before EoD) so we can properly motivate players to stick with the mode and fight vigorously for their side. I'd strongly encourage Anet to implement rewards improvements before Beta 2 (presumably the beta in which guilds will be able to associate into Alliances for match making). 

 

I have found that the population is more imbalanced meaning fights tend to be very one sided.

I find myself solo far more often than I used to.

Getting people motivated to come help cap something that you have already opened for them is incredibly hard and getting them to come to defend is even harder.

The sooner this week is over and we go back to servers the better. This Alpha test ('cos if we are honest it isn't developed enough for Beta) is causing me stress that I never normally get in WvW.

[SweetPotato.7456]

There is no "side" to fight for. 

[SweetPotato.7456]

7 hours ago, saerni.2584 said:

I'm a long time roamer on primarily Northern Shiverpeaks on and off since release [Teef] being my primary tag these days. I'd like to offer my perspective on how the beta has gone so far from that viewpoint. 
 

Fights seem much more balanced. Roaming is better because you aren't just solo 100% of the time (hard to defend multiple spots against enemies if you have no allies). 
 

The bugs are a bit annoying but not insurmountable. I'm quite enjoying the fights and people are tagging up and getting stuff done. Everything feels much more alive than even during the no-downstate events. People are playing and fighting at the small and large scales (hi VIP!).
 

If anything the biggest issues are that people feel less motivated (it's a beta so no point fighting for your team to go up a tier) in part because the immediate rewards aren't structured to promote competitive play (you don't get anything for winning in a given week or matchup) (you also don't get a reward for winning individual skirmishes or much for successfully defending objectives). 
 

In the end, Alliances can only make the fights more fair. What we fight over has to be improved too (before EoD) so we can properly motivate players to stick with the mode and fight vigorously for their side. I'd strongly encourage Anet to implement rewards improvements before Beta 2 (presumably the beta in which guilds will be able to associate into Alliances for match making). 

1) I do not know what my category is in WvW, I clean up stuffs no one is doing mostly, flip all camps, kill all sentry, soloing WvW, drop siege when my instinct tells me an attack is about to happen,  stay in an objectives if I suspect sneaky happening. Roam to look for enemy squads.  That's me. with this alliance change. non of what i like to do in this game mode matters anymore.

2) You are probably on the match up with all the big guilds .
I have 2 accounts, one accounts was throw to the bottom of the chain, no one is doing anything. Its kitten.

3) other account is okay, at a certain time only. 

Fight on the "bottom of the chain" account is DEFINITELY NOT FAIR. We are outnumbered on all maps. It is a nightmare.

[ZeroTheRuler.7415]

14 hours ago, Prophet of Flames.2783 said:

Alliances aren't vital to a majority of the playerbase though, that's made up. It's not just about you. Many people just want their world to remain their pairing because they aren't deeply entrenched in a specific guild or guild vs guild fighting anyway. They lose hard here, so that small groups of dedicated WvW guilds can have what they want (which they already can if they just agree on one server, but hey, why not ask for more).

Matchups won't get better, they'll get worse, because it's much harder to organise, coordinate and get better/train together if it's just loose groups of small guilds and random people rather than a server that gets to stay together and has people that know each other. You can't seriously think matchups will be better for anything but maybe the top 5% of hardcore dedicated WvW guilds. Those will profit, the rest will suffer. Just make a GvG pvp mode for them instead of ruining WvW for the majority of the playerbase.

> Alliances aren't vital to a majority of the playerbase though, that's made up

False

Actually getting everyone in a guild to the same server is quite the struggle. My guild runs a small event once a week 5-10 people and we sometimes run public tags. Many of those in my guild including myself had to pay gems to switch to the same one. Please note that our guild doesn't focus just on WvW, but also in regular raids, and other high end game content where most can play multiple classes or builds.

We chose a less populated server (I think it was almost last at some point), but somehow the gem transfer price kept going up and last week Ehmery Bay was on it's own and wasn't pared with a stronger server so 🤷‍♂️. Honestly I was a little proud that Ehmery Bay got more status, but that isn't what matters to me as much. My guild is more important.

There are a bunch more who could join WvW our guild, but don't because of the world transfer gem barrier. I am sure if those limitations went away they would be a whole lot more open to joining in. Almost everyone I know is excited for the alliances change.

Note: I am not saying things are perfect either. Some tuning will have to happen in order to make it better, but seriously it is still a 'beta'. I hope you know what 'betas' are for. I would think this might be more of a basic one given the complexity of even assigning teams to all of those in the same guild. Be patient. I am sure proper matchups will come as things are more stable and alliances are finally added in.

Also I have to ask... what made you so bitter?

Edited December 5, 2021 by ZeroTheRuler.7415
added some clarity for those who are 'confused' by switching the order of one of the paragraphs

[enkidu.5937]

9 hours ago, saerni.2584 said:

If anything the biggest issues are that people feel less motivated (it's a beta so no point fighting for your team to go up a tier) in part because the immediate rewards aren't structured to promote competitive play (you don't get anything for winning in a given week or matchup) (you also don't get a reward for winning individual skirmishes or much for successfully defending objectives).

Right, no point in fighting for your team to go up a tier. But you’re wrong when you think that this issue is caused just because its a beta. This will constantly be the case when Alliances hit. Because there is no “team” anymore. Your world will constantly be mixed up with no long-time perspective. Only a few highly active alliances will be able to influence their destiny and climb tiers up.

[enkidu.5937]

Just now, enkidu.5937 said:

Right, no point in fighting for your team to go up a tier. But you’re wrong when you think that this issue is caused just because its a beta. This will constantly be the case when Alliances hit. Because there is no “team” anymore. Your world will constantly be mixed up with no long-time perspective. Only a few highly active (organized and tryhard) alliances will be able to influence their destiny and climb tiers up.

 

 

[enkidu.5937]

10 hours ago, saerni.2584 said:

If anything the biggest issues are that people feel less motivated (it's a beta so no point fighting for your team to go up a tier) in part because the immediate rewards aren't structured to promote competitive play (you don't get anything for winning in a given week or matchup) (you also don't get a reward for winning individual skirmishes or much for successfully defending objectives). 

Right, no point in fighting for your team to go up a tier. But you’re wrong when you think that this issue is caused just because its a beta. This will constantly be the case when Alliances hit. Because there is no “team” anymore. Your world will constantly be mixed up with no long-time perspective. Only a few highly active (organized and tryhard) alliances will be able to influence their destiny and climb tiers up.

[Dawdler.8521]

58 minutes ago, enkidu.5937 said:

Right, no point in fighting for your team to go up a tier. But you’re wrong when you think that this issue is caused just because its a beta. This will constantly be the case when Alliances hit. Because there is no “team” anymore. Your world will constantly be mixed up with no long-time perspective. Only a few highly active (organized and tryhard) alliances will be able to influence their destiny and climb tiers up.

So what you are saying is that it's exactly the same as server stacking and random/poor linking that's been going on for many years. Right. Gotcha.

I really dont understand people. I see claims of these tryhard 500 man blobs when alliances hit, despite it being the same players in the same guilds that it's been forever. With the same map and match restrictions.

It's like... can anyone answer me please why we didnt see 80 man zergs of the same 500 man guild, with 4 guild commanders on all 4 borders last week? Anyone? Because it's always been possible to do that to "influence your destiny" and climb the tiers. Nothing has changed, either through this beta or future. We can do that all day long. Nothing is stopping us.

Yet it doesnt happen. Why? And why would alliances change this? What makes alliances so much better for tryharders? It's not like we're going to see more loot so that people want to play more, is it... 

And even if there was 80 man guild zergs on every border on all 3 sides in a matchup we'd still have people coming on the forums yelling WvW is ded, no fights, always outnumbered!

[enkidu.5937]

1 hour ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

It's like... can anyone answer me please why we didnt see 80 man zergs of the same 500 man guild, with 4 guild commanders on all 4 borders last week? Anyone? Because it's always been possible to do that to "influence your destiny" and climb the tiers.

Blobbing everyone together at the same time window is good for easy lewdbags. Though, its the stupidest thing one could do to climb the tiers. You need the exact opposite: a well-distributed coverage of time zones and maps.

 

1 hour ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

And why would alliances change this?

With a mostly nameless random team without any identity, it will be very uninteresting to invest into the "team" to climb the ranks. Its like EotM then. So, blob together and go for whats left: ez lewdbags and glory of being a L33T(-blobber) on the battlefield. 😁

 

 

Edited December 5, 2021 by enkidu.5937