[Feature Development] WvW Rewards

[Zikory.6871]

37 minutes ago, Lan Deathrider.5910 said:

I think some of you are too afraid of change that you're holding the rest of WvW back from meaningful updates/reworks.

Lmao. It's totally the players and their fear of change that's holding Anet back from giving WvW dev resources to do all the cool stuff you want.

[Lan Deathrider.5910]

2 minutes ago, Zikory.6871 said:

Lmao. It's totally the players and their fear of change that's holding Anet back from giving WvW dev resources to do all the cool stuff you want.

Perhaps go read all the qq about warclaw for some further clarity.

[Zikory.6871]

2 minutes ago, Lan Deathrider.5910 said:

Perhaps go read all the qq about warclaw for some further clarity.

Oh you mean that super hot topic no one talks about anymore? Or when gliding killed WvW? 

[Zyreva.1078]

1 hour ago, Lan Deathrider.5910 said:

Your free to play for the reasons you want. Doesn't change that WvW isn't worth the time investment for the current rewards, and that is something acknowledged by the devs.

 

I think some of you are too afraid of change that you're holding the rest of WvW back from meaningful updates/reworks.

WvW is worth every second (ok, almost) of time investment for me. And i'd like to keep it that way, instead of having to deal with some crude changes that end up making me quit the game once again.

And yes, the devs acknowledged that WvW is less rewarding (in terms of tangible rewards) than other game modes, but they are probably also aware of potential problems that could arise (which you keep ignoring) if they'd just increase numbers  - which would likely be a very easy thing to do for them. But no, that can't possibly the reason why they act so carefully, must be because of some random forum posters (btw if they would have listened in regards to warclaw, that thing would have been removed on day 2, if it even made it into WvW to begin with).

Edited December 21, 2021 by UmbraNoctis.1907

[Infusion.7149]

I don't know why a thread about WvW rewards is derailed into warclaw memes. What we have now on warclaw is a stark difference from its inception. Anyone that remembers day 1 warclaw people were stomping entire squads by using the engage skill such that it was whoever engages on warclaw or ambushes a group with them wins. Now it only finishes downed player health and doesn't hit nearly as many targets , has a dismount option instead of staring contests on warclaws, and doesn't have 3 dodges that ignore CC.

Which brings me to my main point above , it should offer rewards that are more appealing for people invested in WvW (or intend to be) than people that are there just to farm. T3 structures are a prime thing to address as people k-training will not go for them unless they have no resistance. If there's a way to determine an even matchup in terms of attacking/defending it would go a long way to rewarding play around T3 structures as that also incentivizes people to tier their structures (which means camps/guards that slow yaks and yaks are more meaningful). T3s keeps also have a built in safety for rewards since it takes a massive time investment to tier things if camps and yaks are actively being harassed.

[Shiyo.3578]

22 hours ago, saerni.2584 said:

1. Skirmish Rewards (winning a skirmish)

2. Matchup Rewards (winning a matchup)

"Winning" WvW? No thanks...that sounds horrible.

Do you know how degenerate trying to win WvW becomes? It's not a fun experience because the game mode is designed horribly.

First they need to fix the design of WvW if you want this type of reward system, which is honestly a gigantic waste of time.

Just make it so WvW is as rewarding as SPvP. You can afk/beep beep boop boop SPvP more easily than WvW now, no reason it should be 1/100th as rewarding as SPvP.

  

21 hours ago, Hannelore.8153 said:

As you can see, there's alot to improve just in the existing reward systems.

Yeah, this is all they need to do.

 

Edited December 21, 2021 by Shiyo.3578

[coro.3176]

9 hours ago, saerni.2584 said:

As for a system to promote roaming...I think we'd benefit from asking what kind of roamer gameplay we want to promote. Certainly a roamer could upgrade a camp and farm people coming to the camp under the battle system as a way of earning more rewards. However the ideal of a roamer isn't just in defending small objectives. I don't think we want to reward ganking too much, but roamers do kill people and scout and take down supply yaks.

 

 

Thing is, the really valuable stuff is invisible to the game. E.g. a great roamer might:

• Flip camps feeding an important objective repeatedly, but not just flip any camp repeatedly for no reason
• Run around the map scouting and not getting kills, but not just run around aimlessly
• Intentionally stall a zerg, probably dying for it and getting no kills
• Hit a zerg with a target painter at just the right time to provide information or prevent them from doing a stealth engage

The game has no idea how to tell the difference between a player doing these things when needed and a player just fumbling around for participation. There is a difference though. 

Edited December 22, 2021 by coro.3176

[saerni.2584]

1 hour ago, coro.3176 said:

 

Thing is, the really valuable stuff is invisible to the game. E.g. a great roamer might:

• Flip camps feeding an important objective repeatedly, but not just flip any camp repeatedly for no reason
• Run around the map scouting and not getting kills, but not just run around aimlessly
• Intentionally stall a zerg, probably dying for it and getting no kills
• Hit a zerg with a target painter at just the right time to provide information or prevent them from doing a stealth engage

The game has no idea how to tell the difference between a player doing these things when needed and a player just fumbling around for participation. There is a difference though. 

Exactly. And I'd hope we get closer to that but the realistic expectation is that we can never get perfectly close to what the player understands as the ideal play and what the game "thinks" the best play would be. 
 

Id prefer to keep the reward system somewhat loose because most players at the high level won't care about rewards and will do what makes sense. And the rest won't care because they do want rewards and a direction to be given to them. Because that's easy and who doesn't like rewards. 
 

If the reward system gives me more targets as a solo roamer because they feel better about playing the mode...that's really all I can ask for. That and better rewards would be nice enough for me tbh.

[SweetPotato.7456]

So, you want my thoughts on rewarding only big fights. 

Great! Another one who wants to kill off all the roamers. 

answers is 

NO

Edited December 22, 2021 by SweetPotato.7456

[saerni.2584]

16 minutes ago, SweetPotato.7456 said:

So, you want my thoughts on rewarding only big fights. 

Great! Another one who wants to kill off all the roamers. 

answers is 

NO

Who in the world are you talking to? I don't think any people in this thread want to make things only better for zergs.

I'm a roamer and rarely participate in large scale fights. My interest in improve rewards for large scale is about improving the game mode for the large number of people who play it at that scale. But I also advocated for roaming rewards to be upgraded too to help incentivize fun for players like me (more roamers in small scale means more fights for me).

 

Again, a Zerg should be rewarded for active play and not just k-training through empty towers. That's an improvement on the current system. And a roamer should be rewarded for taking on personal missions (or maybe missions that reward a max of 5 players) that reward and funnel players toward active small scale engagements (not just flipping camps on a rotation and never fighting people).

[SweetPotato.7456]

OKAY, I hear you.

but the answer is still 
NO
because zerg  already have plenty of rewards

[Zikory.6871]

Its already been pointed out a few times but the biggest issue with rewarding individuals in the current environment is it just scales up. What 1 can do, more can do faster/easier. Everything you give roamers, Zergs get too. It's pretty unlikely they will punish a group for being big, it goes against one of the games original philosophies. 

I actually don't have much of an issue with how rewards are acquired currently. I'd argue that the game modes balance and lack of attention has dwindled the population into farm mode. If WvW was a "cornerstone" game mode when PoF launched, I think we'd be in a very different place. Make the game mode fun and engaging for more groups of people, balancing rewards around people that want to play the mode would be better then balancing around people that want to abuse the system. 

More liquid gold, crafting mats. Give us more to do with the currencies we get, badges and stuff but really emblems/spikes. 

[Infusion.7149]

@Zikory, the lord scales up in keeps , so T3 keeps should be a focal point for rewarding things like memories of battle. The only thing that needs to be balanced in that case is whether it is defended and whether the groups are "even enough".

This is in contrast to something like a T0/T1 keep where regardless of squad size (whether it is 5 man party , duo, 50 full squad) k-training can get more rewards. T3s take time to tier so there's a built in check in the system already on top of 5 minutes of RI.

[Zikory.6871]

I feel like they want to keep memories of battle acquisition even with Skirmish tickets for Triumphant Hero's armor, both at 22 weeks. They could easily buff the existing ways we get them. Idno.

Rewards based off Objective scaling seems tricky. I'd have to hear more to have a real opinion but my first thought would be it would be to good and go against another original philosophy, the whole not being punished for playing around others thing. Or it it would just get ignored like War Score Placement. (I don't if this is a driving factor for other servers, it sure af isn't on mine)

But I think you are on the right track, as in thinking outside of our current system. 

[Shiyo.3578]

Step1: If you have participation, anything taken on the map should be rewarded to everyone on the map. (If your faction takes SMC while you're in EBG, you should be given credit for it)

This will discourage zerging.

[Zyreva.1078]

21 minutes ago, Shiyo.3578 said:

Step1: If you have participation, anything taken on the map should be rewarded to everyone on the map. (If your faction takes SMC while you're in EBG, you should be given credit for it)

This will discourage zerging.

And encourage afking and doing as little as possible even more than the current system. I'd rather have zergs tbh ...

Neither is great tho.

It would be so easy to provide rewards for active play without heavily favouring numbers, by just dividing rewards for activities such as killing, capping and defending among players instead of multiplying everything ( eg. i think ESO handles this in a decent way), but for some reason the devs aren't the only ones who don't want to go that route it seems. I wonder why ...

 

Edited December 22, 2021 by UmbraNoctis.1907

[joneirikb.7506]

Regarding rewarding active play:

I've suggested in the past to tie the majority of rewards up to attack/defense events. Essentially, flipping empty objectives gives peanuts, if an enemy defends the objective both sides gain greater rewards.

I don't think it's perfect, so asking you guys to tear holes in the idea.

One slightly negative aspect is that it would "force" players to focus around objectives or other relevant events (like yaks and scouts as well, but not veterans). So I assume some might dislike that. On the other side, it will make it easier for others to find activity since the opponents would generally aim for those things.

Another slightly negative thing (possibly), is that if you have 3 defenders and watch a zerg of 30 come, you would probably be best of just porting out to deny them rewards.

Would need some restrictions, so you can't just sit and repair wall while enemy attacks for rewards. Probably hitting enemy with your own skills (not only siege).

Could also be tied to outnumbered effect, so you gained less rewards fighting against outnumbered? Or since it's ANet, probably the opposite, that Outnumbered gained more rewards. (almost forgot the Care-bear-Rule)

Edited December 23, 2021 by joneirikb.7506

[Xenesis.6389]

29 minutes ago, joneirikb.7506 said:

I've suggested in the past to tie the majority of rewards up to attack/defense events. Essentially, flipping empty objectives gives peanuts, if an enemy defends the objective both sides gain greater rewards.

I don't think it's perfect, so asking you guys to tear holes in the idea.

 

If a boon ball blob is on the map and we don't have the players to even put a dent in them, I probably wouldn't even bother defending, why give them more rewards when they have an overwhelming advantage? These blobs also love to sit in keeps for 30 mins farming bags, so now they'll just have more motivation to carry max numbers and prolong the capture for as long as possible to earn maximum rewards? Unless the multiple defend event rewards add up to more than the capture event there's no point defending.

 

There would need to be seriously limitations to the events, because players once again, will abuse the system for maximum rewards.

Game needs to stop snowball rewarding greater numbers.

[joneirikb.7506]

40 minutes ago, Xenesis.6389 said:

 

If a boon ball blob is on the map and we don't have the players to even put a dent in them, I probably wouldn't even bother defending, why give them more rewards when they have an overwhelming advantage? These blobs also love to sit in keeps for 30 mins farming bags, so now they'll just have more motivation to carry max numbers and prolong the capture for as long as possible to earn maximum rewards? Unless the multiple defend event rewards add up to more than the capture event there's no point defending.

 

There would need to be seriously limitations to the events, because players once again, will abuse the system for maximum rewards.

Game needs to stop snowball rewarding greater numbers.

Good points.

* Boon-Ball-Blitz: At the same time, ignoring them would both reduce their reward and remove their fun (farming pugs). While if a defender could get rewards for just keeping the defence event going, wouldn't that be fine by itself? After all as long as the defence event runs they are effectively delaying the boon-ball from capturing? (PPT victory, which requires other changes tomake PPT more desireable again)

* I expect there to be some exploits, which is why I'm asking you to tear the idea appart :)

* The problem with the Snowball, is that the only real way to stop it, is to stop multiplying the rewards to the number of players. You'd need some sort of dimishing returns to rewards based on numbers. But that's completely off the table for ANet (Care-Bear-Rule).

[Shiyo.3578]

On 12/22/2021 at 4:04 PM, UmbraNoctis.1907 said:

And encourage afking and doing as little as possible even more than the current system. I'd rather have zergs tbh ...

My system:

If you're afking, you get nothing.

Taking a camp or dolyak to get participation benefits EVERYONE.

You are rewarded when your faction takes anything, even while defending.

You are not discouraged to actively avoid PvP and zerg because you are rewarded if people split up and take things all over the map as long as you're actively playing.

Current system:
If you're afking, you get nothing.

If you take a dolyak or camp for participation, only you get it.

You get nothing from your faction taking forts, keeps, etc.

You get nothing from defending.

You're encouraged to zerg and ignore PvP for maximum rewards(unless you have a boon blob and you just steam roll over people stupid enough to fight you).

 

Edited December 24, 2021 by Shiyo.3578

[Silverleaf.4978]

I sure could use a rare boost in Skirmish Tickets for sure but that is just "want". 🤣

[Cyninja.2954]

9 hours ago, Shiyo.3578 said:

My system:

If you're afking, you get nothing.

Taking a camp or dolyak to get participation benefits EVERYONE.

You are rewarded when your faction takes anything, even while defending.

You are not discouraged to actively avoid PvP and zerg because you are rewarded if people split up and take things all over the map as long as you're actively playing.

so, what exactly prevents players from just afking at spawn, occasionally taking a camp or sentry, then leeching off of the entire map?

It's easy to say "if you afk you get nothing". Simply saying it does not make it true though. You actually have to design a system around not rewarding afk players. If the system you put in place allows for afking, your intentions mean nothing.

If noticing afk players was that easy, the issue would have been dealt with years ago. Turns out, afking or semi-afking with minimal effort is very difficult to detect AND counteract without actually affecting regular players.

Quote

Current system:
If you're afking, you get nothing.

If you take a dolyak or camp for participation, only you get it.

No, everyone in the vicinity who contributed gets participation. Ideally for everyone who helped out or participated in achieving the objective. This promotes active play (aka move out and engage objectives).

Quote

You get nothing from your faction taking forts, keeps, etc.

Again, not true. Everyone who took the tower, fort, keep, etc. is rewarded. Meanwhile the map opens up further for most players.

I challenge anyone to disagree to this simple statement:"it is far safer and easier to traverse a fully upgrade T3 border of ones own side, versus a paper border or even worse, an enemy held one."

Quote

You get nothing from defending.

Again, not true. Defending leads to a higher ppt once objectives upgrade. The reward is not immediate but rather delayed and less tangible. Defending is a reactionary activity. It's very difficult to balance something around reactionary play-styles because you literally need an active state before that to occur.

The recent change made by developers is intended to force more active participation (by removing passive participation) in an effort to create more reactive situations. The reason defending is now less valuable, without accounting for the afk treb players, is the lack of value in holding objectives.

 

Quote

You're encouraged to zerg and ignore PvP for maximum rewards(unless you have a boon blob and you just steam roll over people stupid enough to fight you).

 

 

Players zerg beyond only rewards, which are often higher when in bigger numbers by mere fact that a bigger force "wins" more. It's not even reward or efficiency related. The most effective method to play the mode is literally 10-15 person squads attacking multiple objectives. Many players zerg because they dislike dying, similar to how roaming squads "roam" around to catch solo roamers offguard.

 

The main issue here is that "winning" or being effective is not rewarded appropriately while a large part of the player base dislikes dying or even being in charge of their own actions. You could remove all rewards from blobbing, and all it would do is shrink the player base because many would rather not play at all instead of play in smaller groups (which is exactly what happens when no tags are up, many players leave).

Edited December 24, 2021 by Cyninja.2954

[joneirikb.7506]

On the topic of "You AFK you get nothing":

I don't think this is a perfect way to solve it, but I suspect the very first thing you'd have to do would be to:

"DISABLE ALL REWARDS WHILE IN SAFE/SPAWN ZONE".

That would probably mean locking/freezing all reward-track, pips, and any other rewards while in the safe zones, and only continue progressing when leaving it.

You would then have to build a system up that would require players to do a number (Y) of different actions (X) in order to build or maintain participation etc.

If you make actions (X) into various stuff like: Moving, using skills 2-0, attacking/killing npc, attacking/killing player, etc.

Then set number (Y) to a high enough number that you have to do multiple of these at the same time in order to make this work.

It still won't be fail-proof, but at least it would be a lot harder to cheat the system. There will naturally be players that find the minimum amount of actions they need to do to qualify the number. And sit repeating those same things over and over.

Further ideas for fine-tuning this:
* Areas (Z): Can't repeat the same thing too many times within the same area, have to move around and do something in another area to "reset" the first area.
* Different actions can (as they do now) give different amounts of duration, despite all counting as a single 1 for the number. Possible exception for attacking/killing players.

[Lan Deathrider.5910]

^ that isn't a bad idea. Freeze all tracks, pips, and participation when at spawn. I think that right there would fix half the afk population.

 

[Strider Pj.2193]

1 hour ago, Lan Deathrider.5910 said:

^ that isn't a bad idea. Freeze all tracks, pips, and participation when at spawn. I think that right there would fix half the afk population.

 

I would love to see them do that.  
 

The next step for people would be AFKing in T-3 keeps.  
 

But determining ‘AFK’ is what truly creates the problem.