Ideas on how to "Revive" WvW / Roaming

[joneirikb.7506]

Regarding if pve players would come to play if the rewards are good enough, see old EotM. If they do make the rewards enticing enough I think they would come. The question is just how much.

Like, say ANet tested this by implementing it in EotM, and the rewards are good enough. I suspect we'd be back to the old EotM problem, where more players played that, simply because the rewards where better than WvW proper. 

I think it would be interesting to test, so the biggest question is rather how much work would it be for the 1 coder and 2 chipmunks that is ANet's WvW department? 

[Sahne.6950]

1 hour ago, Xenesis.6389 said:

 

You said run back to spawn not garrison.... 🙄 why would I go farm for currency at the furthest points of the map... 🤔

Oh noes I'm a lazy player oh noes you got me oh noes I just told you how it will play out as a lazy player then oh noes.

So now that we've moved on to the insulting part of the thread, your idea sucks, and it doesn't encourage or interest a lazy pve player like me, find another way to pass me more passive rewards while I sit afk at spawn, thanks. 

Worst regards,

Your local lazy pve player perspective.

insulting part of the thread

wooowooow i think someone got hurt... was not my intention... 

there is million ways to implement it. maybe you can hand in currency at t3 objectives aswell making upgrading even more powerfull. You could have said that it is a problem and maybe suggest how to fix it -> handing in at t3 keeps/garris

but you are just like : people are to lazy to play the game so we wont have that...

people are not to lazy to farm the same kitten winterberrybushes every kitten day... but running for more then 1 minute is to much... TY FOR YOUR OPINION ❤️

 

Edited January 27, 2022 by Sahne.6950

[GoldenPants.1870]

16 hours ago, coro.3176 said:

Everyone (not in spawn safe area) gets rewarded for every objective captured or kill scored

Just instantly no. This literally just encourages leeching.

 

16 hours ago, coro.3176 said:

reduce rewards for kills and captures

This will punish roamers more than zergs.

 

16 hours ago, coro.3176 said:

Reduce the power of defensive siege and tower/keep lords. 1-2 players should be able to threaten a structure. If defenders want to protect it, they should have to meet the attackers on open ground, not from behind a wall.

Also no, Ive defended objectives with like 2-3 people against groups of 20 ish.

[Sahne.6950]

16 hours ago, coro.3176 said:

Reduce the power of defensive siege and tower/keep lords. 1-2 players should be able to threaten a structure. If defenders want to protect it, they should have to meet the attackers on open ground, not from behind a wall.

Also no, Ive defended objectives with like 2-3 people against groups of 20 ish.

 

I think that is what he wants to get rid off.... he doesnt want 2-3 people defending against a zerg... xD #morepowertozergs 

if those 2-3 people want to defend they have to meet the zerg on openfield....  maybe hes trolling?

Edited January 27, 2022 by Sahne.6950

[Mabi black.1824]

I think all of us players would be thrilled with any small changes/updates to our game mode.

but in fact remove the wp to our 4 maps I also believe that it is a mistake. it is the only way we have today to get there in time to defend and find fun fights. I think removing them would make the game mode much slower.

[Mabi black.1824]

many other things could be fun but removing the wp is really its weak point

[Sahne.6950]

25 minutes ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

I think all of us players would be thrilled with any small changes/updates to our game mode.

but in fact remove the wp to our 4 maps I also believe that it is a mistake. it is the only way we have today to get there in time to defend and find fun fights. I think removing them would make the game mode much slower.

yeah! your right i didnt think about that... defending would be a problem. maybe make it so that you cant teleport if you have a set ammount of currency on you? or make you loose the currency when teleporting?`

OR make them bankable at a objective. you can deposit them at a tower then teleport and pick them up later. If the objective is lost in the meantime you loose the currency. (i am aware that this is is just messing around with ideas and would take AAAAGES to implement)

or it has to be a mode outside of WvW, but i think it has the potential to finetune the gameplay and should therefore be a thing inside of WvW.

There 100% HAS TO BE a restriction to teleporting because otherwise you could just teleport when you have farmed enough and have literally no risk of dying.

let me know your thoughts. ^^

 

Edited January 27, 2022 by Sahne.6950

[joneirikb.7506]

Waypoint makes you drop your currency (on the ground).

[Sahne.6950]

2 hours ago, joneirikb.7506 said:

Waypoint makes you drop your currency (on the ground).

Big yes!

[coro.3176]

5 hours ago, GoldenPants.1870 said:

Just instantly no. This literally just encourages leeching.

Yes, but also makes leeching more difficult, because you have to keep moving and can't afk near spawn. If you have to spend effort to run around and avoid being killed, you might as well play the game. Plus, everyone gets more rewards if people try. Isn't that how the PvE maps mostly work? Map event succeeds = everyone gets rewarded.

5 hours ago, GoldenPants.1870 said:

This will punish roamers more than zergs.

No, because under full WvW communism, everyone gets all the rewards, and zergs are getting more of everything (kills, captures, etc.) Plus, the overall score rewards would be increased to compensate.

5 hours ago, GoldenPants.1870 said:

Also no, Ive defended objectives with like 2-3 people against groups of 20 ish.

Same, and I can't say that's great gameplay. It'd be better if instead of turning back a force of 20 with 2-3 players in a siege vs siege conflict, the 2-3 could merely stall a few minutes to potentially give defenders some time to form up. 

Obviously, just my opinion, but it's more fun when there's a fight rather than siege wars.

[Sahne.6950]

12 minutes ago, coro.3176 said:

Yes, but also makes leeching more difficult, because you have to keep moving and can't afk near spawn.

you could literally hide in the jumpingpuzzle or somewhere else... its not a good idea.

also imagine you are getting roflstomped by another server. Almost all day we were holding almost everything on all maps. im speaking EVERYTHING. Now enemys dont get loot? WOOOW people would be so upset 😄 and it would encourage going to the winning servers, aka. more stacked servers. 

[coro.3176]

6 minutes ago, Sahne.6950 said:

you could literally hide in the jumpingpuzzle or somewhere else... its not a good idea.

also imagine you are getting roflstomped by another server. Almost all day we were holding almost everything on all maps. im speaking EVERYTHING. Now enemys dont get loot? WOOOW people would be so upset 😄 and it would encourage going to the winning servers, aka. more stacked servers. 

The alliance system is supposed to bring balance to the force WvW. There shouldn't be any more server stacking, as matchups will be created out of alliances of guilds rather than server transfers.

If enemies are getting roflstomped, they should be upset. It should motivate them to try to win. Again, soon there will be alliances, not servers, so they won't be able to just transfer.

[Zikory.6871]

16 minutes ago, coro.3176 said:

The alliance system is supposed to bring balance to the force WvW. There shouldn't be any more server stacking, as matchups will be created out of alliances of guilds rather than server transfers.

Yikes if you still think this is the case. Currently you can side step transfers with alts and just select the world you want to be on once they are created. 

[coro.3176]

7 minutes ago, Zikory.6871 said:

Yikes if you still think this is the case. Currently you can side step transfers with alts and just select the world you want to be on once they are created. 

Well, then fix that? I'm just saying, in theory it should be possible to create balanced matchups that can't be bandwagon-ed. If you have to prevent new accounts from being able to join in-progress matches that week, then fine. Seems like a fair tradeoff.

[Zikory.6871]

7 minutes ago, coro.3176 said:

Well, then fix that? I'm just saying, in theory it should be possible to create balanced matchups that can't be bandwagon-ed. If you have to prevent new accounts from being able to join in-progress matches that week, then fine. Seems like a fair tradeoff.

It would be for the season if you wanted to keep matches "even" so lock new people out for (currently) 2 months? :shrug: That would be a questionable and unlikely choice for Anet. 
 

Quote

If enemies are getting roflstomped, they should be upset. It should motivate them to try to win.

I don't actually disagree with this but what is "winning"? I used to be on Blackgate, winning meant something very different on that server then it does on my current one. Nowadays winning is just fun rallies, how does Anet balance this mentality?

[coro.3176]

30 minutes ago, Zikory.6871 said:

I don't actually disagree with this but what is "winning"? I used to be on Blackgate, winning meant something very different on that server then it does on my current one. Nowadays winning is just fun rallies, how does Anet balance this mentality?

"Winning" has to be literally winning the matchup. In other words, what BG thinks winning is, not what other servers think winning is (getting lots of kills and not caring about score).

To the extent that winning the matchup creates boring gameplay - i.e. siege wars - it should be tweaked to encourage more fights, but in the end, it's a competitive game mode, so players should care about the result of the competition.

[Zikory.6871]

2 minutes ago, coro.3176 said:

"Winning" has to be literally winning the matchup. In other words, what BG thinks winning is, not what other servers think winning is (getting lots of kills and not caring about score).

To the extent that winning the matchup creates boring gameplay - i.e. siege wars - it should be tweaked to encourage more fights, but in the end, it's a competitive game mode, so players should care about the result of the competition.

But what you are talking about is more then balanced population, even in time zones. Alliances alone won't do what you are suggesting. 

[coro.3176]

doublepost...............

Edited January 27, 2022 by coro.3176

[coro.3176]

13 minutes ago, Zikory.6871 said:

But what you are talking about is more then balanced population, even in time zones. Alliances alone won't do what you are suggesting. 

Sure. Alliances are part of it. Increased incentive to win is part of it (better rewards?). Also, less incentive to zerg (more equal reward distribution).

[AlCapwnd.7834]

19 minutes ago, coro.3176 said:

Sure. Alliances are part of it. Increased incentive to win is part of it (better rewards?). Also, less incentive to zerg (more equal reward distribution).

But i like Zerging. I am one of those players that loves the big blob clash!

[coro.3176]

5 minutes ago, AlCapwnd.7834 said:

But i like Zerging. I am one of those players that loves the big blob clash!

That's cool. I like big fights too. It's just that they shouldn't be rewarded more than small fights. You shouldn't feel like you're losing out on a ton of gold/xp/whatever by roaming and fighting 1v1's or 5v5's rather than 50v50.

[Zikory.6871]

7 minutes ago, coro.3176 said:

You shouldn't feel like you're losing out on a ton of gold/xp/whatever by roaming and fighting 1v1's or 5v5's rather than 50v50.

I mean, I don't think anyone would argue with this assuming 1v1s are getting 50v50 levels of loot and not the other way around. But I don't think what you are asking for is realistic without major changes (talking yeears from now), anything 1 player can do, 50 can do to but with 50. 

I'll probably be fairly cynical on this until I could understand how to achieve that. 

Edited January 27, 2022 by Zikory.6871

[Abyssisis.3971]

You won’t revive roaming while the zergball mentality is a thing.

[Zyreva.1078]

18 hours ago, Shroud.2307 said:

Did you miss the part where I said event?
 

I did not. But if it likely won't be fun for many players - for zerglings because of obvious reasons and for solo and small scale players becasue of reasons i have mentioned. So what's the point? Especially when considering that it proably wouldn't be easy to implement, so it would require quite a bit of dev time, which could be spent much better, no?

[GoldenPants.1870]

8 hours ago, coro.3176 said:

Isn't that how the PvE maps mostly work?

To an extent, but even there you need to activly participate to get the rewards, not much mind you, but its PvE.

 

8 hours ago, coro.3176 said:

and I can't say that's great gameplay. It'd be better if instead of turning back a force of 20 with 2-3 players in a siege vs siege conflict, the 2-3 could merely stall a few minutes to potentially give defenders some time to form up. 

No. No it would not.