When the Participation System Punishes Participation

[Luthan.5236]

That actually sounds like the master was pretty stupid - in that case with that bible story. (I googled it to read the full thing.) He should have given the one he gave one bag ... nothing. If he knew that guy was already worse than the others. The one he gave 5 bags could probably have handled the additional one as well. Instead he complains that the servant was too stupid to even bring it to the bank to get interests. ... when he actually could just have done the same thing or given it to the other guy that he valued more. Lol.

Comparing it to ArenaNet: They actuallly can (and sometimes try) ... to anticipate how players behave. Not punishing them for how they behave ... but trying to adjust the system.

Since they did not do this so far - it is okay for me to sit at the spawn in some enemy alpine borderlands ... recapping a camp. Then alt-tabbing out for 5-10 minutes and recapping another camp. Keeping the participation at top tier 6 and getting my pips for my wooden tier (I only do wood tier each week) + some reward track progress. (Don't really care about WxP where more active play might be required.) It actually is not a big deal (or intended) that people play like me. It seems. It is safe and easy. Better than running around ... arriving to late at objctives while not finding an enemy to kill that you are able to kill - where you might be mote at risk losing participation.

So in away this is a form of "git gud" - trying to optimize how you play with your own goals in mind. The problem is when others prefer a different play style ... and are not able to influence other players that play counter-productive for this play style. (For example the commander tagged up complaining that there is a queue on the map and only 20 people in squad. There might be limits to how much they can "git gud" if the enemy has 50 active people while on the team with 20 ... 30 are doing other stuff. AfK at the keep running in a wall. Or recapping camps for participation while just waiting afk for the next camp to be available..)

Edited December 6, 2022 by Luthan.5236

[ArchonWing.9480]

25 minutes ago, Luthan.5236 said:

That actually sounds like the master was pretty stupid - in that case with that bible story. (I googled it to read the full thing.) He should have given the one he gave one bag ... nothing. If he knew that guy was already worse than the others. The one he gave 5 bags could probably have handled the additional one as well. Instead he complains that the servant was too stupid to even bring it to the bank to get interests. ... when he actually could just have done the same thing or given it to the other guy that he valued more. Lol.

You're not wrong. (And excluding the part they could have lost money). That actually got brought up.

"Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents."

So yea the master is also part of the problem too but it doesn't take away from the scrubiness of the Servant."

In other words just because WvW is poorly designed  doesn't absolve players of all responsibility xD

 

Edited December 7, 2022 by ArchonWing.9480

[Luthan.5236]

Well ... the master should have given the thing to the better servant in the first place. (If he already distributed giving the "better" one more ... he must have known that the other guy is bad. :D) But I guess I should not interpret too much into things. The usual interpretation used for this bible part is probably the correct one - since we have to take into account that the bible was written way back a ton of years ago. From people in power with having the intent in mind ... to get their workers/servants to believe that working hard is good for them. (At least in my opinion. Of course other people that really believe in god and stuff. And take the bible more seriously - are free to do so.)

Thing is that people are "clever" - in every game mode. Even in PvE a ton of stuff needs to be hotfixed where ArenaNet overlooked stuff - after implementing something new. So that "responsibility" ... just means they will do that is best for their goals. You can only change the reweards and hope the players will play differently. Even in PvP we have people that go there for dailies and stuff ... getting others that want to play more seriously to complain about PvP dailies.

Of course then .. with the right reward structure then it would be up to the players. Can't say I'm complaining if the enemy camps our spawn. (I mean this has been explaind as well - less players then will spawn at the team that gets camped. And the enemy will have less to kill and get participation.) I actually then try to get someone pulled (some get desperate and try to walk too far towards your spawn ... cause there is no other way to get kills/participation - then you can get a kill sometimes as weaker player). That would be the responsibility of the players. To actually fight back. (Don't know why everyone just prefers to be on the team that steamrolls everything. Makes no sense for my style of play.)

Edited December 7, 2022 by Luthan.5236

[ArchonWing.9480]

10 hours ago, Luthan.5236 said:

From people in power with having the intent in mind ... to get their workers/servants to believe that working hard is good for them. (At least in my opinion. Of course other people that really believe in god and stuff. And take the bible more seriously - are free to do so.)

Well, that interpretation I think grew when the Church went from being persecuted to being in power and then literally selling salvation to people via money via indulgencies so that mindset of "work away so you can give us money" came about. It's why Protestantism happened, because they were upset at this because either it was immoral and/or they wanted to make money too. But I don't want to make this into a serious discussion. xD

I guess I'll just retort with another and close it out :

Quote

The path of the righteous WvWer is beset on all sides the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of the balance team. Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and good pips, shepherds the noobs through the Valley of the Eternal Battlegrounds.  For he is truly the Stonemist Lord's keeper and the finder of lost children.

And I will strike upon thee with furious  Wells and Hunter Wards on those that attempt to condi and gank my brothers. And you will know I am the tag when I lay my vengeance  upon you.

No, I don't know the meaning of what I just wrote. It'd just be some cold kitten to say when we kill someone.

Edited December 7, 2022 by ArchonWing.9480

[Forgotten Legend.9281]

On 12/6/2022 at 2:37 PM, TheGrimm.5624 said:

Agree with many above the overall system needs reviewed for various reasons. Trying to narrow down individual events makes the discussions more limited but may also show how individual bits can be addressed. I don't think the system today knows the difference between being in combat with a player versus an NPC, but it has rules that says you are in combat. I don't think that just triggers while standing around and doing nothing. So if we have rules that put you in combat and then why couldn't that system be used to stop decay. That would account for you being active, since you are in combat, but also wouldn't add to your participation time unless you were successful. Mind you I am not addressing losing fights, this is just looking at decay while in combat in this post. Since there is a built in timer to getting out of combat it would have the logic to say stop the decay when entering and start the decay on exiting. Since that overall cooldown from being in combat is not that long overall once you are out of it that would account for the difference in active versus not. Now as in all things there will be some actions that might need to addressed that put you in combat but it would still benefit people fighting more versus people just trying to bot/macro their way thru not decaying and it wouldn't grant free participation either. Plus there is already a built in trigger the software could use to know when to trigger the decay timer or pause it. Thoughts?

 

Very well put into words, and very much along the lines i was thinking.

1) The programming is already partly there. more would be needed, but the ground work is already laid.

2) there are actions that would need to be addressed (if possible based on the programming) to prevent abuse, even though currently, there are players that simply spawn AFK until the participation starts decaying, then they go capture a camp to boost the timer again, then rinse and repeat. if THIS practice is permitted, 9-10 minutes of no participation and then 1-2 minutes of participation, then why can't the decay timer stop while people are actively in combat?

 

On 12/6/2022 at 4:24 PM, TheGrimm.5624 said:

 

 

 

So if the goal is to encourage people to fight but only reward those that win then you do end up with people that won't try to fight unless they know they can win which means less fighting and more zerging. So one issue that was discussed above was decay. By stopping decay while in combat that helps both the players in a fight regardless of it if they end up winning, losing or running away but only rewards on the win.

 

The second question here is should fighting in itself reward participation? If you want people to fight, and if we consider that active play shouldn't it? So would a system that rewards for participation based on damage applied work to support those that are fighting but aren't winning or might be evenly matched and are having an extended fight? Remember the people losing still aren't getting any WxP for losing, but they would be participating since they are actively trying to fight. Picture the software is recording damage applied over a period of a minute as an example. If the damage applied over the minute met what ever was considered fight reasonable damage it could apply something like .25% to participation tier and add a minute to the decay timer. That would equate than that a consistent 20 minute long fight would have the same value as killing a single player if people were damaging the other teams. By going with something like that you add a little balance back to people trying to fight outnumbered, defenders and people that are just not doing well together but it also wouldn't just award people who just die in a fight and are not doing any damage either. Now granted numbers above are a quick example to make the point and would need to be adjusted. Key is whatever system ends up in place if its activity we are talking it needs to be balanced in some way and not discourage people from being active while also not favoring botting,macroing or afking.  

good points... (starting with yours and merging my own thoughts into them)

1) the participation formula (and WxP and loot rewards) was originally based on damage dealt, which left out support classes

2) support classes are actively participating so they deserve participation (and loot)

3) since support classes deserve participation for actively participating in combat, even if they don't meet damage threshholds. why shouldn't active combat participants, when in a long-enough-fight, they exceed the damage threshholds?

 

i also highlighted with bold, italix, and underlining, your comments that i wholeheartedly agree with. to further that comment, winners are rewarded with warscore for the team. WxP and loot for the player character, on top of participation for the player character. participation (the word) is by definition NOT a reward, but simply being active in trying to achieve the goal. reaching the goal is rewarded. participation (system) should not decay while actively participating (word).

The pip chests are rewards for active participation in the match.

i don't know how the system could address afking, botting, etc... especially since it's apparently acceptable for people to AFK and then refresh their participation on 9 to 1 ratios. (afk for 9 minutes, participate for 1 minute, and receive full pip chest rewards, but those rewards are still less than constant captures and kills and their additional WxP, Warscore, and loot rewaards)

 

[Nikola.3841]

On 11/28/2022 at 1:58 PM, Mariyuuna.6508 said:

Because roamers running around in packs on the other maps once the main one is full isn't uncommon? Its perfectly possible to have even borderlands camps and sentries denied to you during a bad matchup, and there's only so much shifting around between maps you can do before giving up.

 

maagaaloo yesterday had T3 tower and both t3 camps vs blue side, with campers and 5 golems in each camp

[T G.7496]

The award of Participation to the individual confers no competitive advantage.

Being killed in an adversarial game mode requires participating. It should be rewarded as such. Perhaps not by as much, but the victor of a fight cannot win without also the participation of the loser.

Yes, I'm aware of potential 'abuse' of this, but see my first comment. And getting killed while afk or otherwise not engaging can only happen away from spawn, and you have to participate at minimum to leave spawn for that to happen. The idea of abuse of that is trivial.

[Zyreva.1078]

Ah yes, leaving spawn, definitely a task worthy of legendary rewards ...

[TheGrimm.5624]

On 12/9/2022 at 5:04 AM, UmbraNoctis.1907 said:

Ah yes, leaving spawn, definitely a task worthy of legendary rewards ...

 

What post is asking for people to gain rewards for stepping out of spawn? People are talking about not losing participation while they fight. I will defend PPT because objectives are meant to be focus points to create that fight. That doesn't mean I want people to run when they find open field fights. Each action that discourages people from attempting those open field fights only encourage people to zerg more. If I choose to attack more people while solo and can't finish the ones I dropped, that's on me for trying and can accept they get paid, but why should I lose participation while they gain it? I attacked them to see how I could do against more and practice doing so, but when I gave them the fight and content and they get to up their participation why should mine go down? And no its not about the rewards, already at level I don't need WvW levels for any skills, already in full leggo on all weights. It's the fact that the game considers trying to take on more as not participating that's kind of annoying. So I could see others not yet in the same situation it would be even more annoying and could see why people wouldn't want to try and run smaller scale. We don't need more incentive for people to just zerg. Fighting is participating. 

[Zyreva.1078]

4 hours ago, TheGrimm.5624 said:

Fighting is participating. 

Yes, but just being "in combat" is not and it's the latter that people want to be rewarded for. Fights are already one of the best ways to gain and maintain participation. Nobody avoids fights because they might lose participation. That's just bs. Running away/waypointing/hiding behind walls doesn't grant them participation either (and it shouldn't!) and most usually aren't even trying to attack even when sitting at 10 min timer and the "risk" of losing participation because of fighting is pretty much zero, because you can always move on if a fight isn't going anywhere or respawn and go somewhere else if dead.

If someone can't get any participation for ~ 15 min they aren't even trying.

Edited December 11, 2022 by UmbraNoctis.1907

[TheGrimm.5624]

8 hours ago, UmbraNoctis.1907 said:

Yes, but just being "in combat" is not

 

Please explain, I think you are looking to block loopholes here versus saying that people fighting are not participating? If I am in the middle of a fight, winning or losing, why is there a shot clock? Don't you want people to fight? I don't get where you are coming at this from. Fighting is the most active part of WvW. Why discourage people from doing so. That's the point from the OP, that fighting in it own right is being active. The balance here is not just rewarding the side that bring the most to the fight but to everyone actually playing and fighting. If people are outnumbered and still trying to hold what they own, even if they fail, why discourage them from trying  next time. That's just feeding the zerg. Sorry no, we need reason to hold so that people might get backup. We need less karma trains and more reasons for people to fight versus just run away. 

Edited December 11, 2022 by TheGrimm.5624
krama vs karma spellcheck for the lose wtw

[Zyreva.1078]

2 hours ago, TheGrimm.5624 said:

Please explain,

I did so plenty of times - it encourages stalemating. Many people have a habbit of trying to do as little as possible to maintain participation (hence this thread among others) and when staying in combat for as long as possible becomes beneficial, we'd just see more useless stalemate builds, players camping in golems and so on. Fighting should be all about trying to kill the opponent - which does get rewarded in the end. And if it doesn't work and you lose - just try again. The participation system is very lenient already and you can always flip some stuff once in a while if you are so worried about losing participation, because you were unable to tag even a single enemy for quite some time.

I spend 99% of my time in WvW fighting or looking for fights, most of the time outnumbered. And i don't have problems keeping participation up, despite not paying attention to it and after dieing often going back to where i died to try again.

I like fighting, it's the only reason i play WvW, and that's exactly why i don't want the proposed changes. Reward driven gameplay ruins the actual gameplay. The entire game mode suffers from this, so let fighting be something players do because they enjoy it and/or want to get something done, not because they can get free rewards without even trying.

Edited December 11, 2022 by UmbraNoctis.1907

[Gorani.7205]

@UmbraNoctis.1907 and @TheGrimm.5624

Players which are reluctant to fight will always run or try to get to a low participation task (e.g. dolly, sentinel, monument) now, because losing in a fight means you have to try again from spawn, away from the low participation target and your participation is constantly declining. Stopping the decline during a fight versus another player gives you a delay to the decline even when you lose and will keep players on the map longer and not waiting for a chance AFK at spawn or timing Veterans close to spawn or camps to "reset" and go AFK again. I don't think that "wrapping yourself in Nomad gear" and stalemate auto attack each other will be a thing happening. The benefit of having non declining participation while in combat with another player outweighs the risk of stalemate builds in my opinion.

[Zyreva.1078]

29 minutes ago, Gorani.7205 said:

@UmbraNoctis.1907 and @TheGrimm.5624

Players which are reluctant to fight will always run or try to get to a low participation task (e.g. dolly, sentinel, monument)

And that is completely independend from the participation system. In fact, we have so many players that don't want to fight because of how lenient the reward system, not because it "punishes" fighting (it doesn't).

29 minutes ago, Gorani.7205 said:

now, because losing in a fight means you have to try again from spawn, away from the low participation target and your participation is constantly declining.

It takes 10 min until maxed participation starts declining (and several additional minutes before you actually drop reward tier), plenty of time to fight, lose, respawn, try again, fight, lose again and still do something that refreshes the timer without losing out on any rewards.

29 minutes ago, Gorani.7205 said:

Stopping the decline during a fight versus another player gives you a delay to the decline even when you lose and will keep players on the map longer and not waiting for a chance AFK at spawn or timing Veterans close to spawn or camps to "reset" and go AFK again.

Stopping decline during combat does nothing unless players try to stay in combat for as long as possible aka stalemating. It won't change anything for those afk players. They are afking, because they don't want to actually play the game and just collect free rewards, not because they are worried about declining participation (which happens anyway when they are afk).

If you want less afk farmers and more active players, the reward system needs to be more strict (eg immediate decline while in spawn area or when "inactive" for x amount of time, or best - getting rid of the passive reward system entirely and directly rewarding kills/caps/defense)

Edited December 11, 2022 by UmbraNoctis.1907

[Forgotten Legend.9281]

which is worse? encouraging stalemating or encouraging griefing?

1) stalemating already exists in several ways in WvW:

a)with super tanky builds... the proposed change will not change that. and nothing has been done so far to discourage stalemating...

b)stalemating also exists as delay tactics to prevent captures while zergs are on their way.

c)boon-blobbing exists because it's basically a zerg stalemating tactic.

d)the lack of the proposed change has not reduced those stalemating tactics over many years. as matter of fact, those stalemating tactics existed long before the participation system was introduced in WvW. 

2) people run from fights partly because fighting offers no "participation" in the current system. stopping the decay of participation means MORE fights... funny how people who play WvW for the fights don't want enemies to be encouraged to fight... in a game mode that is universally mocked for it's lackluster reward system...( which Anet has said they want to improve those rewards )

3) people play GW2 PvE because griefing doesn't exist. (reminder that people defined griefing as killing lower level players, preventing them from progressing in PvE content modes)

4) many players in WvW complain about spawn camping, which is as close to griefing as one can get in GW2. part of the complaint has to do with losing participation and therefore losing Pip Chest rewards, even though they are fighting in the game mode.

[tobin.6754]

2 hours ago, Forgotten Legend.9281 said:

many players in WvW complain about spawn camping, which is as close to griefing as one can get in GW2. part of the complaint has to do with losing participation and therefore losing Pip Chest rewards, even though they are fighting in the game mode.

 

You are playing the wrong game mode, if you are in wvw just for participation and pips.

[Brandon Uzumaki.1524]

Assuming they still want this reward structure, with pips and timed rewards, i think participation should be a bonus only, currently you only get rewards on participation 3 and above right, bellow that the only thing you will be getting is xp and loot bags from killing players, no pip per tick nor reward track progress, and for some players you have this constant fear of losing participation and getting reduced rewards or no rewards at all, "do i do my own thing, try to make my own fun, but risk losing all my participation and rewards, or do i follow the tag and guarantee my participation and rewards, the safe option", this probably goes through the head of a lot of players, mostly new guys.

It could work like this, just a base idea:
First you need a scaled reward track reward for the lower tiers, at T6 you get 180 i believe, so they would need a base amount for T2 and T1 now, and these extras.

-Participation Tier 1= 2% Extra Reward Track Progress, 5% Extra WvW XP, 5% Extra Magic Find, 2% chance of getting extra loot bag on kills, 2% chance of getting extra loot when capturing objectives.

-And at Participation Tier 6= 12% Reward Track Progress, 25% WvW XP, 25% Magic Find, 12% chance of extra loot bag, 12% chance of extra loot on objectives.

This would be like having a "minor Call of the Mists" active at all times, but based on your participation, you can lose all your participation, but it won't stop you from getting rewards, you will just get less. They could also put extra stuff at T6, 1 extra pip for example, or maybe the "extra loot from kills and objectives" only starts at T3, or it's exclusive to T6, etc, plenty of things to put there.

[TheGrimm.5624]

5 hours ago, UmbraNoctis.1907 said:

I did so plenty of times - it encourages stalemating. Many people have a habbit of trying to do as little as possible to maintain participation (hence this thread among others) and when staying in combat for as long as possible becomes beneficial, we'd just see more useless stalemate builds, players camping in golems and so on. Fighting should be all about trying to kill the opponent - which does get rewarded in the end. And if it doesn't work and you lose - just try again. The participation system is very lenient already and you can always flip some stuff once in a while if you are so worried about losing participation, because you were unable to tag even a single enemy for quite some time.

I spend 99% of my time in WvW fighting or looking for fights, most of the time outnumbered. And i don't have problems keeping participation up, despite not paying attention to it and after dieing often going back to where i died to try again.

I like fighting, it's the only reason i play WvW, and that's exactly why i don't want the proposed changes. Reward driven gameplay ruins the actual gameplay. The entire game mode suffers from this, so let fighting be something players do because they enjoy it and/or want to get something done, not because they can get free rewards without even trying.

 

So based on your words you are defending zerging while you roam and are looking for loop holes. I don't have issues with participation either and as I said I don't need it but I can get the issue people have that if they fought and lost why do they still get the same reaction from the game as someone that just sat in spawn? You are granting the often mentioned camp flipper more of value than players trying to block the other side from getting thru a wall while others arrive to aid so they didn't lose their objective.

I am against when we end up coding against active gameplay while we try and code to purge the AFKer. People fighting and losing is not the same as someone doing nothing. So you want people to just stop and capture Northcamp instead of trying to get back and save Garri? That just promotes karma trains. I spend quite a lot of time roaming. Roaming isn't just about attacking, quite often its about defending too and quite often that's while outnumbered. So for roamers, small scale, large scale and zerging there is merit in a review of the decay timer for people that are fighting, winning or losing. We don't need to encourage people away from fighting, nor from roaming or small scale to just to lead them to AFKing in a zerg while 2 people open a wall or to not even trying to fight 2 v 2,4 or 6. Discouraging fighting just lends more aid to people trying to do things that you are concerned with while impacting active gameplay. I will side with give people more encouragement to fight side even if its not going to go well for them due to numbers so we will have to disagree here.

[TheGrimm.5624]

5 hours ago, UmbraNoctis.1907 said:

Stopping decline during combat does nothing unless players try to stay in combat for as long as possible aka stalemating. It won't change anything for those afk players.

 

Do you really think that someone trying to hold an objective, aka what you seem to be referring to as stalemating, is doing so because that's a form of AFK? The people trying to hold stuff aren't doing it because its more rewarding, its because it's their servers stuff. And that's while we have no reasons to win. They are trying to not lose the objective to the other side. If they were doing it for rewards why wouldn't they just really stay in spawn let the other side take it and take it back in 5 minutes and then just retreat to spawn to really AFK. Active defense and holding something is not the same as just waiting to flip it back and if anything the AFKer gets more out of it if they don't try and fight versus one that did try and hold it and then lost.

[TheGrimm.5624]

50 minutes ago, Brandon Uzumaki.1524 said:

Assuming they still want this reward structure, with pips and timed rewards, i think participation should be a bonus only, currently you only get rewards on participation 3 and above right, bellow that the only thing you will be getting is xp and loot bags from killing players, no pip per tick nor reward track progress, and for some players you have this constant fear of losing participation and getting reduced rewards or no rewards at all, "do i do my own thing, try to make my own fun, but risk losing all my participation and rewards, or do i follow the tag and guarantee my participation and rewards, the safe option", this probably goes through the head of a lot of players, mostly new guys.

It could work like this, just a base idea:
First you need a scaled reward track reward for the lower tiers, at T6 you get 180 i believe, so they would need a base amount for T2 and T1 now, and these extras.

-Participation Tier 1= 2% Extra Reward Track Progress, 5% Extra WvW XP, 5% Extra Magic Find, 2% chance of getting extra loot bag on kills, 2% chance of getting extra loot when capturing objectives.

-And at Participation Tier 6= 12% Reward Track Progress, 25% WvW XP, 25% Magic Find, 12% chance of extra loot bag, 12% chance of extra loot on objectives.

This would be like having a "minor Call of the Mists" active at all times, but based on your participation, you can lose all your participation, but it won't stop you from getting rewards, you will just get less. They could also put extra stuff at T6, 1 extra pip for example, or maybe the "extra loot from kills and objectives" only starts at T3, or it's exclusive to T6, etc, plenty of things to put there.

 

The rewards rework is a bigger discussion that ANet has indicated is upcoming and I hope that they start some discussions on as they work on the WR project. I am sure based on prior threads that will be a 'lively' discussion. We have already seen that the word 'rewards' wears many hats to people and those hats motivate people in differing ways. 

[TheGrimm.5624]

6 hours ago, Gorani.7205 said:

@UmbraNoctis.1907 and @TheGrimm.5624

Players which are reluctant to fight will always run or try to get to a low participation task (e.g. dolly, sentinel, monument) now, because losing in a fight means you have to try again from spawn, away from the low participation target and your participation is constantly declining. Stopping the decline during a fight versus another player gives you a delay to the decline even when you lose and will keep players on the map longer and not waiting for a chance AFK at spawn or timing Veterans close to spawn or camps to "reset" and go AFK again. I don't think that "wrapping yourself in Nomad gear" and stalemate auto attack each other will be a thing happening. The benefit of having non declining participation while in combat with another player outweighs the risk of stalemate builds in my opinion.

 

This is where I took the original OP's point from. I didn't take that they were looking just to get paid nor to just do as little as possible but more if they are doing active things why does the game tell them they have been AFK all that time, especially if they spent that time while fighting. I agree with UmbraNoctis that odds are low that someone isn't going to die in a fight. But have also seen people hold off mini-boon ball havocs from taking something and neither side scoring kills because even outnumbered the boonball had the edge. But that doesn't mean either side in that exchange weren't more active than the person that is AFKing in spawn that has no chance to lose. We need to stop punishing defenders and in this cause active gameplay while the issue of AFK in spawn is trying to be addressed. These are not the same thing.

[browolf.3825]

this happened in our matchup on eb the other day

 

green took all our (blue) stuff and spawn camped us while red just watched from their corner.  I don't think there were many red on the map and maybe they were just glad to keep their stuff for a while but Eb doesn't work when 1 side is awol

[TheGrimm.5624]

3 hours ago, tobin.6754 said:

 

You are playing the wrong game mode, if you are in wvw just for participation and pips.

 

So you are saying GW2 is not an MMO? See how that works? Different people will weigh 'rewards' differently. 'Rewards' are what people use as an excuse to play an MMO or Massive Multiplayer Online game that in reality is a time sink. People will be 'rewarded' for their time in whatever they believe entertained them enough that they thought that the time sink had value. If you think 'rewards' equal in game loot, none of us would be in this game mode. I see the time had value because we took their stuff and held ours. We won the week, though that means nothing, or we used less to do more than they did, again means nothing once we are offline. They outnumbered us but we still took ground. We held them back till we could get more people into the fight, though we died. Each person will see 'rewards' differently. Just picking out a one liner from the Forgotten Legend's post doesn't really make a point especially if you didn't provide what you traded that time away for. For some people the reward chest might be a way they track time spent. If I was to be more cynical its actually the slot machine theory of game crafting. Its the shiny that says drop another quarter in and try your luck, spend some more time here its worth it. I would say most of what we have left are here because they see it as fun but different people will measure and weigh the fun and 'rewarding' versus time spent differently when they ask themselves do I go back in or do something different. When the game tells people fighting is not rewarding, I see it as we lose more people to go do something else or just avoid fights. We don't need more of that.

[Zyreva.1078]

7 hours ago, Forgotten Legend.9281 said:

2) people run from fights partly because fighting offers no "participation" in the current system. stopping the decay of participation means MORE fights...

No, players don't avoid fights because they might lose participation in 99,99% of cases and stopping decay while in combat wouldn't encourage more actual fights.

2 hours ago, TheGrimm.5624 said:

I can get the issue people have that if they fought and lost why do they still get the same reaction from the game as someone that just sat in spawn? You are granting the often mentioned camp flipper more of value than players trying to block the other side from getting thru a wall while others arrive to aid so they didn't lose their objective.

The problem here isn't that the one losing isn't getting more than the one afk at spawn, the problem is that the one afking at spawn is getting too much for doing nothing and that's not something that get's fixed by making it even easier to exploit the system.

1 hour ago, TheGrimm.5624 said:

 

Do you really think that someone trying to hold an objective, aka what you seem to be referring to as stalemating, is doing so because that's a form of AFK?

No, i don't know how you come to that conclusion, i didn't say anything along those lines.

1 hour ago, TheGrimm.5624 said:

The people trying to hold stuff aren't doing it because its more rewarding, its because it's their servers stuff. And that's while we have no reasons to win. They are trying to not lose the objective to the other side.

And that's how it should be. The thing is, defense should involve fighting and killing the attackers, not just stalling them from a safe position with little to no risk of losing.

 

I don't know a single game that rewards players for losing. It is common to reward players for successfully achieving a certain goal, not just for trying. This appies to both PvE and PvP. Idk why it suddenly is a problem. It's like asking to gain raid rewards after dieing to the boss instead of killing it. "Because i tried". Everyone should know why that would be a terrible idea and similar applies to WvW.

[tobin.6754]

1 hour ago, TheGrimm.5624 said:

 

 When the game tells people fighting is not rewarding, I see it as we lose more people to go do something else or just avoid fights. We don't need more of that.

 

Those same people will leave/stop playing wvw once they get their pips and rewards. This game does not reward you for fighting, all you get is a measly loot bag for a kill.