Everything that is wrong with WvW in 2023

[Mabi black.1824]

12 minutes ago, Riba.3271 said:

Are you saying that if the attacker overcomes siege, tactivators and kills the defender 4+ times, they do not deserve to take the objective? They still need to be much better players and overcome ton of stats?

No no I'm saying that. I say to tie the advantages of stats of the structures (and I speak of small advantages in any case) in reference to the number of players on the map. Using your example of 20vs40 you can put them first on the outer wall, then on the inner wall and then use eWP, but the same 20 players available from that server will still show up. I'm talking about 20 swords versus 40 swords. And I say that a small statistical advantage, It's good and right to give it to those poor 20 players. If the 2 servers have the same players available, when you show up at the outer wall you will see in a few minutes many defenders as your attackers. Then it is right that those advantages of statistics no longer exist. Like you, I think it's something important to tweak, to help players put better content into the mode.

[Riba.3271]

1 hour ago, subversiontwo.7501 said:

On 3/8/2023 at 2:15 PM, Riba.3271 said:

Server linking system

Server timezones are unstable

Long-term progression and communication

Average quality of content is worse

Everything is decided by movement of players and what you were linked with

The above points get gradually worse and worse

You say that the Alliance system will not make these things better but then you list 5 points, where at least 4 are directly and demonstrably improved by the Alliance system. The only question mark is time zones which Alliancess does not directly impact (and which are best adressed through scoring algorithms and objective mechanics) but even that can see some limited positive impact from better playerbase mobility. All the other points are directly impacted by the system. Your Alliance is your long-term progression and communication structure. The quality of content is largely attached to the long-term progression: Having something to build towards, giving you a reason to build. The Alliance system directly affects the movement of players by enabling Alliances and restricting paid transfers. It snaps the system out of its spiral of players giving up when they can't motivate paying for transfers. So with all those point brought up, well, the Alliance system is a perfectly fair answer.

• With alliance system long-term progression would be actually stinted because you percentage of rotating strangers would go up so your words have less say and coordination between 2 alliances will take time to develop, one that cannot be provided with new matchmaking looming. Your queues, pug quality, friendly guilds, common builds, are all unmanagable. So your server progression will just be your "alliances quality", but you will have no power outside it unlike what single server (or even double server) system can provide. You can already go in same server with players you want to play with, so instead of choosing suitable server for all of you, alliances will take away any long lasting power outside your friend group.
• Above point directly links with average quality: Builds, communications, timezones, all take time to develop
• Alliance linking won't be balanced: you can take player with same amount of kills, rank and play hours, but they still won't be equally skilled as another. Same applies to guilds and alliances. Since you have no control over your allies quality, or how many your alliance members will fit on map before a queue, it will truly be decided by what you were linked with.
• Do note that alliances also have the problem that whereas single (or double) server system allows the people looking to face best of the best, or worst of the worst, to migrate to similar tiers to maximize content, alliances won't. Alliances might work great if there were same amount of strong alliances as there will be alliance linkings, but we both know since only stable progression will be towards building your alliances, great players will eventually cram into couple of alliances and most likely never face each other, since they would not only need to communicate which tier they meet in but also somehow have the strangers (80+% of the population) listen to them for the same goal.
• Alliances will also worsen overtime as commanders will have trouble learning enemy timezones, strength levels and preferred maps before linking is already halfway through. This leads to ability to find less content, and massive alliances will build around the few groups actually willing to stick through with this. So whereas we see servers get more and more unbalanced, alliances will experience same as well. I cannot say how long it will take, but I would even bet money that alliances that can fight out against each other in equal manner will be cut in less than half within a year.
• As an old player I do not see transfers being available and servers having differing population as a problem. What I see problem is how full status works and the bimonthly linking bonanza. With single server system, the biggest servers would be at the top providing most content to most people, and servers that put no effort in, would be at lower tiers with less population. As long as tier amount is kept low (4-5), there will be adequate content everywhere. As I pointed out, driving force behind server stacking is objective auras, not actual transfer system, so eventually with single servers each tier would eventually have similar fighting power available at timezones they want it present. 1-Up-1-down system would also keep matchups relatively fresh while allowing rivalries to develop, so we would also have overcome the problems that Glicko system provided us in the past.

Edited March 9, 2023 by Riba.3271

[Riba.3271]

33 minutes ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

 

the attacker already has the innate advantage of momentum and initiation. As defender, you are reacting, which in todays WvW already puts you at a disadvantage in many scenarios.

Defenders have multiple lives as long as they react. It doesn't put you in disadvantage as long as you react fast enough.

 

Do note that in opening post it is mentioned that in return walls and gates would also be buffed to higher health so defenders have more time to show up to defend. When enemies would already have lord down with current balance, you will be there well in time before inner wall goes down with the suggested balance.

 

Actually funny that you're using time to react being too little to defend objective auras since soon after auras were introduced and common in WvW, they ended up reducing wall and gate hitpoints. So your disadvantage was caused by auras.

[Riba.3271]

8 hours ago, Jitters.9401 said:

 

There are only 3 real issues I have with WvW. 

(1) The fact that super OP classes are allowed to exist for such long periods of time (eles / willbenders). Minimal siill needed for maximum results. 

I come across so many ele's that are running permanent protection.  How is that fair? I know this because sometimes I run a build that steals boons and when I luck out and steal protection (these ele's have like 6 boons at all times) the duration I steal is almost always over 20 seconds and the ele has it reapplied on themselves almost immediately. 

You are right, this is the main problem with combat balance. I only touched systems in this thread. There are 2 obvious issues with current combat balance: Concentration stat is overtuned leading to too high boon durations, especially in group settings but even in roaming with celestial, and AoE superspeed is too potent. Honestly they should split superspeed (100% movement speed) into 2 buffs, where AoE skills would provide the less potent one (66%). Permaboons and instantly closing gaps/passing AoE fields, just promotes unskillful gameplay.

[Sleepwalker.1398]

I think you should write a book about all your theories and then burn it cos i sick of reading these long kitten essays.

[blp.3489]

1 hour ago, Riba.3271 said:

As I pointed out, driving force behind server stacking is objective auras, not actual transfer system

Are you saying that people transfer to winning servers in order to get the benefit of objective auras?  That wasn't the impression I had, but I'm relatively new so I'm curious.

[Kate.3679]

15 hours ago, Riba.3271 said:

 You do not need organisation to defend, so succesful attacking can only be killing much less skilled or organised players.

 

tell that to maguuma 

[Riba.3271]

2 hours ago, blp.3489 said:

Are you saying that people transfer to winning servers in order to get the benefit of objective auras?  That wasn't the impression I had, but I'm relatively new so I'm curious.

No, they want to overcome it, so they need better players than enemies. Essentially you're faced with a choice of only defending and having no agency over when you get great action in the game, or being on much stronger server and luring enemies out whenever you want.

Building just equally strong server doesn't suffice anymore since equally strong players cannot deal with all the siege, respawns and tactivators while dealing 15%+ more damage (or even 30%+ if in a keep) than opponent. Defending is just that easy.

Way you can imagine it is that massive dragon helps your side when you defend, and enemy side when they defend. So your group needs to be strong enough to deal with dragon + all enemies to actually play the game, and will absolutely destroy enemies when they do not have the dragon.

Edited March 9, 2023 by Riba.3271

[Cyninja.2954]

1 hour ago, Riba.3271 said:

No, they want to overcome it, so they need better players than enemies. Essentially you're faced with a choice of only defending and having no agency over when you get great action in the game, or being on much stronger server and luring enemies out whenever you want.

Sorry but I call bs. Players stack servers because they want to have the numeric advantage because the largest deciding factor, before factoring for player skill is, numbers.

I have never heard players stack servers because they want to overcome some defensive buff. Utter nonsense.

1 hour ago, Riba.3271 said:

Building just equally strong server doesn't suffice anymore since equally strong players cannot deal with all the siege, respawns and tactivators while dealing 15%+ more damage (or even 30%+ if in a keep) than opponent. Defending is just that easy.

Again, pure gibberish. You are trying to remove something from the equation by making it seem that other factors somehow are greater or more relevant. Having numeric equal player numbers is not the be-all end-all solution, but it is a far better outset than not having numeric similarities.

Once player numbers are more similar, balance of other factors can be done. Not the other way around because as stated, numeric disparities ARE the most deciding factor. It beats out everything else be it skill (there is only so much numeric disadvantage which skill can compensate for), defensive benefits, siege, etc.

What you are also conveniently disregarding is that in the new system (or even a single server system which disincentivizes player transfers while trying to create more similar numbers) the stronger servers will move up, meeting other stronger servers, while weaker servers will move down, meeting again more similar servers. In this case though without having population imbalances being such a deciding factor.

The only thing in this regard which the alliance system does better is actually re-balance sides, where a single server system would remain a lot more static and inflexible.

1 hour ago, Riba.3271 said:

Way you can imagine it is that massive dragon helps your side when you defend, and enemy side when they defend. So your group needs to be strong enough to deal with dragon + all enemies to actually play the game, and will absolutely destroy enemies when they do not have the dragon.

and balancing that dragon is a lot easier once you have numeric similar sides, instead of balancing around numeric diverging sides which fluctuate constantly.

For someone who prides himself to know so much about WvW, your blatant disregard for the effects of population disparity is either serving a personal agenda, or truly that huge a lack of understanding. There is literally 0 reason to advocate against more even population distribution, no matter which system.

This entire thread reminds me of all those players who always come and claim that their server is the strongest, while over-stacking the other server 2 to 1.

It's 2023, we know what the effect of having x% more players than the other side brings, and it is significant. Probably followed by timezone difference, but again, having 1 unbalanced factor is no excuse to leave other factors which could get balanced broken.

Edited March 9, 2023 by Cyninja.2954

[Riba.3271]

1 hour ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

2 hours ago, Riba.3271 said:

No, they want to overcome it, so they need better players than enemies. Essentially you're faced with a choice of only defending and having no agency over when you get great action in the game, or being on much stronger server and luring enemies out whenever you want.

Sorry but I call bs. Players stack servers because they want to have the numeric advantage because the largest deciding factor, before factoring for player skill is, numbers.

I have never heard players stack servers because they want to overcome some defensive buff. Utter nonsense.

2 hours ago, Riba.3271 said:

Building just equally strong server doesn't suffice anymore since equally strong players cannot deal with all the siege, respawns and tactivators while dealing 15%+ more damage (or even 30%+ if in a keep) than opponent. Defending is just that easy.

Again, pure gibberish. You are trying to remove something from the equation by making it seem that other factors somehow are greater or more relevant. Having numeric equal player numbers is not the be-all end-all solution, but it is a far better outset than not having numeric similarities.

Once player numbers are more similar, balance of other factors can be done. Not the other way around because as stated, numeric disparities ARE the most deciding factor. It beats out everything else be it skill (there is only so much numeric disadvantage which skill can compensate for), defensive benefits, siege, etc.

What you are also conveniently disregarding is that in the new system (or even a single server system which disincentivizes player transfers while trying to create more similar numbers) the stronger servers will move up, meeting other stronger servers, while weaker servers will move down, meeting again more similar servers. In this case though without having population imbalances being such a deciding factor.

The only thing in this regard which the alliance system does better is actually re-balance sides, where a single server system would remain a lot more static and inflexible.

2 hours ago, Riba.3271 said:

Way you can imagine it is that massive dragon helps your side when you defend, and enemy side when they defend. So your group needs to be strong enough to deal with dragon + all enemies to actually play the game, and will absolutely destroy enemies when they do not have the dragon.

and balancing that dragon is a lot easier once you have numeric similar sides, instead of balancing around numeric diverging sides which fluctuate constantly.

For someone who prides himself to know so much about WvW, your blatant disregard for the effects of population disparity is either serving a personal agenda, or truly that huge a lack of understanding. There is literally 0 reason to advocate against more even population distribution, no matter which system.

This entire thread reminds me of all those players who always come and claim that their server is the strongest, while over-stacking the other server 2 to 1.

It's 2023, we know what the effect of having x% more players than the other side brings, and it is significant. Probably followed by timezone difference, but again, having 1 unbalanced factor is no excuse to leave other factors which could get balanced broken.

Cool, and when queues hit, what do you do? Numeric advantage? Stack more? 🤭

[Cyninja.2954]

6 minutes ago, Riba.3271 said:

Cool, and when queues hit, what do you do? Numeric advantage? Stack more? 🤭

No, when queues hit, which hasn't been a widespread thing beyond reset or T1 for ages before the reward changes, you are incentivized to actually spread to a different server. Also ironically, the most players come on for reset night even though there are queues BECAUSE chances are highest to actually have equal numbers.

Queues are also not the same for each and every server. One server might have queues for 30 minutes, another for 4 hours (random numbers to illustrate a point). Which in the end still results in an uneven match-up for 3.5 of those hours. Which in turn encourages players to stack on high pop servers.

Not regulated and managed population unbalance is probably THE most destructive thing to this game mode there is. We literally have an influx of players now showing everyone how fun WvW "could" be at more even numbers, given almost all server have queues on multiple maps each evening. Yet that won't last because it never did in the past and actual "fun" at this mode means less to many players compared to just steam rolling the enemies and picking the winning side.

Edited March 9, 2023 by Cyninja.2954

[Riba.3271]

Just now, Cyninja.2954 said:

 

Not regulated and managed population unbalance is probably THE most destructive thing to this game mode there is.

Yes indeed, server linking system was indeed first in the list in the opening. Servers being full meanwhile having (cheap) open link. And there being several unbalanced matchups every 2 months.

 

Anyways I do not see it a small deal for winrate if a dueler can win after landing 15%+ less skills, 5 players can perform as well as 6, players taking several seconds longer to down+finish, and there being massive swings in power levels depending on location. You can of course try to repute any of these, but as I see it, these passive stats ruin any scene from building up. Maybe they would be unimpactful if one server had them permanently everywhere and another didn't, but as it is, it just hinders 2 groups from having decent fights at differently owned objectives.

[Cyninja.2954]

1 minute ago, Riba.3271 said:

Yes indeed, server linking system was indeed first in the list in the opening. Servers being full meanwhile having (cheap) open link. And there being several unbalanced matchups every 2 months.

 

Anyways I do not see it a small deal for winrate if a dueler can win after landing 15%+ less skills, 5 players can perform as well as 6, players taking several seconds longer to down+finish, and there being massive swings in power levels depending on location. You can of course try to repute any of these, but as I see it, these passive stats ruin any scene from building up. Maybe they would be unimpactful if one server had them permanently everywhere and another didn't, but as it is, it just hinders 2 groups from having decent fights at differently owned objectives.

 

Oh absolutely, I am not saying stat advantages are irrelevant. I am saying they are irrelevant NOW. There are far more important issues to deal with first, the primary being getting every side into an actual comparable state. Once that is done, there is a TON of stuff which needs reworking and readjusting, potentially even reworking defender advantages.

[Riba.3271]

7 minutes ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

Oh absolutely, I am not saying stat advantages are irrelevant. I am saying they are irrelevant NOW. There are far more important issues to deal with first, the primary being getting every side into an actual comparable state. Once that is done, there is a TON of stuff which needs reworking and readjusting, potentially even reworking defender advantages.

Well yes, I think 40% damage swings across map are a big deal that alter outcome of gameplay every minute, but I am fine as long as we agree that the double server system and cheap transfers is the worst offender..

 

I just do not believe you can force servers to have same numbers online at a same time and best way to go about it is just providing tools for outnumbered players  in a way that doesnt ruin equally numbered action and having stable servers that will set in a tier that can at least give them a challenge.

Edited March 9, 2023 by Riba.3271

[TheGrimm.5624]

9 hours ago, Riba.3271 said:

What you're describing is situation where defenders couldn't deal with attackers for 2 hours when they had following:

1. close respawn so multiple lives
2. Ability to keep rebuilding siege
3. Not having to split damage on the lord
4. choice of time to engage
5. nearby entrances to stay alive when they would otherwise die
6. Tactivators

and in addition to this they would have won the fight even if they landed 30% less skills on the enemies due to aura stats.

 

Long attempts doesn't equate good balance. It just sounds like attackers were much better players and organised, up to a point where defenders could barely scratch their numbers and pick off the weaklings. Do note that this form of balance, would mean that good fight in garrison cannot occur between 2 groups of similar or close to similar strength, one of them needs to be vastly stronger and be the attacker.

 

Can you really claim that your "defending group", would have survived more than 30 seconds  if you went to take on the attackers on the open field or hit their tower? I think your experiences and memories are able to tell you that you wouldn't be able to do anything if you stepped outside your garrison.

It is important to not take current WvW as granted, and realise that surroundings would adapt with any potential changes: playerbase would be more equal skillwise since too strong would mean being bored as you could take enemy garrisons with snap of fingers, and being too weak would mean you would have to learn and organise better.

Also your servers group, that was decent at defending against that particular attacker group this time, won't become miraculously in next 1 or 2 or 3 months able to attack against the same group since it would mean enemy has to land 50% less skills to down your players and win. So your gameplay against that same group, that probably prefers the same timezone, will always be the same: you defending and them attacking. It is easily seen how fun having conditions of same attacker showing up willingfully to attack same objectives and finding it fun to face much worse players, is kind very unreliable.

Riba, I don't think I made my point very well. Where I was going was based on what ANet was trying to do, which was make it so that a T3 wasn't as much of a fortress that people complained about, is working. The walls were breached, not to fast and not to slow. The fight was inside both walls, which again they were aiming for. People had to leave the fight to go take on open field fights to keep supplies coming in, and it wasn't a guarantee to anyone what the outcome was going to be. On top of that both attackers and defenders that were dropped came back to the extended fight versus go with the karma train path of let them have it we will just retake it.

Now to your other points, we did end up holding it, defenders didn't lose. The first attacking zerg in the beginning was more organized, the third zerg coming in was more than likely on comms, most of the defenders weren't but knew how to defend. The attackers were fought on open ground outside of the PoTK buff and there were wipes on both sides. I think part of the biggest reasons why it wasn't a lose was that all three sides were fighting equally versus both attackers ignoring each other to just kill the home borderland's owner. That and they were running full zergs without supporting havocs to counter the defensive roamers. I say this because later they were able to drop another T3 that required defenders to run further and enemy havocs were now taking the supporting camps and knocking on the towers causing more scatter of defenders.

[Cyninja.2954]

7 minutes ago, Riba.3271 said:

Well yes, I think 40% damage swings across map are a big deal that alter outcome of gameplay every minute, but I am fine as long as we agree that the double server system and cheap transfers is the worst offender..

Agreed and the reason I personally have different priorities on this is simple: I think re-balancing (everything, from siege to hit points of walls, buffs/debuffs, etc.) makes most sense after structural changes have been done.

 

If Anet where to come out right now and tell us:"sorry guys, can't do it, the state you are in population wise is going to stay that way", then sure, other stuff should get looked at. I somehow still hold some hope that they will change things here though (and I personally don't care if it's alliances, restructuring or some adaptation to the server system as long as it gets the job done and is somewhat future proof).

7 minutes ago, Riba.3271 said:

I just do not believe you can force servers to have same numbers online at a same time and best way to go about it is just providing tools for outnumbered players and having stable servers that will set in a tier that can at least give them a challenge.

 

True, but the question is at what point does the game mode fall apart? There are critical breakpoints here and we have been beyond some of those in the past.

 

As far as the alliance system goes, while being a proponent of it because I do think it will allow for better balance, I have openly stated that it comes with its own set of risks.

Edited March 9, 2023 by Cyninja.2954

[Riba.3271]

14 minutes ago, Cyninja.2954 said:

 

As far as the alliance system goes, while being a proponent of it because I do think it will allow for better balance, I have openly stated that it comes with its own set of risks.

Yes, I believe any alliance would find it more entertaining to actually choose their server and allies alongside. Then communicate and build something great. Nothing prevents them from playing on same server anyways, all they will get now is no choice, just some random mix of players with non english speakers alongside.

 

I do see one good thing about alliances is that less dedicated players in different servers can try out WvW together without investing gems in. For example my brother chose wrong server despite me telling him to choose mine, and after leveling up he found out about it and ended up quitting the game without even getting to play WvW.

Edited March 9, 2023 by Riba.3271

[TheGrimm.5624]

18 hours ago, Knighthonor.4061 said:

Hidden Tags ruin WvW. If a casual logs into WvW and Don't see a tag or group in chat, why would they stay? Leading to more population issues 

 

 

I admit I am one of those posters that asked for private tags for a long time before they were added so bear that in mind. Yes it does impact people that are out looking for an open tag and may not know the best way to aid their side when running solo or small scale. Do some tags use it as a requirement that people get into voice so they can better direct, yes. Is that good or bad? I would say it's neither, if someone is willing to drive it's up to them what they require of people that join their squad and if they feel voice is required, that's the price people that aren't willing to tag will have to face. Now the reason I wanted private tags is that before we had them you might have seen a main tag and then 3-4 havoc tags that were simply trying to show a main tag where they were so that they could coordinate without being in the same voice. What that would lead to though is people trying to move to the havoc tags if they were closer versus going back to the main tag that would need the numbers for bigger fights. So the havocs, and scouts that might be temp tagging to show where the scouting report came from, were left with the option of not tagging and thereby impacting their own groups movements to a negative effect. So I agree if you have no pugmanders that are willing to be public there are issues, but to be fair there would be the same issue if the private tags decided not to run at all either without the private option. We would still have issues of havoc groups pulling people to the wrong tag and then would either have to not tag either, or ask people to move to the main tag which would then be viewed as elitism, which in some cases might have been, or might be havocs trying not to be rude to the main tag and pulling their people away when they actually needed them to get back to the main tag. So were there issues before private tags yes, do we have new issues and issues unsolved, yes. But IMO having them solves more issues then it created. Your mileage will vary.

[Stand The Wall.6987]

nerf tower walls and gates so smaller groups have something to do.

[Jitters.9401]

10 hours ago, Sleepwalker.1398 said:

I think you should write a book about all your theories and then burn it cos i sick of reading these long kitten essays.

Lol

Yet you still read them. 

You should see my research papers. 

[Sleepwalker.1398]

2 hours ago, Jitters.9401 said:

Lol

Yet you still read them. 

You should see my research papers. 

Read abit, sounds bs....then i move to the next 😜

[Jitters.9401]

1 hour ago, Sleepwalker.1398 said:

Read abit, sounds bs.

No take backs. You literally said "cos I sick of reading these long kitten essays ". 

 

You read them because everything i say is valid. 

[TheGrimm.5624]

16 hours ago, Sleepwalker.1398 said:

I think you should write a book about all your theories and then burn it cos i sick of reading these long kitten essays.

I will have to disagree. Riba and I have disagreed many times but they make me question my own points and consider. Riba is looking for even fights and making sure there is balance in both attacking and defending, even if I don't agree with the path so don't discount their points. Instead I take it as a point to see it from multiple angels in case I have a blindspot. Riba's not looking for steamrolling, but instead looking for good fights and that's what I appreciate. So if you disagree, give a counterpoint on why and where the change might not work as intended. My 2 cents.

[TheGrimm.5624]

6 hours ago, Stand The Wall.6987 said:

nerf tower walls and gates so smaller groups have something to do.

Just don't take away watchtowers! Else they will come scout, where as right now they assume there is not a havoc or roamer attacking a tower out of range of the watchtower buff. Shhh, quiet, we hunting wabbits. 

[Dawdler.8521]

7 hours ago, TheGrimm.5624 said:

So if you disagree, give a counterpoint on why and where the change might not work as intended. My 2 cents.

Unfortunetly its hard to give counterpoints to imagined scenarios that is always correct in someones mind. We still have no idea about the effect of world restructure and alliances. Unless this is about something else in that book.

Edited March 10, 2023 by Dawdler.8521