After WR and Maybe Have Leagues/Tournaments Again?

[TheGrimm.5624]

Again tournaments lead to a lot of burnout. People will see these in different lights. Some will see it as a causal goal and others will see it as I need to drive others to get more done.

Weekly server goals as Riba pointed out I could see. Weekly server leaderboards across both regions could also be a thing as well, though they would have no value over the long run with the sorting process. Server A would not be the same server in 4 or 8 weeks so it's not relevant outside of the current sort.

To encourage personal goals I think an opt-in bounty system that has some risk factor would be better here to encourage personal goals. In that sense burnout is not from outside factors but by personal choice.

Personal leaderboards would need to account for numbers so it would need to reward in fractional points. Simple example 60 taking a camp versus 1 should not be the same scale. Its still just 1 camp versus making it look like 60 camps were taken at the same time. Same as in SMC or a Keep. Fights same thing. A 1 v1 fight should not score the same as a 60 v 1 fight. So you if use 60 to take a camp all of those players get .0166 for their weekly board when scoring. Do-able but question comes to details when thinking about a personal leaderboard. 

Its been said before and will again, players do like goals and to chase numbers.

Edited February 8 by TheGrimm.5624
Edit: Chasing

[XenesisII.1540]

The burnout was just two factors of pve players returning to their pve life, and wvw players taking mini breaks after intense weeks of play, most them probably came back eventually. So I don't think burnout is as bad as everyone makes it out to be. Hardly think there's people that permanently dropped wvw over tournaments, which only lasted a few weeks anyways.

Leaderboards also already exist for people that need to toot their horn over something.

https://gw2mists.com/leaderboards/player

https://gw2mists.com/leaderboards/guild

I would guess most of the general players don't give a kitten about those.

I'd rather they gave priority to more game play stuff than fluff, considering they don't even work on much in the first place.

[Chaba.5410]

20 minutes ago, XenesisII.1540 said:

I would guess most of the general players don't give a kitten about those

I don't even give a kitten about those.  People who play more (and zerg more) tend to top the leaderboards.  So we're back at the grinding part...

[kash.9213]

3 hours ago, TheGrimm.5624 said:

Again tournaments lead to a lot of burnout. People will see these in different lights. Some will see it as a causal goal and others will see it as I need to drive others to get more done.

Weekly server goals as Riba pointed out I could see. Weekly server leaderboards across both regions could also be a thing as well, though they would have no value over the long run with the sorting process. Server A would not be the same server in 4 or 8 weeks so it's not relevant outside of the current sort.

To encourage personal goals I think an opt-in bounty system that has some risk factor would be better here to encourage personal goals. In that sense burnout is not from outside factors but by personal choice.

Personal leaderboards would need to account for numbers so it would need to reward in fractional points. Simple example 60 taking a camp versus 1 should not be the same scale. Its still just 1 camp versus making it look like 60 camps were taken at the same time. Same as in SMC or a Keep. Fights same thing. A 1 v1 fight should not score the same as a 60 v 1 fight. So you if use 60 to take a camp all of those players get .0166 for their weekly board when scoring. Do-able but question comes to details when thinking about a personal leaderboard. 

Its been said before and will again, players do like goals and to chase numbers.

Going by games I've played before, I would fight for access to rewards, but I'd probably not care at all about weekly server goals or whatever. When things die down, those will be thresholds almost never achieved. The rewards don't even have to be huge aside from a few exceptional items or something. Even just your server or team gaining some crafting boost or something along those lines for a duration if your side holds something for a duration would be fine. But announce the back and forth and gains between servers or teams in the pve maps with a town crier or something so people know what's up. 

Edited February 8 by kash.9213

[Mistwraithe.3106]

I think there is room for something in this space, probably short events. Anet are clearly working on more regular events such as their "Rush" weeks, there are many possible weekly themes they could come up with here. I don't think people would burn out from one week where there were extra rewards for playing WvW with a particular focus, eg rewarding PPT play or killing enemies more, there could be small bonus rewards at the end of each skirmish up to a maximum of 20 skirmishes (per player) during the week.

[TheGrimm.5624]

5 hours ago, kash.9213 said:

Going by games I've played before, I would fight for access to rewards, but I'd probably not care at all about weekly server goals or whatever. When things die down, those will be thresholds almost never achieved. The rewards don't even have to be huge aside from a few exceptional items or something. Even just your server or team gaining some crafting boost or something along those lines for a duration if your side holds something for a duration would be fine. But announce the back and forth and gains between servers or teams in the pve maps with a town crier or something so people know what's up. 

I can't even remember the name of the boost that we used to have that would apply to your server in PvE based on events in WvW. They shouldn't have removed that connection between the game modes. May have to go wiki hunting tonight to see what that was called and what triggered it. In general agree on various points here. Server wide weekly goals I know would only motivate some but could add some fun factor. Players like goals and loot. 

[Chaba.5410]

9 minutes ago, TheGrimm.5624 said:

I can't even remember the name of the boost that we used to have that would apply to your server in PvE based on events in WvW. They shouldn't have removed that connection between the game modes. May have to go wiki hunting tonight to see what that was called and what triggered it. In general agree on various points here. Server wide weekly goals I know would only motivate some but could add some fun factor. Players like goals and loot. 

It's Power of the Mists.  Glad they removed it.  PvE players didn't know where their extra harvesting strikes were coming from; the population that least needed the gold and didn't play the game mode.  They just suddenly noticed they weren't getting them one day and complained on the forums about the mysterious disappearance.

[XenesisII.1540]

14 minutes ago, TheGrimm.5624 said:

I can't even remember the name of the boost that we used to have that would apply to your server in PvE based on events in WvW. They shouldn't have removed that connection between the game modes. May have to go wiki hunting tonight to see what that was called and what triggered it. In general agree on various points here. Server wide weekly goals I know would only motivate some but could add some fun factor. Players like goals and loot. 

https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Power_of_the_Mists

[TheGrimm.5624]

5 hours ago, Chaba.5410 said:

It's Power of the Mists.  Glad they removed it.  PvE players didn't know where their extra harvesting strikes were coming from; the population that least needed the gold and didn't play the game mode.  They just suddenly noticed they weren't getting them one day and complained on the forums about the mysterious disappearance.

 

5 hours ago, XenesisII.1540 said:

https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Power_of_the_Mists

Hey! Its 2:15 AM and now you both hit me with I am a slack kitten in Forum Wars 2 and removed my topics to check on while I am trying to think sleep. Note to others don't friend other wise kittens else you will be faced in situations like this. Just saying. 

Side note: +1

[Mabi black.1824]

15 hours ago, TheGrimm.5624 said:

To encourage personal goals I think an opt-in bounty system that has some risk factor would be better here to encourage personal goals

The point is that of a team goal. A tournament, a ranking should take on the purpose of motivating/involving everyone. It becomes a time reference if you want a medium- or long-term perspective. Stimulate collaboration for a carrot. it's just a symbolic carrot (I suggested only one piece of armor per season)

[Mabi black.1824]

17 hours ago, Chaba.5410 said:

"Tournaments are pointless. You can’t have any tournament on predictable covarage / population based gameplay."
"Tournaments? They were a bust to begin with and did more damage to the “Population Imbalance Issue” than anything else. Period."

I guess it's just a matter of point of view here either. If we draw a leaderboard and a competition with its rules, we just get one more tool to engage players. We help and stimulate the collaboration of many different groups. We help and define what it is to win or lose. While playing WVW in the time frame and in the way you like. The two go together, it's not like if you do a long-term tournament you prevent players from playing when and how they want.

I'll give you an example, even right now if you take a look at gw2stats.com and click on medals, week after week gold, silver and bronze medals are being awarded. Absurdly, if you give a score coefficient to these medals, we are already participating in a tournament, no matter how broken it may be. Are you getting burned out for this? Don't you even know that some sort of medal table exists? 

That said, here on the forum we have the opportunity to provide ideas and point out changes that might be interesting. WR gives us the opportunity to get much more balanced servers, if we adjust our transfer system properly, we can avoid a continuous monthly reshuffle, so we give the opportunity to players to group up, identify themselves in their seasonal server, precisely because they have more time available. If we add to this an update to our system that counts war points, and then run them through a 'flow coefficient' we get and define a considerably more believable score.  As at the end of the week you purge the score from the quantity and make the quality much more visible. At the end of the season, come up with whatever symbolic awards you prefer, and we've already built a great seasonal tournament. How this can burn the player, or drive them away from WVW, really, I can't figure out.

Edited February 9 by Mabi black.1824

[Zyreva.1078]

33 minutes ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

How this can burn the player, or drive them away from WVW, really, I can't figure out.

The entire point of a tournament is to make players care about winning matches, right?

But winning matches is more a matter of time investment that getting good at the game or good strategy , so players might get incentivized to play more than what is fun and healthy for them. And then they realize that their impact on the outcome of a match is still negligible, because everyone is just one out of hundreds if not thousands of random players. A perfect recipe for frustration.

WvW as a whole does not provide a competitive enviroment. It's nothing more than a public playground and it should be treated as such. If you truly want competition, you should look elsewhere.

[Mabi black.1824]

3 minutes ago, Zyreva.1078 said:

The entire point of a tournament is to make players care about winning matches, right?

I would say that it is a limited view of the whole. If you update the scoring system and make the server comparison better by drawing a 'tournament' or leaderboard, it's not just 'I have to win'. You participate in a big competition, in a limited way for your limited playing time, WVW is this, you can't expect to control everything, but we can stimulate participation and the purpose of your time when you go online.

[Zyreva.1078]

7 minutes ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

 but we can stimulate participation and the purpose of your time when you go online.

This requires players to care. If they don't care, there is no stimulation and no purpose. And we have already seen what happens when players start to care too much ...

Ultimatively if you want to have meaningless scores, leaderbords and statistics - we already have those. No need to change anything for that. But there is no reason to try and "force" players who don't (want to) care about that sort of things to change their approach to the game. Because it inevitably leads to frustration. WvW simply lacks some basic requirements for a competitive game mode. Such as actual teams for example.

Edited February 9 by Zyreva.1078

[Mabi black.1824]

3 minutes ago, Zyreva.1078 said:

If they don't care, there is no stimulation and no purpose

Let's say that we are definitely all different, there will be players who like to keep track and see where they are positioned in the standings, while others may not be too interested. Some will be more involved and others may literally be unaware that they are participating in a season of play. However, WVW has always had a system of point and a logic of point, and Anet has always kept track of it. Solitary Player, Small Scale Large Scale, Captured Structures Defend, number of kills, everything you do (in the way you enjoy the most) in WVW works as intended, you are affecting your server's score. With all the problems that we know well, with the consequence of being scarcely credible at the moment. This only tells us that we have a huge space to make it only better. To turn the ranking that we have right now into a tournament is literally just to define the time aspect of the ranking itself. when it starts and when it ends. WR is the best opportunity we could have had for all of this. It's the ideal setting, it's just a matter of drawing the rules of the game.

[Mabi black.1824]

Consider that a new points system, could make things more interesting, a bit of fresh air/novelty in WVW. I'll give you an example. During the week you can enter an event, I'm making it up, capture an enemy Garry in the next 4 hours get 1 Extre point. Rather than covering enemy hills and taking them to T3 you get 2 extra points etc etc. Let's talk about stimulating and generating content.

I don't have the slightest idea how to build an interesting and engaging points system, I would need some guidance from some experts. I don't even know how to give a sports reference on the merits. There are sports that have more than one points classification, such as Formula 1, Drivers' and Constructors' standings etc etc.

Edited February 9 by Mabi black.1824

[Dawdler.8521]

3 hours ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

Consider that a new points system, could make things more interesting, a bit of fresh air/novelty in WVW. I'll give you an example. During the week you can enter an event, I'm making it up, capture an enemy Garry in the next 4 hours get 1 Extre point. Rather than covering enemy hills and taking them to T3 you get 2 extra points etc etc. Let's talk about stimulating and generating content.

… yes, that’s how WvW works. Capture the enemy garri and your side get points and loot while the enemy get less points than previously. Most people consider it content.

[Mabi black.1824]

46 minutes ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

… yes, that’s how WvW works. Capture the enemy garri and your side get points and loot while the enemy get less points than previously. Most people consider it content.

Except that I was thinking about victory points, you know, the ones we earn every 2 hours. 5 to the first, 4 to the second, 3 to the third. events that affect that score.

If the third team is losing but has made an event (e.g. capture enemy Garry in the next 2 hours I earn 3 points) earn 3+3 pints victory. just for example. things that can bring players together and help the content manifest better. You can also consider them as a purpose/motivation, if we decide to keep track of points and rankings.

Edited February 9 by Mabi black.1824

[Dawdler.8521]

21 minutes ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

Except that I was thinking about victory points, you know, the ones we earn every 2 hours. 5 to the first, 4 to the second, 3 to the third. events that affect that score.

If the third team is losing but has made an event (e.g. capture enemy Garry in the next 2 hours I earn 3 points) earn 3+3 pints victory. just for example. things that can bring players together and help the content manifest better. You can also consider them as a purpose/motivation, if we decide to keep track of points and rankings.

Keep track of points and rankings for whom? 
Because once again, that’s how WvW works. You get VP depending on your PPT, which is you capping stuff and defending it from the the enemy. Otherwise known as content. WR or regular WvW, it’s the same thing.

[kash.9213]

15 hours ago, TheGrimm.5624 said:

I can't even remember the name of the boost that we used to have that would apply to your server in PvE based on events in WvW. They shouldn't have removed that connection between the game modes. May have to go wiki hunting tonight to see what that was called and what triggered it. In general agree on various points here. Server wide weekly goals I know would only motivate some but could add some fun factor. Players like goals and loot. 

I agree. That kind of thing does have to have a lived in quality so it's not an island in the stream. It could go a long way in longevity if it was promoted throughout the rest of the game as part of the in game zeitgeist. There could be more background chatter and more interactive features that let people around the game scope it out more often and keep up with the gains and losses. 

That one pve map some time ago that mimicked WvW mechanics missed the opportunity to really thematically tie the modes together. 

[Chaba.5410]

6 hours ago, Zyreva.1078 said:

But winning matches is more a matter of time investment that getting good at the game or good strategy , so players might get incentivized to play more than what is fun and healthy for them. And then they realize that their impact on the outcome of a match is still negligible, because everyone is just one out of hundreds if not thousands of random players. A perfect recipe for frustration.

Best summary!

Time investment (which can artificially inflate coverage) and numbers is what wins WvW matches.  These are trite strategies and it's always been embarrassing when someone has bragged about winning due to them.

[XenesisII.1540]

With the way WvW was structured, it should have never been about earning "points" to determine who "wins". Most other RvR modes in other games don't play for points, for a reason.

PPT Tournaments are not suited to a game mode where numbers make a huge difference, even though tournaments were fun, the writing was on the wall for who was going to win. The one and only shocking moment in the tournaments was when BG was double teamed in the second tournament.

Even though I was one of those that would have liked tournaments to come back after WR, with the latest WR it doesn't make me think that population is in a good place to run tournaments with this system, and it probably never will, given the nature of a match being 24/7. There needs to be shorter time periods for tournament "matches", much like sports teams play one game per day/week that lasts 1-2 hours, like for example for the first 24 hours after reset.

End of the day they should look at revamping the game mode into more of a conquer and kill mode than ppt, but anet is not going to put more work into wvw anyways.

[Arya Whitefire.8423]

On 2/8/2024 at 12:36 PM, Chaba.5410 said:

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/wuv/Whens-the-next-WvW-tournament/page/1#post6162034

"Our primary motivation for avoiding running another tournament, is that at the end of every tournament we saw a permanent dip in the number of players playing WvW. Presumably this was due to players burning themselves out during the tournament."

In retrospect, I think it was less burnout, and more the tournaments clearly revealed how uncompetitive wvw actually was.  Every league had at most 2-2 servers that actually had a chance to win, and it was apparent who they were after 2-3 weeks.

Also the tournaments incentivized a lot of cheating and other dirty tricks, which no doubt completely turned off some people to the game mode.

[Mabi black.1824]

15 hours ago, Chaba.5410 said:

Time investment (which can artificially inflate coverage) and numbers is what wins WvW matches.

I mean...... Maybe that's exactly why the WVW community has been asking for a better balance for 5-6-7-8 years? So then we can have a better comparison? So then we can participate in a better competition? or not? You've been shouting out loud for years that we want balanced teams to do what? A container, a meaningless sound box? Finally we have the opportunity to have balanced teams and what do we want to do, nothing?

Well, big change, this way you're definitely able to stimulate the player. If that's what you want, sit back, you can literally do nothing at this point, that you still achieve this goal.

You have to forgive me, but honestly, I don't think that way.

[Mabi black.1824]

16 hours ago, XenesisII.1540 said:

PPT Tournaments are not suited to a game mode where numbers make a huge difference

. Again, it's the exact reason why people are calling for more balance. I could better support what you say if the problem is: ''WR is not enough to get balanced teams'' I'd say it's a suspicion that I have too, so I suggested adding a flow coefficient, capable of purifying the score from the quantity to better highlight the quality, so as to get ''balanced'' matches that cannot be disputed by anyone. Why  mathematics Exists and Works One-Way . for everyone equally. a sort of universal language.

Also we're not talking about PPT tournament, we're talking about WVW tournament. As for me, if you prefer kills to affect the score more, I'll tell you that I'm perfectly fine with that. Points must come from all of WVW's game mechanics.

Edited February 10 by Mabi black.1824