WTF is Anet doing to WvW?

[TheGrimm.5624]

12 hours ago, Zekent.3652 said:

 

1. Nerf on 'outnumbered' effect: the nerf on pips, why should we go to an outnumbered map and suffer roam/scout in disadvantage, if the extra pips were nerfed? current outnumered effects are not worth for a lot of people.

I do play outnumbered maps before and after. The pip changes to help everyone try and win the last skirmish period were good changes. But this didn't need to be an either or situation. Outnumbered did help to draw people to outnumbered. Now it still feels like its a warning to a lot to just leave map. I still don't think it should boost stats but maybe it should include a +1 or 2 pips to see if that again encourages more to try their odds and help balance numbers across maps.

[Cael.3960]

50% to repair walls is too high. A large number of allied defenders can handle this easily, but solo players of 10 or less are unlikely to ever patch a wall in time for it to be an effective tactic at this percentage. 25% would bring the supply required to patch a wall within range of a 5-man squad with 1-2 supply runs. A 10-man could reliably patch one wall in a single repair with some personal risk, allowing the possibility of splitting an enemy group and having sufficient numbers to fight (and win) the split. I think this percentage offers the most counterplay without creating a constant wall-repair slog where the objective's supply must first be fully drained before any further attack can be continued. 

On a side note, I feel objectives which have supply while attackers have breached the walls is advantageous for gameplay. It gives defenders the option to either patch walls or build siege according to their needs without abandoning the objective to get more supply. It also encourages smaller groups of attackers if they could resupply while attacking, as being 'walled out' after a push often means the failure of their attack. I would suggest some kind of passive supply generation where player kills within an objective trickle supply back into the fight. If it was expanded into a gameplay mechanic, than kills could drop supply much like Convergence drops essence, allowing anyone (friendly or hostile to the objective) to pick them up and use as they see fit.  

Capture circle changes were mostly an improvement, though it's far less about the change in size and more about being able to contest the circle while also remaining out of LoS. Contesting should make you a target, players that opt to break LoS and lob damage into the ring should be free to do so with the understanding that they're risking a loss of the objective in exchange for potential kills. I feel forcing a choice between holding the circle or killing those attacking it is the right direction to move. Shrinking circles to remove LoS obstacles was the right decision, but not all rings needed to be made significantly smaller. A 1200 range radius from the center of the capture circle should be the base consideration, expanded outward to a max of 1500 depending on nearby LoS obstacles. 

Siege Disruptor should be reverted to it's original Siege Disabler state. Fully-disabling siege, both player-placed and fixed-siege, allowed small groups to have a much larger impact than they do now. Incresaed susceptibility to siege damage only matters if siege is available and can be reliably trained on target. Often neither of these things are possible against larger groups or entrenched defenses. Siege disabler offered enough delay on wall-breaches that defenses could be errected on inner walls or reinforcements rushed from friendly waypoints, while attackers could use it on Burning Oil to mitigate damage on a gate-rush. Opting to take the risk of pushing on a gate instead of knocking holes in walls was a benefit to small attacking groups who may not have had sufficient in-house supply to build multiple layers of offensive siege. 

Siege Dampener is fine as is, providing sufficient delay without completely stalling an enemy attack. With 100% damage reduction for 35s attacking groups had little to do but soak damage while protecting their siege once it was pulled. Gameplay that locks out almost all activity from one faction should be sharply discouraged in a competitive game mode. With 66% reduction the attack can still proceed, but also encourages a greater sense of urgency on the part of defenders to organize and entrench before the wall collapses. I feel this change is working as it should. 

I feel Presence of the Keep Aura should be removed entirely and/or alter Guild Objective Auras to improve the actual objective instead. I.e, Aura 1 improves supply capacity; Aura 2 improves fixed-siege damage. Aura 3 increases HP to structures. Aura 4 increases the effect of Keep Lord skills Etc. This way defenders get the PvE advantages they may need to offset smaller numbers within the objective walls, while fights which occur within the territory of a guild claim but outside of the objective offer equal footing for both parties. As most PvE buffs have little impact on battles which feature a substantial number of players, it benefits small groups and solo-defenders without becoming an obnoxious advantage for large groups camping inside those same objectives. 

Boons and boonstrips are much more difficult to balance. I would prefer to see a cap on boon duration that creates gaps in coverage, forcing players to 'boon up' for a push or defensive stand while leaving them vulnerable to a coordinated effort when caught unaware. Boonstrips are needed to blunt that short-term buff and offer shut-down counterplay, but they too need to operate within a window of effectiveness that requires more player choice and less passive gameplay. 100% boon uptime in competitive modes should not be possible. Alacrity and Quickness are contentious boons which vastly favor skilled and coordinated groups of players as opposed to new and inexperienced players. I would like to see both capped at a maximum of 5s, with reapplications unavailable until the boon has expired. Further, I think opportunities for these boons should be far less common than they are now. Alacrity and Quickness should make an action or series of actions more potent and impactful rather than be a baseline enhancement for the entire group to enjoy for the duration of combat. 

All player-placed siege should be less susceptible to ranged damage, but far more vulnerable to melee damage. This would encourage defenders to push on those positions as opposed to ranging them from a distance with very little risk. Siege vs siege damage should remain unchanged from it's current values as it encourages supply use as part of siege counterplay. Further, Flame Rams should only be buildable within 300 range of a gate to prevent the exploititiave use of Iron Will in non-siege engagements. My apologies for those who enjoy the shame-siege of a gate-ramming device placed on the recently departed, but it never made sense to build these open-field. If defensive options like these are asked for by the community in open-field fights, perhaps adjustments to shield generators are something to think about.

I like the idea of Keep Lords having a unique buff or aura that makes combat on the capture circle area more difficult or unique. In fact, I think offering up options to adjust the aura based on guild claims would make for very interesting strategy possibilities. For example, instead of passive regen/stab generation, how about a no-down-state aura? Or conversely, a full-dead to down-state pulse for defenders on each breakbar?. A pulsing detection radius on 30s cooldown for the entire walled objective would be welcome as a slottable tactic or out-of-combat aura. Another that offers passive boon-strips every 10s or reduces healing down within the capture circle. The danger here would be buffing them to such an extent that defenders stack around the lord and build friendly siege rather than attempt to push out attacking forces. That's why I'd also like to see some kind of no-build zone for friendly siege on the lord room floor. Walls and walkways above and around the lord room could still have siege, but nothing should be buildable within the area affected by a Keep Lord's combat buff. 

[XenesisII.1540]

18 hours ago, Roy Marks.7689 said:

Are the changes to the keep lords just not very impactful, or do you feel as though they've actually worsened them in any way? Have you experienced groups trying to play around the new mechanics at all, or you just haven't seen it make an impact in fights where players aren't particularly paying attention to it?

37 minutes ago, TheGrimm.5624 said:

Haven't seen any difference of attackers or defenders in regards to lord changes on any scale of play. 

Yeah no one plays thinking the lord is gonna help them in a fight, it always comes down to the enemy numbers and type of group involved. I mean who really wants to push on a zerg relying on a lord heal and stability that they "have no control over when it procs", as it depends entirely on the enemy bringing the lord down to certain tiers of health.

We would have been better off having the effect has a tactivator instead of like chilling fog, or better yet just add it to chilling fog, at least defenders would have semi control on when to use it (spies and trolls are still going to waste it at times).

Did they honestly think this mechanic and small rings would promote defenders to push lord rings more? especially if there's a 900lb gorilla sitting in the ring? All these changes say is boon blobs are getting tired of chasing their bags, they wanted it delivered to them instead.

Edited May 1 by XenesisII.1540

[bq pd.2148]

1 hour ago, TheGrimm.5624 said:

I still don't think it should boost stats but maybe it should include a +1 or 2 pips to see if that again encourages more to try their odds and help balance numbers across maps.

i think the problem with the old pips was also people just participation farming on outnumbered maps instead of putting in some effort so the map would fill up with mostly useless numbers.
one could however add the pips to more active engagements while outnumbered for example:
+2 pips on capturing a camp
+4 pips on capturing a tower
+8 pips on capturing a keep
+1 pip on stomping another player (stomp, not kill)

ofc those are just example numbers but it would encourage people to do something or as much as they can on the map but not just passively reward for being about.

Edited May 1 by bq pd.2148

[TheGrimm.5624]

22 minutes ago, bq pd.2148 said:

i think the problem with the old pips was also people just participation farming on outnumbered maps instead of putting in some effort so the map would fill up with mostly useless numbers.

That's the biggest reason for the nerfs I would say.

22 minutes ago, bq pd.2148 said:

one could however add the pips to more active engagements while outnumbered for example:
+2 pips on capturing a camp
+4 pips on capturing a tower
+8 pips on capturing a keep
+1 pip on stomping another player (stomp, not kill)

ofc those are just example numbers but it would encourage people to do something or as much as they can on the map but not just passively reward for being about.

Not sure on the numbers, those are a bit high but agree tying it to active activities is key for both attacking and defending. 

[Ronin.4501]

20 hours ago, Roy Marks.7689 said:

Hey all! I'd like to make sure I understand and hear more about some of the feedback, so I've quoted a few posts below and asked the authors to expand on their thoughts.

First, as someone who has been critical of the devs in the past, specifically their lack of interaction with the community here on the forums, I'd like to say thank you for taking the time to respond. I know I and several others appreciate it.

20 hours ago, Roy Marks.7689 said:

          Since the changes to Siege Dampener and Siege Disruptor were in separate updates than the wall/gate repair change, are those changes you think should be reverted in general, or do you feel they're no longer valid changes alongside the other changes made in the last patch?

Essentially the changes to both the Siege Dampener and Siege Disruptor have rendered them wholly ineffective. Since the change to the Siege Dampener I rarely if ever see anyone placing that tactivator on objectives anymore. It's now either exclusively the Emergency Waypoint or nothing in it's place.  An effective change instead would have been to reduce the duration of the Invulnerable Walls effect, perhaps 45 or 30 seconds.  The Siege Disruptor is also rarely used now, as they were generally deployed as a stalling tactic by small numbers of defenders against a significantly larger force of enemy attackers in the hopes that defensive reinforcements were on their way.  Making the siege itself weaker had no effect because generally a small number of defenders vs a large number of attackers will never have the opportunity to attack the siege in the first place.

I think the most effective solution here, rather than changing the Siege Disabler into the Siege Disruptor, is to lower the amount of siege that can be placed in one area. I would suggest reducing it from 5 siege pieces in area to 2 siege pieces.

The problem is when a large attacking force arrives, they generally deploy 5 catapults or 5 rams and destroy the walls/gates in a matter of seconds, even fully upgraded T3 structures. Furthermore, they tend to clump all that siege in one location that is often inaccessible to defend against, meaning defensive siege cannot hit it, especially given most players automatically avoid placement of siege near defensive cannons and mortars. By reducing the amount of siege being able to be placed in one particular area, larger groups would still be able to place large amounts of siege, but would be required to spread it out more, giving lesser numbers of defenders the opportunity to use defensive siege that could actually damage/destroy enemy siege as it would not all be clumped directly against the structure's walls (as is prevalent now).

Also, while we're on the topic of tactivators, please consider removing/changing Hardened Gates and Armored Dolyaks.  Both are essentially wasted tactivators (and generally only used by members of the community who enjoy trolling their teammates).  Hardened Gates is essentially worthless as it only applies to player damage, not siege damage. If it were upgraded to include siege damage (perhaps by 30-50%) it would be useful.  Dolyaks are relatively easy to kill, even by a single player (due to the power creep with each expansion), and the armored dolyak only takes a few seconds more to kill vs a non-armored dolyak. Perhaps an effective change would be adding more npc defenders instead?  It won't affect large numbers of players attacking a dolyak, but would make them more difficult if say a zealot and cabalist were added to the escort.

21 hours ago, Roy Marks.7689 said:

For the lowered stats on the Keep Aura, you mentioned that you feel it was overkill, but didn't say that's one of the changes that should be reverted. Do you feel it should be, or do you think it should be left alone?

The Objective Aura felt like it was absolutely overkill. As others have pointed out it is now less effective than even holding Minor Bloodlust, which in and of itself is often maintained by the server(s) that hold the numbers advantage.  Reducing it to 50-75% of the original value would be more in line, but 25% just too much. Another possibility (although I don't know if this is possible due to coding restrictions) would be to return the Objective Aura to it's original state but reduce it to the area of the objective's circle rather than the entire zone.  This would allow it to still benefit defenders while reducing the advantage it gives players fighting in an entire zone.

21 hours ago, Roy Marks.7689 said:

Are the changes to the keep lords just not very impactful, or do you feel as though they've actually worsened them in any way? Have you experienced groups trying to play around the new mechanics at all, or you just haven't seen it make an impact in fights where players aren't particularly paying attention to it?

I would have to say that this change feels almost negligible; I see no real difference in fighting keep lords now than I did before the change.

Finally, you didn't mention the change in repairing walls/gates, but again this feels like extreme overkill.  One of the most effective tactics for a smaller group of defenders fighting a larger group of attackers was to wait until the enemy attackers had started to push through the open walls/gates, and then repair to cut them in half, making it potentially possible for the smaller group of defenders to succeed.  Now it is virtually impossible to defend a structure unless the defenders have an equally large number of players as it requires a significant amount of supply to repair a structure's gates and/or walls to close, especially if said structure is T2/T3.  I would argue that this change needs to be reverted to it's original state, as prior to the change simply closing the walls/gates was often merely a short delaying tactic, as generally the enemy siege remains and can quickly re-open the walls/gates anyways if a larger attacking force exists.

[Triptaminas.4789]

Look guys, I'm tired and I'm gonna say it. 

June 6, 2023. 

Spoiler

Improved Kill Participation for Support Players

Calling all support-role players in WvW: it’s time to fill your bags…with Heavy Loot Bags! We’ve adjusted how kill participation credit is awarded to support players, which should bring their rewards more in line with damage-role players. (Obv this didn't ended as intended and support ending up with three times the bags and kill counts that dps gets)

 

 

That's the root cause of boonball, that's why it's overflowing with support players, that's why each month sub consists of 1 more sup player, without it even with current dev fascination and dedication to buff boonballs we would have three more years till reaching phase we are in now, this what amplified and kicked it all off.

Bunker kitten was always viable, just nobody wanted to do that as there was no motivation to do that. 

Obv it's compound problem, but this is the root cause, u might hate me for saying it, but that's the truth and u all know it.

Not calling for change, just wanted to point it out and see the cope or mental gymnastic that will follow.

Edited May 1 by Triptaminas.4789

[Dediggefedde.4961]

The "wall closes at 50%"-patch felt almost directly targeted at our guild. ^^'

As a guild of around 15, we like to stealth-repair walls while the enemy-zerg passed to cut their numbers in half.
Didn't always work, but often gave us the chance to actually win against 40.
Now we usually withdraw then, still checking for strike opportunities, but most of the time the objective is basically lost.

[Jaruselka.5943]

4 hours ago, Dediggefedde.4961 said:

The "wall closes at 50%"-patch felt almost directly targeted at our guild. ^^'

As a guild of around 15, we like to stealth-repair walls while the enemy-zerg passed to cut their numbers in half.
Didn't always work, but often gave us the chance to actually win against 40.
Now we usually withdraw then, still checking for strike opportunities, but most of the time the objective is basically lost.

Our guild would do this too and a lot of times it bought us enough time for reinforcements to arrive and save the structure. This tactic has essentially  been removed. These recent changes almost seem like Anet is dictating to us how they want us to play WvW. That kind of hubris is detrimental to this game mode and the game as a whole. 

Edited May 2 by Jaruselka.5943

[Sleepwalker.1398]

2 hours ago, Dediggefedde.4961 said:

The "wall closes at 50%"-patch felt almost directly targeted at our guild. ^^'

As a guild of around 15, we like to stealth-repair walls while the enemy-zerg passed to cut their numbers in half.
Didn't always work, but often gave us the chance to actually win against 40.
Now we usually withdraw then, still checking for strike opportunities, but most of the time the objective is basically lost.

This 100%.

I'm also part of a guild that used to do this via stealth to spit zerg and kill half of them while the other stuck outside would retreat.

Sadly Anet or the guild leaders totally did not like that tactic.

[cyberzombie.7348]

On 4/30/2024 at 5:50 PM, Roy Marks.7689 said:

Can you elaborate on your thoughts a bit? I'm interested in what specific changes you're thinking of and why they aren't working for you.

To condense what has already been iterated throughout the years, while support capabilities has been added/buffed across all classes, the anti-support has been severely neutered. Making it near impossible to realistically counter the boonball meta by any asymmetrical means. Leaving the only reliable option to counter them is to mirror their tactics.

 

Most notably being Winds of Disenchantment and null field nerfs, which were the most reliable ways to equalize fights for a brief period of time. However in their current state most zergs can just outright ignore them. Winds of Disenchantment since they can just reapply faster than the strip without worries of the block from the original skill. On top of its target cap reduced to just 5. To be blunt about the null field... it's duration, pulse, and total strips per cast is a joke considering the aforementioned. With its range nerfed making it more situational and riskier considering how most players use long-range attacks in zerg fights.

 

Other skills that comes to mind are engineer's throw mines, and thief's' bountiful theft. Throw mines due to it going from stripping 3 boons per mine (which typically only can have up to 2 mines set at any time) down to only 1, which doesn't mean much... even less if gadgeteer isn't equipped. The boon rip for bountiful theft was pretty balanced at 3 even during vanilla GW2. Plus it gave light to a personal build of mine that specialized in single-target strips as a deadeye. Which had its niche in zerg fights, but now with the baseline being 2 strips per mark it can only handle supports in small-groups.

On 4/30/2024 at 5:50 PM, Roy Marks.7689 said:

As far as the suggestion of making some types of siege easier to destroy - namely catapults and flame rams - do you feel that the changes to siege disruptors aid this in any way? Is the increased damage to siege from disruptors making a difference in your eyes?

As someone that's engineered siege placement since 2014, it only makes it easier for the attackers. The main purpose for the disabler was to delay a breach to help setup a proper counter attack. While also being a hard counter for shield generators and structures like mortars/oil pots/cannons. While yes disruptors still help in delaying for the most part, catapults & trebuchets can still CC people off of defensive siege, rams can still interrupt gate repairs, cows still drain supplies, along with shield generators still being able to apply perma-shielding when in sequence. Typically during a full-scale defense, I would be able to sneak around or blast through a group to stop a generator or trebuchet that couldn't be normally reached, so the actual siege busters can have a time window do their work, but now that tactic is a fool's errand.

As for the structures, throwing a disruptor basically turns them into a death trap since they don't kick a user off like a disabler would. And if one is thrown chances are the attackers have a heavy read on it and the user.

[Sansar.1302]

player count  should matter way less than it does now and skill should matter way more than it currently does.

[Kranlor Greyhelm.8417]

7 hours ago, Triptaminas.4789 said:

Look guys, I'm tired and I'm gonna say it. 

June 6, 2023. 

  Reveal hidden contents

Improved Kill Participation for Support Players

Calling all support-role players in WvW: it’s time to fill your bags…with Heavy Loot Bags! We’ve adjusted how kill participation credit is awarded to support players, which should bring their rewards more in line with damage-role players. (Obv this didn't ended as intended and support ending up with three times the bags and kill counts that dps gets)

 

 

That's the root cause of boonball, that's why it's overflowing with support players

 

No, it isn't. Fixing the problem of support players not getting credit meant that it's easier to get people to play support, but the reason that the meta is 3-4 support for each 1-2 dps is because the end result is an unkillable blob of players that barely need to use their brains. A commander isn't thinking "I have to get more support so that they can get more bags". He's focused purely on the benefits that setup gives his group.

If you took away the rewards for support players, they'd still be trying to build a squad the same way. It might be harder to persuade enough people to fill the roles, but they'd still be trying to do it.

It won't be fixed until boonballing has some degree of disadvantage to it. At the moment it's all pluses and  no downside. ANET needs to be sorting out a rock for the boonball scissors, otherwise they can't fix this.

[TheGrimm.5624]

8 hours ago, Dediggefedde.4961 said:

The "wall closes at 50%"-patch felt almost directly targeted at our guild. ^^'

As a guild of around 15, we like to stealth-repair walls while the enemy-zerg passed to cut their numbers in half.
Didn't always work, but often gave us the chance to actually win against 40.
Now we usually withdraw then, still checking for strike opportunities, but most of the time the objective is basically lost.

lol. Yup was only you that used this tactic. 15? 🙂 to tap a wall closed?

[Woop S.7851]

On 4/30/2024 at 5:50 PM, Roy Marks.7689 said:

Hey all! I'd like to make sure I understand and hear more about some of the feedback, so I've quoted a few posts below and asked the authors to expand on their thoughts.

Thanks for the message, really appreciate the effort!

Notes/Thoughts:

• Updates may have caught many by surprise
• It might be good to test features & communicate to players of before live launch
• WvW weekend bonus events were once used for testing features & world-structuring? Maybe feedbacks (what worked/didn't work) can be gathered afterward an test event
• SWOT analysis, Six Sigma, or Kaizen methodologies might be helpful as WvW still has lots of potential

Incremental A/B testing:

• Test each individually on its own: No down states; T-1 Walls; Smaller NPC capture rings etc during bonus WvW weekends, analyze player behavior, Zerg movement & scoring
• Test each combined: No down states + T1 Walls only + Smaller NPC capture rings

Ask critical introspective questions post-test:

• Do boon stacked Zergs dominate through everything? Why?
• What numbers to add/subtract? Is there counter-play?
• Do Walls slow down Zerg movement while giving a chance for roamers to capture around?
• How fast are siege built by Zergs vs roamers?
• How fast do Zergs move versus roamers/individuals?
• How fast can siege be stalled before reinforcements arrive?
• Does the NPC capture circle allow for counter-play to stall capture when outnumbered?
• Why is there an imbalance in population? How to give the lower population group motivation for counter-play?
• Will these work before/after alliance launches? Assuming populations & skill-level are more balanced?

Guild Wars 1 - 12v12 Alliance Battles:

• Timing: Match resets every 30-40 minutes
• Motivation: x2 points rewarded to winning team, x1 for losing team, every match had dynamic engagements
• Counter-play: if 12 players Zerged or were more skilled, opposite team splits up and captures control points, gaining points faster due to timer, this forced the 12 player Zerg to split up and recap before match ends
• Inspiration/Reference: Magic The Gathering

Edge of The Mists (before Pips were nerfed long ago):

• Timing: Each match is 4 hours in duration broken up into 5-minute ticks
• Motivation: Roamers and Zergs aimed to capture structures much more than chasing down players
• Counter-play: Similar to GW1 alliance battles, certain objectives had 'no walls', allowing roamers to counter Zergs by splitting up to speed-cap points before match ended. This worked as Zergs naturally targeted big objectives like keeps and towers (Tier-1 walls set in stone)
• Roamers can split-up & counter play to capture non-wall objectives for handicap buffs & points
• Inspiration/Reference: EOTM map design concept & player flow closely resembles that of Sternhalma/Diamond game
• It might be beneficial to take a closer look at EOTM. When 1st launched, it consisted of excellent references of early WvW design + GW1 Alliance battles, mechanics, points system, flow, and dynamic combat every match
• *Maybe the map can be used for A/B testing mechanics & player behaviors such as Zerg/Roamer movements

[ascii.1369]

20 hours ago, bq pd.2148 said:

i think the problem with the old pips was also people just participation farming on outnumbered maps instead of putting in some effort so the map would fill up with mostly useless numbers.
one could however add the pips to more active engagements while outnumbered for example:
+2 pips on capturing a camp
+4 pips on capturing a tower
+8 pips on capturing a keep
+1 pip on stomping another player (stomp, not kill)

ofc those are just example numbers but it would encourage people to do something or as much as they can on the map but not just passively reward for being about.

The numbers are probably too high, but other than that YES. It should probably be "if you have done this activity during the current tick, you get x additional pips when the actual tick happens". Maybe that's what you meant, because getting pips every time you do this rather than adding it once to the total amount seems excessive.

Please for the love of god Anet, you finally need to introduce rewards that encourage active gameplay. Especially giving rewards for stomps (not kills) would be amazing. This would finally encourage people to actually play the game rather than afk in spawn until a tag shows up. As someone who roams almost exclusively and never on EBG I have to say, it feels like 95% of WvW players don't actually like PvP. It's pretty much impossible to get randome pugs to help capture a camp that has 2-5 defenders.

Now that I'm thinking about it, while the above suggested changes to rewards would be a massive step in the right direction, I think the most pressing issue to solve would be that people refuse to play if there is no tag around. While there is no tag on borderlands it seems those three maps are just EBG waiting rooms. While encouraging active gameplay through rewards is the direction WvW should move in more generally, it really would be great if we could have significant rewards that encourage players to venture out there without the protection of a 35 people zerg. Admittedly, I can't think of any other good ideas of how to encourage small scale gameplay right now, other than the already mentioned rewards for stomps. But than again, there are people at Anet whose full time job it is to design the game, I'm sure you can come up with something.

Edited May 2 by ascii.1369

[kash.9213]

25 minutes ago, ascii.1369 said:

The numbers are probably too high, but other than that YES.

Please for the love of god Anet, you finally need to introduce rewards that encourage active gameplay. Especially giving rewards for stomps (not kills) would be amazing. This would finally encourage people to actually play the game rather than afk in spawn until a tag shows up. As someone who roams almost exclusively and never on EBG I have to say, it feels like 95% of WvW players don't actually like PvP. It's pretty much impossible to get randome pugs to help capture a camp that has 2-5 defenders.

Now that I'm thinking about it, while the above suggested changes to rewards would be a massive step in the right direction, I think the most pressing issue to solve would be that people refuse to play if there is no tag around. While there is no tag on borderlands it seems those three maps are just EBG waiting rooms. While encouraging active gameplay through rewards is the direction WvW should move in more generally, it really would be great if we could have significant rewards that encourage players to venture out there without the protection of a 35 people zerg. Admittedly, I can't think of any other good ideas of how to encourage small scale gameplay right now, other than the already mentioned rewards for stomps. But than again, there are people at Anet whose full time job it is to design the game, I'm sure you can come up with something.

People avoiding pvp is part of it, but while someone who hasn't played WvW might imagine old pre launch promos of actual siege warfare at a cinematic pace, the reality is that you need to be greasy fast and actually have the fire power, mitigation, with the specs and connection to not just be bag fodder. My Steam Deck can hang most of the time, but I do run into stretches where I should probably just log off (doesn't help that I'm doing other stuff while I'm playing, but even when I tune in to cover people, I'm not that good of a player to compensate every time). 

I imagine a lot of casual players or people mostly hanging out with their guilds can feel like WvW is a mad dash across a map so you don't get melted right away or get corpse jumped and then feel like it's all personal all of the sudden. I think WvW would need to have more theater and feel more like open world pvp instead of a large spvp match to get more people to wander around more often. 

Edited May 2 by kash.9213

[ascii.1369]

26 minutes ago, kash.9213 said:

People avoiding pvp is part of it, but while someone who hasn't played WvW might imagine old pre launch promos of actual siege warfare at a cinematic pace, the reality is that you need to be greasy fast and actually have the fire power, mitigation, with the specs and connection to not just be bag fodder. My Steam Deck can hang most of the time, but I do run into stretches where I should probably just log off (doesn't help that I'm doing other stuff while I'm playing, but even when I tune in to cover people, I'm not that good of a player to compensate every time). 

I imagine a lot of casual players or people mostly hanging out with their guilds can feel like WvW is a mad dash across a map so you don't get melted right away or get corpse jumped and then feel like it's all personal all of the sudden. I think WvW would need to have more theater and feel more like open world pvp instead of a large spvp match to get more people to wander around more often. 

Just to be clear, that's perfectly fine, not everybody has to be a sweaty tryhard. However, the reason it feels that way is because only the sweaty tryhards are out on the map roaming for victims. If we had better rewards to encourage more casual players to wander out on to the map, all of a sudden you would meet mostly people just as casual as yourself and the experience would be much more enjoyable.

Edited May 2 by ascii.1369

[kash.9213]

5 minutes ago, ascii.1369 said:

Just to be clear, that's perfectly fine, not everybody has to be a sweaty tryhard. However, the reason it feels that way is because only the sweaty tryhards are out on the map roaming for victims. If we had better rewards to encourage more casual players to wander out on to the map, all of a sudden you would meet mostly people just as casual as yourself and the experience would be much more enjoyable.

I understand what you were saying. I'm saying I think rewards aren't going to move that needle as much as setting. That's unless they're forced to stomp so many enemy players before they can get their Gifts or whatever. I could be wrong, but we've been given more avenues towards gearing up and filling bags over time already. 

[ascii.1369]

11 minutes ago, kash.9213 said:

I understand what you were saying. I'm saying I think rewards aren't going to move that needle as much as setting. That's unless they're forced to stomp so many enemy players before they can get their Gifts or whatever. I could be wrong, but we've been given more avenues towards gearing up and filling bags over time already. 

In regards to the people who are just there for the gift, fair enough. You are probably correct that there is no way to get them out on the map with how the game mode currently works. What I would probably say is that a significant rework of how the game mode works is not really in the crads though. Changing the reward system on the other hand, very realistic. And I don't think the "gift people" are the target audience for WvW anyway. The people a better reward system would target are the ones that actually want to be in WvW but for one reason or another don't engage with the PvP aspect of the game mode.

Edited May 2 by ascii.1369

[TheGrimm.5624]

20 hours ago, Ronin.4501 said:

is to lower the amount of siege that can be placed in one area. I would suggest reducing it from 5 siege pieces in area to 2 siege pieces.

I think this would hurt havocs and defenders more than it would to impact large scale play personally. When the attackers group siege up its also easier to destroy in mass. I understand your point but I think the solution hinders smaller play more than it does larger scale.

[kash.9213]

30 minutes ago, ascii.1369 said:

In regards to the people who are just there for the gift, fair enough. You are probably correct that there is no way to get them out on the map with how the game mode currently works. What I would probably say is that a significant rework of how the game mode works is not really in the crads though. Changing the reward system on the other hand, very realistic. And I don't think the "gift people" are the target audience for WvW anyway. The people a better reward system would target are the ones that actually want to be in WvW but for one reason or another don't engage with the PvP aspect of the game mode.

Sure, that could get people out there more. That value threshold for the rewards would be tricky though and we'd have to hope we're actually rewarding people who like to pvp and not filling up people who are more into gimmicks to secure those rewards routinely. 

[Chaba.5410]

PvPers generally don't need external reward systems to motivate them to play - the rewards are usually nice to have and bonus.  The casual crowd that doesn't like to PvP much in WvW is the same crowd that got pulled away to EOTM upon release when that map offered the types of rewards that turned it into a glorified Queensdale champ train.

Edited May 2 by Chaba.5410

[TheGrimm.5624]

9 hours ago, Woop S.7851 said:

 

Edge of The Mists (before Pips were nerfed long ago):

• Motivation: Roamers and Zergs aimed to capture structures much more than chasing down players

Going to spin this some as a player that enjoys the map then and now when I do go there. Roamers and Havocs like the map since it also allowed for areas where smaller numbers could counter larger ones due to choke points

9 hours ago, Woop S.7851 said:

• Roamers can split-up & counter play to capture non-wall objectives for handicap buffs & points

   

Roamers and Havocs still try and counter larger groups by breaking up and hitting various targets, this just isn't in as much practice now as it used to be, nor is for large scale to practice the same maneuvers. Personally that comes down to why try since there is no reason to win. But we might get back to those times.

 

[latlat.4516]

On 5/1/2024 at 8:10 AM, Zekent.3652 said:

Nerf on 'outnumbered' effect: the nerf on pips, why should we go to an outnumbered map and suffer roam/scout in disadvantage, if the extra pips were nerfed? current outnumered effects are not worth for a lot of people.

I'm okay with what you said except this specific point.

1. I don't think people to do outnumbered did it for the pips

2. outnumbered pip advantage actually did favor some people just running around in the ruins and harassing anyone calling for the multi-map zerg to come and defend structure. 

3. I don't think the outnumbered bonus should give an advantage, I think it should make killing a member of an outnumbered team less worth for the overnumbered.