WTF is Anet doing to WvW?

[Zekent.3652]

Big nerfs on boonstrips, big nerf on outnumbered rewards and now these recent changes, i'm sorry but it feels like ANet is actively trying to kill people's motivation to keep playing WvW

[Mabi black.1824]

11 hours ago, One more for the road.8950 said:

In all honesty, you have the answers to these questions in this thread or other recent ones I have seen you in posted by either myself or others, so asking these things makes me question your comprehension or motives to ask. If it's due to Google Translate or other things I don't know, but I am not going to go off track muddying the waters even more.

It's not clear to me what you're referring to. I have limited myself to asking you some simple and legitimate (because in the context of these recent changes) questions. And a dear school teacher of mine always told me: a precise question is due an equally precise answer.

[Gazrul.3086]

I'm ok with nerfing the size of the rings, but the changes to the wall/gate repairs and the keep aura were a serious overkill. They should at least revert the siege dampener to complete invulnerability, and the siege disabler to full disable. And bring the wall/gate repairs back to 10%.

[One more for the road.8950]

18 minutes ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

It's not clear to me what you're referring to. I have limited myself to asking you some simple and legitimate (because in the context of these recent changes) questions. And a dear school teacher of mine always told me: a precise question is due an equally precise answer.

I am sorry, but there is nothing precise whatsoever in the questions asked in this post. I am fact not even sure I understand what the questions are now that I look at them again.

19 hours ago, Mabi black.1824 said:

While what I've read and written is a good description of this mode, I'd like to understand how these latest changes are supposed to negate a playstyle or how they can deny that someone can be satisfied with their goals. If it's better to group up with 5 or 6 teammates to close a wall, am I denying you defense? Or am I suggesting that you team up with others? If I reduce the supplies in the tower, am I denying you a defense? Or am I suggesting you get out of that tower and protect even why are camps more valuable than before?

If you want to contribute and score points by killing or capturing structures, you are free to do so. Who prevents you from doing so. If you want to shoot with a small guild group of 15 players and a larger group, you are free to do so. Who prevents you from doing so.

Personally, I feel that all playstyles are still all safely and freely playable with these changes. What I would suggest to the development of Anet is that if you want to stimulate the content, if you want offense and defense to meet so as to aute the iteration between players you have to keep the '' time '' under control I don't know how it was abused before but the contestation of the golem before gave more time to the defense and generated very good iterations. I like the idea that a wall is more complicated to close, especially where you have double walls. Because the enemy comes in and then the defense responds And then the content emerges. We should get stronger walls so we give the defense more time to get organized, to come in to play with their attackers, or we risk saying hello to the content.

The post you are quoting and replying to here isn't saying anything about what you are asking about defense here. How the recent changes overall affect the mode, player activity, type of content and why people think it's a bad thing have been explained up and down by several (including me)  though, and derailing that with things like "how am I denying you a defense by reducing supplies" is just... either ignorant, a language problem or refusing to see things from other people's perspective.

That you are saying "I feel that all playstyles are still safely and freely playable with these changes" tells me that you are either missing the understanding of parts of the game mode or how it works in general in its entirety, and probably haven't tried or aren't interested in other aspects of the mode other than a very limited range. Which is fine, by all means, as long as you stop and think about for a bit when enlightened by others or at least try to understand what they are saying if you want to discuss it.

After this post from you

On 4/27/2024 at 11:43 AM, Mabi black.1824 said:

For all the confusing faces that I see and that will continue to be added, I say: look at the Friday night reset, you will notice that all the structures are being reset to T0. You'll also find content everywhere because the various teams/guilds will be stimulated to try out their attacks. They will be stimulated to take control of your border map. As in EBG SM. Try to ask yourself why.

And not addressing this even if it's not a question

On 4/28/2024 at 9:57 PM, One more for the road.8950 said:

All structures being reset to T0 doesn't say anything about content. It says something about a certain type of activity. That activity is just taking objectives, in other words you're implying just having three squads taking the objectives clockwise with about five minutes delay between each other and no one defending anything would be the perfect reset evening/night.  If even reset night turns into a ktrain from reset, even I am out. Then we're just back to choo choo EotM. 

I am guessing it's a mix of everything. It does shows me where you come from and what you enjoy as a player. I have seen some other ways that you measure activity in ways that is misrepresenting what is actually going on in the mode. But asking simple, legitimate and clear questions you are not.

[One more for the road.8950]

Alright. I might as well give it a proper go, I guess.

12 hours ago, Chaba.5410 said:

And what I'm saying is that games aren't designed with personal motivations in mind.  It's just a board with a ruleset and what players do with it is up to them.  Rulesets can and should change otherwise we end up with tic tac toe.

And I think what you are calling "sense of achievement" is actually something else.  Because once you've achieved something, there's usually little incentive to keep playing.  Why do people play games?  Because there is something fun for them in it.  Once you've achieved mastery over a game (like tic tac toe), it's no longer fun.  Once a borderland is "secure", players usually hop maps because it's no longer fun on the other map.  When a zerg attacks, then it's fun because the results of the yak escorting can be realized.  If no one attacks, they just log off out of boredom from waiting.

Pride/sense of achievement is not something that stops. It is an ongoing thing. I even said it might be the definition of "fun" in a game mode like this. It's your motivation. Your drive. Why you play. If it's skill, points, fights, k/d, comps,. rewards, WxP, AP, getting a GoB, making a legendary, social interaction, whatever.

You're talking about tic tac toe. But you can always get better. Let's change it to chess instead. Would you stop the first time you win and call yourself done? Would you find a better opponent to prove yourself against? Would you only try to play against people your own level that you might have a chance to beat? Would you try to learn more about the game and its tactics to get better? Would you give up if someone beat you in just a few moves even if you thought you had a good understanding of the game? Would you think you had no chance to ever get as good as the best? Would feel defeated before you even started the game if you knew the opponent across the table has a much higher ranking than you? Would you feel slighted if the opponent has a much lower ranking than you? Would you feel elated if you managed to pull off moves you have studied without your opponent seeing what you are doing before it's too late? Would you give up on the game if you suddenly realized you did a mistake or would you try to save it?

All these questions says something about you as a player, your motivation to play and what you feel pride/sense of achievement over. And it's personal. The board is not, the figures you are using are not, but why you do it is. WvW is somewhat a sandbox, by all means, but why people play it is personal motivation and the rules and environment the game developers are offering in this "sandbox" are there to stimulate players to play the mode and being able to push and pull them in the direction they want. Unlike chess these rules and environment can change, and if you as a developer change or tune it too much in one direction or another you'll lose what motivate them and by that them as players. The "truest" sandbox in WvW is the arenas where you can do GvG without anything affecting your play other than the commanding, your comp, your builds and how people play.

11 hours ago, Chaba.5410 said:

Why don't you ask some questions about my understanding that confuses you then?

I think you have already kind of answered them already in the post from you above.

11 hours ago, Chaba.5410 said:

How about I ask you a question then?  Is the grinding that all these suppliers of entertainment design fun because at the end you get a big sense of achievement?

Obviously it's some kind of motivation, and therefore a sense of achievement. Does it have to be big? Sense of achievement doesn't need to be one big thing, an accomplishment. Maybe it's grinding to get another hero, some gear, something to put in your gear, new skills, something to either change your game play, make you progress in the game, make things easier for you... or maybe it's even to just to sell for either in game or real money for something completely different. With no clear direction other than "grinding" it's usually a given that any grinding ends in some kind of result. Same with working out, cleaning your house, going to work, and everything else in your life, it has a purpose. If it's a valid purpose or not is up everyone to decide for themselves, again  this pesky thing called motivation, and if something you are using for entertainment purposes is no longer entertaining you, the purpose is lost. So you move on. To another game or something without grinding if that's your question.

The things I do in my life I choose from different sense of achievements, and the activity itself might not be what gives me the sense of achievement, but the result said activity gives me does. We do not all have dream jobs or love doing housework but we still work and clean our houses. And before you go "but you HAVE to" then ask yourself... why? And you'll find your motivation.

[Mabi black.1824]

2 hours ago, One more for the road.8950 said:

That you are saying "I feel that all playstyles are still safely and freely playable with these changes" tells me that you are either missing the understanding of parts of the game mode or how it works in general in its entirety, and probably haven't tried or aren't interested in other aspects of the mode other than a very limited range. Which is fine, by all means, as long as you stop and think about for a bit when enlightened by others or at least try to understand what they are saying if you want to discuss it.

It's probably just me who doesn't understand. Nothing could be easier. But I really get lost. It's true that this post embraces several topics, so I'd better clarify what I'm referring to in terms of what I've written. This post came out shortly after the recent updates, so I'm referring to those. They are walls that are repaired. They are supply depots that change in quantities. They are circles that reduce. We're talking about this guys. 

Now, honestly, is this enough to undermine your motivation? Or limit different playstyles rather than how you prefer to play and have fun? Hence my questions. How are these changes negating your defense? Walls that open in a few minutes, it has been happening since the dawn of time. If your 15 are trampled by 30 enemies, it's been happening since the dawn of time. If you make your scout call and your defense doesn't show up because he's having fun somewhere else, it's been happening since the dawn of time.

Or we want to talk about the meta boom or maybe you're referring to that. I really got lost in this post. please help me understand. It seems to me that he is derailing in a collection of complaints without going into the merits of anything.

[Mabi black.1824]

2 hours ago, One more for the road.8950 said:

And not addressing this even if it's not a question

On 4/28/2024 at 9:57 PM, One more for the road.8950 said:

All structures being reset to T0 doesn't say anything about content. It says something about a certain type of activity. That activity is just taking objectives, in other words you're implying just having three squads taking the objectives clockwise with about five minutes delay between each other and no one defending anything would be the perfect reset evening/night.  If even reset night turns into a ktrain from reset, even I am out. Then we're just back to choo choo EotM. 

 

You have to forgive me but I completely missed your answer that I am quoting.

When I tell you that on the night of the reset you will find content everywhere, I am telling you that you will find a lot of initiatives. Players and guilds that try, show up at your garri (or any other structure) and from there emerge the contents, the iterations, the players who play, the attackers vs the defenders, the successes and the failures. By emerging contents, I mean, of course, this.

My experience, my eyes see all of this in an amplified way on the night of the reset. Hence my question, ask yourself why.

Edited April 30 by Mabi black.1824

[TheQuickFox.3826]

I used to play some hours at night. Sometimes I would enter one of our deserted keeps. Scout it and repair it in the process.

 

The keep had been under heavy attack earlier and the squad just barely repaired it with the last of the supplies available. But during the night, supplies got replenished and repairing would give me XP and participation to make it worthy to scout and maintain. If an enemy squad came, I popped EWP and the night commander thanked me for it.

 

Well, this all is dead since ANet choose to remove credits for repairs, by popular demand that is. With the release of the vault I moved to sPvP for my dailies. Seems to be quicker, especially because I play at night where some vault objectives for WvW are not possible solo.

[Mabi black.1824]

28 minutes ago, TheQuickFox.3826 said:

I used to play some hours at night. Sometimes I would enter one of our deserted keeps. Scout it and repair it in the process.

 

The keep had been under heavy attack earlier and the squad just barely repaired it with the last of the supplies available. But during the night, supplies got replenished and repairing would give me XP and participation to make it worthy to scout and maintain. If an enemy squad came, I popped EWP and the night commander thanked me for it.

 

Well, this all is dead since ANet choose to remove credits for repairs, by popular demand that is. With the release of the vault I moved to sPvP for my dailies. Seems to be quicker, especially because I play at night where some vault objectives for WvW are not possible solo.

Without taking anything away from the good reasons why it shares your experience, it's proving what I've written before, this post is just a compilation of any complaints without going into the merits. What does a deserted team at night with 5 players in defense achieve, compared to these recent changes. The assumption when I change something in WVW and go to see if it helps the fun to emerge rather than being more boring, has to assume the standard conditions ( or at least that they should be standard) , we are talking about similar sides with a considerable number of players. WVW is full-scale PvP, until proven otherwise.

[KrHome.1920]

EU T5 experience regarding walls:

I like all the changes.

People join the actual fight to get the enemy out of the structure. No one bothers repairing until the fight is over. No one leeches participation by repairing walls while others defend right next to him. No one wastes ressources on walls before the fight is over and no enemy builds siege anymore.

People argue that attackers have a too easy time. I don't see that being a result of the wall changes. It is (and has always been) a result of poor balancing (bandwagoning and boonspam), which is something I witness every single week in T5 for a very long time now.

[Kranlor Greyhelm.8417]

2 hours ago, KrHome.1920 said:

No one leeches participation by repairing walls while others defend right next to him. 

I would hope they don't, considering that hasn't even been possible for.....years now?

Hard to take any other points seriously when this either suggests you haven't been playing WvW for some time, or if you have you REALLY haven't been paying attention.

 

[XenesisII.1540]

2 hours ago, KrHome.1920 said:

No one wastes ressources on walls before the fight is over and no enemy builds siege anymore.

People argue that attackers have a too easy time. I don't see that being a result of the wall changes. 

If less defensive siege if being built because of the wall changes, that means attackers are having an easier time... 🤔

[TheGrimm.5624]

5 hours ago, KrHome.1920 said:

EU T5 experience regarding walls:

I like all the changes.

People join the actual fight to get the enemy out of the structure. No one bothers repairing until the fight is over. No one leeches participation by repairing walls while others defend right next to him. No one wastes ressources on walls before the fight is over and no enemy builds siege anymore.

People argue that attackers have a too easy time. I don't see that being a result of the wall changes. It is (and has always been) a result of poor balancing (bandwagoning and boonspam), which is something I witness every single week in T5 for a very long time now.

Many issues here. Leeches versus making bad calls are different. Bad calls are trying to close a wall while the siege that damaged it are still up. Bad calls are closing the wrong wall or creating an ambush point that the other side can control. If leeching occurred it was completely removed a long time ago now. Being able to close a wall has been about slowing the tide of attackers or stopping a second zerg in to double team you in an objective that you control. Agree seen a lot of people make bad calls, and have seen a lot of good calls to allow you time to deal with what is already in before having to deal with more inbound. 

Players will need to adjust and go from there. Changes are still too new to see trends yet, but am seeing differences, again are they short or long term? 

[TheGrimm.5624]

3 hours ago, XenesisII.1540 said:

If less defensive siege if being built because of the wall changes, that means attackers are having an easier time... 🤔

I admit, I have been building more offensive versus defensive siege over the last few weeks. Not feeling the need to first stop and prep for a potential attack on one of mine and just let the Havoc side have it's day even more and go and take theirs. 

[Chaba.5410]

TL;DR:

• Discussion on why players play games, why they quit, and what influence designers have
• Sense of achievement isn't always entertainment/fun.
• Fun in games arise from the learning opportunities they offer.
• Designing for fun usually means implementing design patterns or making changes that offer learning and new experiences.
• Personal motivations that players invent for themselves to keep entertained after learning are distinct from designing for fun.  One is external to the game and the other is intrinsic.

I realize that I'm probably not using correct game design terminology and I think you are struggling with the same problem.

6 hours ago, One more for the road.8950 said:

Pride/sense of achievement is not something that stops. It is an ongoing thing. I even said it might be the definition of "fun" in a game mode like this. It's your motivation

6 hours ago, One more for the road.8950 said:

it's usually a given that any grinding ends in some kind of result. Same with working out, cleaning your house, going to work, and everything else in your life, it has a purpose. If it's a valid purpose or not is up everyone to decide for themselves, again  this pesky thing called motivation, and if something you are using for entertainment purposes is no longer entertaining you, the purpose is lost. So you move on.

Your last statement here is exactly what I was trying to explain to you - disconnect the idea of sense of achievement as a driver for the fun-seeking behavior of players in games.  Certain gaming patterns can end in some kind of result, but by no means is it always fun (or as you wrote "some kind of motivation").  We have plenty of gaming examples to pick from where that is true and players who grind through will often sarcastically say they hate themselves for doing it (see dark patterns).  Cleaning a house, going to work, etc. aren't activities that are known to always be fun, which is why I suggested that what you're calling "sense of achievement" is something else.  One can obtain a sense of achievement from cleaning up a house ("job well done?"), but the motivation wasn't to be entertained.

So when we talking about players quitting games, let's discuss this topic with a clear focus on the specific type of motivation behind why people play games in the first place - fun, or "entertainment purposes" like you say - and not on specific design patterns; for that's how it unintentionally sounded with the way you originally put it.  Maybe you would call it a "sense of achievement of fun"?   With this concept perhaps more clear now, I return to my other assertion: Devs cannot foresee and design around individual and unique motivations.

Designing for fun is the elusive holy grail.  When we observe the general trends that happen when a new game is released, players initially have fun and then disappear.  Why do you think that is?  I suggest it's related to the fun of learning and experiencing something new.  We have only to see it in GW2 here when new content gets released and once players have "played through" it, players have a tendency to disappear again.  There are a multitude of design patterns that are done on a game to keep entertainment levels high and continuous, an important problem for game companies with "always on" games: add new content, add hardcore content tiers (learning) , add human opponents, make ruleset changes (this specifically hits the WvW game mode), etc.  Special mention goes here for speedrunning, which is a player invented pattern that devs didn't foresee and still don't design for.
 

6 hours ago, One more for the road.8950 said:

You're talking about tic tac toe. But you can always get better. Let's change it to chess instead. Would you stop the first time you win and call yourself done? Would you find a better opponent to prove yourself against? Would you only try to play against people your own level that you might have a chance to beat? Would you try to learn more about the game and its tactics to get better? Would you give up if someone beat you in just a few moves even if you thought you had a good understanding of the game? Would you think you had no chance to ever get as good as the best? Would feel defeated before you even started the game if you knew the opponent across the table has a much higher ranking than you? Would you feel slighted if the opponent has a much lower ranking than you? Would you feel elated if you managed to pull off moves you have studied without your opponent seeing what you are doing before it's too late? Would you give up on the game if you suddenly realized you did a mistake or would you try to save it?

I referenced such a simplistic game because most players reach a point of mastery faster than one would with a game like chess and this makes the underlying principle I'm trying to communicate more visible.  All your questions surrounding chess apply to tic tac toe.  The principle I attempt to illustrate remains the same - for basic principles should remain the same no matter the game: fun in games (IMO) is derived from the learning experience they offer and most players stop having fun with a game once they achieve some sort of mastery of it - pushing for higher levels isn't always their goal because those new experiences become rarer and games are a type of hobby for most players.  Why aren't you playing tic tac toe anymore?  It certainly offers the common design pattern of human opponents that get added to some games to keep entertainment level high.

And it's true that while changes can offer new experiences to master, they can also deflate some players precisely because designers can't really predict what players do with a game.  So what?  Did the NBA predict that their offensive fouls rules would lead to a rather high number of defenders becoming skilled at drawing fouls?  If the NBA changes their rules to greatly reduce that defensive playstyle, do we say the NBA should worry about the motivations of those defenders?  No, instead the worry is about, as you put it, "tuned too much in one direction" and that has less to do with individual playstyles and more with the game as a whole.  Even when new content is added, some players aren't happy and end up quitting.  Why?  On this question I'm not too sure myself.  Overall, I think this is why the type of feedback devs ask for is "how does this make you feel?".  For example, the Pax Dei alpha just ended and their in-game feedback form used little feeling emojis for the submit button.  Designing fun is still elusive.
 

9 hours ago, One more for the road.8950 said:

All these questions says something about you as a player, your motivation to play and what you feel pride/sense of achievement over. And it's personal. The board is not, the figures you are using are not, but why you do it is. WvW is somewhat a sandbox, by all means, but why people play it is personal motivation and the rules and environment the game developers are offering in this "sandbox" are there to stimulate players to play the mode and being able to push and pull them in the direction they want. Unlike chess these rules and environment can change, and if you as a developer change or tune it too much in one direction or another you'll lose what motivate them and by that them as players.

Which leads into the question of: why do some players keep playing after they no longer are learning or experiencing something new?  We see it in WvW too where, after playing long enough, you've already played against everyone despite the human opponent design pattern that provides for new experiences.  My observation of GvG players over the years is they tend to get bored and quit once they've achieved a level of mastery where it's lonely at the top.  New challenges and learning become rarer.  I suggest the reason some keep playing after is due to emergent motivations outside of the game that we make up for ourselves, again something designers can't design for.  Humans are good at rationalizing and we all rationalize why we keep playing.  I've interpreted your position as seeing individual motivations as indistinguishable from that which the game design creates while I've been saying I see them as distinct.  Emergent motivations are external to design.  One of my own rationalizations is I'm entertained by my social interactions with guild mates and others playing this game.  Devs don't have domain over that.  I bet it is highly personally entertaining to draw fouls as defense in NBA games too.  While you and I both understand that devs can stimulate or discourage certain behaviors through a "push and pull" of changes (NBA foul rules), also recognize the existence of a trope I'm sure you've certainly heard before: "I don't play for rewards".  Changes aren't made for individuals nor should they be.  They're made for the overall game.

[Chaba.5410]

7 hours ago, TheQuickFox.3826 said:

ANet choose to remove credits for repairs, by popular demand that is

Anet removed credit for repair not by popular demand, but because it was being abused for the bonus rewards.  It's like when they removed the rewards for escorting yaks very early in the game.  It was being abused.

[Chaba.5410]

4 hours ago, XenesisII.1540 said:

If less defensive siege if being built because of the wall changes, that means attackers are having an easier time... 🤔

That's not what he said.  He's writing from the perspective of a defender which implies the enemy he's referring to are attackers.  Context matters.

Edited April 30 by Chaba.5410

[One more for the road.8950]

10 minutes ago, Chaba.5410 said:

TL;DR:

• Discussion on why players play games, why they quit, and what influence designers have
• Sense of achievement isn't always entertainment/fun.
• Fun in games arise from the learning opportunities they offer.
• Designing for fun usually means implementing design patterns or making changes that offer learning and new experiences.
• Personal motivations that players invent for themselves to keep entertained after learning are distinct from designing for fun.  One is external to the game and the other is intrinsic.

I realize that I'm probably not using correct game design terminology and I think you are struggling with the same problem.

Your last statement here is exactly what I was trying to explain to you - disconnect the idea of sense of achievement as a driver for the fun-seeking behavior of players in games.  Certain gaming patterns can end in some kind of result, but by no means is it always fun (or as you wrote "some kind of motivation").  We have plenty of gaming examples to pick from where that is true and players who grind through will often sarcastically say they hate themselves for doing it (see dark patterns).  Cleaning a house, going to work, etc. aren't activities that are known to always be fun, which is why I suggested that what you're calling "sense of achievement" is something else.  One can obtain a sense of achievement from cleaning up a house ("job well done?"), but the motivation wasn't to be entertained.

So when we talking about players quitting games, let's discuss this topic with a clear focus on the specific type of motivation behind why people play games in the first place - fun, or "entertainment purposes" like you say - and not on specific design patterns; for that's how it unintentionally sounded with the way you originally put it.  Maybe you would call it a "sense of achievement of fun"?   With this concept perhaps more clear now, I return to my other assertion: Devs cannot foresee and design around individual and unique motivations.

Designing for fun is the elusive holy grail.  When we observe the general trends that happen when a new game is released, players initially have fun and then disappear.  Why do you think that is?  I suggest it's related to the fun of learning and experiencing something new.  We have only to see it in GW2 here when new content gets released and once players have "played through" it, players have a tendency to disappear again.  There are a multitude of design patterns that are done on a game to keep entertainment levels high and continuous, an important problem for game companies with "always on" games: add new content, add hardcore content tiers (learning) , add human opponents, make ruleset changes (this specifically hits the WvW game mode), etc.  Special mention goes here for speedrunning, which is a player invented pattern that devs didn't foresee and still don't design for.
 

I referenced such a simplistic game because most players reach a point of mastery faster than one would with a game like chess and this makes the underlying principle I'm trying to communicate more visible.  All your questions surrounding chess apply to tic tac toe.  The principle I attempt to illustrate remains the same - for basic principles should remain the same no matter the game: fun in games (IMO) is derived from the learning experience they offer and most players stop having fun with a game once they achieve some sort of mastery of it - pushing for higher levels isn't always their goal because those new experiences become rarer and games are a type of hobby for most players.  Why aren't you playing tic tac toe anymore?  It certainly offers the common design pattern of human opponents that get added to some games to keep entertainment level high.

And it's true that while changes can offer new experiences to master, they can also deflate some players precisely because designers can't really predict what players do with a game.  So what?  Did the NBA predict that their offensive fouls rules would lead to a rather high number of defenders becoming skilled at drawing fouls?  If the NBA changes their rules to greatly reduce that defensive playstyle, do we say the NBA should worry about the motivations of those defenders?  No, instead the worry is about, as you put it, "tuned too much in one direction" and that has less to do with individual playstyles and more with the game as a whole.  Even when new content is added, some players aren't happy and end up quitting.  Why?  On this question I'm not too sure myself.  Overall, I think this is why the type of feedback devs ask for is "how does this make you feel?".  For example, the Pax Dei alpha just ended and their in-game feedback form used little feeling emojis for the submit button.  Designing fun is still elusive.
 

Which leads into the question of: why do some players keep playing after they no longer are learning or experiencing something new?  We see it in WvW too where, after playing long enough, you've already played against everyone despite the human opponent design pattern that provides for new experiences.  My observation of GvG players over the years is they tend to get bored and quit once they've achieved a level of mastery where it's lonely at the top.  New challenges and learning become rarer.  I suggest the reason some keep playing after is due to emergent motivations outside of the game that we make up for ourselves, again something designers can't design for.  Humans are good at rationalizing and we all rationalize why we keep playing.  I've interpreted your position as seeing individual motivations as indistinguishable from that which the game design creates while I've been saying I see them as distinct.  Emergent motivations are external to design.  One of my own rationalizations is I'm entertained by my social interactions with guild mates and others playing this game.  Devs don't have domain over that.  I bet it is highly personally entertaining to draw fouls as defense in NBA games too.  While you and I both understand that devs can stimulate or discourage certain behaviors through a "push and pull" of changes (NBA foul rules), also recognize the existence of a trope I'm sure you've certainly heard before: "I don't play for rewards".  Changes aren't made for individuals nor should they be.  They're made for the overall game.

Sigh.

I wasn't going to answer you more last time but decided to anyway after a cup of coffee. I am not going to reconsider this time.
It's clearly a whoosh, and it might be that I explained myself poorly because I tried to do it in a simple and understandable manner, but this here has nothing to do with my original point in the post you asked about and I am not going down the road of futile debates with people "that's wrong on the internet" derailing what this thread is actually about.

[Chaba.5410]

30 minutes ago, One more for the road.8950 said:

this here has nothing to do with my original point in the post

Your original point was that designing based on dream scenarios is futile because everyone has different reasons for playing.  And you expect people getting paid to design will "do it better".  The underlying assumption your point displayed is that designers have control over those things; over all the emergent motivations players come up with.  My post addresses that underlying assumption and explores the nuances of what designers do and do not have influence over.  It wasn't to have a futile debate about who is right and who is wrong - many of the things you mentioned actually support what I wrote or are things I agree with.  It was to bring to light those nuances you don't seem to have considered so perhaps you will consider them.  Game design topics are interesting to discuss.

Edited April 30 by Chaba.5410

[One more for the road.8950]

22 minutes ago, Chaba.5410 said:

Your original point was that designing based on dream scenarios is futile because everyone has different reasons for playing.  And you expect people getting paid to design will "do it better".  The underlying assumption your point displayed is that designers have control over those things; over all the emergent motivations players come up with.  My post addresses that underlying assumption and explores the nuances of what designers do and do not have influence over.  It wasn't to have a futile debate about who is right and who is wrong - many of the things you mentioned actually support what I wrote or are things I agree with.  It was to bring to light those nuances you don't seem to have considered so perhaps you will consider them.

Well, have fun doing that?

Edited April 30 by One more for the road.8950

[Chaba.5410]

19 minutes ago, One more for the road.8950 said:

Well, have fun doing that.

I did. Thanks.  Your post prompted additional lines of questioning to learn from.

Hope you gain some super insightful knowledge on what all comes "into the equation", as you wrote.  Here's some further reading about motivation (wherein I learn that what I called emergent motivation can be called intrinsic motivation):  https://www.gamedeveloper.com/design/intrinsic-and-extrinsic-motivation

Edited April 30 by Chaba.5410

[XenesisII.1540]

1 hour ago, TheGrimm.5624 said:

I admit, I have been building more offensive versus defensive siege over the last few weeks. Not feeling the need to first stop and prep for a potential attack on one of mine and just let the Havoc side have it's day even more and go and take theirs. 

Honestly don't even feel the need to waste tactivators anymore either, everything I claim gets flipped so often so who cares anymore. I've been dropping supply traps instead, doesn't do much to them but it's the only thing left to do something, sometimes it makes them run back to the nearest camp, sometimes it makes them take a different path, better delay than siege these days. 🤷‍♂️

[Roy Marks.7689]

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.

13 hours ago, Gazrul.3086 said:

I'm ok with nerfing the size of the rings, but the changes to the wall/gate repairs and the keep aura were a serious overkill. They should at least revert the siege dampener to complete invulnerability, and the siege disabler to full disable. And bring the wall/gate repairs back to 10%.

          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?

 

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?

16 hours ago, Zekent.3652 said:

Big nerfs on boonstrips, big nerf on outnumbered rewards and now these recent changes, i'm sorry but it feels like ANet is actively trying to kill people's motivation to keep playing WvW

          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.

17 hours ago, adammantium.8031 said:

A catapult's range can be exploited/maximized to be used for bother outer and inner walls (Bay south side, Hills on the zig zag cliff, Desert Keep on north east, SMC), making sieging very supply-cheap and too fast to respond to.

Power-creep from boons and heals, and nerfs to structural integrity and disablers, means defensive siege is often irrelevant.

It no longer feels possible to disrupt enemy groups with good use of defensive siege and thus slow them down (I did not say stop entirely). The most effective counterplay left is to use trebs with cows for supply drain so prevent them hitting your next vulnerable target.

I would consider reducing the range of catapults, or maybe reducing their HP to make them more vulnerable to opposing players and/or siege. Reduce the hp of flame rams and/or make them more vulnerable to arrow cart damage.

Changes to keep lords are meh.

I might not have noticed if this wasn't in the patch notes. Far less of a change compared to how the desert BL keep lords were nerfed (which was fine, by the way, air keep lord was no fun).

          Since catapults have always been usable on inner and outer walls, are you feeling that the recent changes caused that to become an issue or do you feel that it's a long-running problem aside from more recent updates? Can you talk more about how it feels like a problem?

 

For defensive siege not feeling relevant, do you feel that this is fully related to the most recent update?

 

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?

 

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?

On 4/29/2024 at 12:24 PM, XenesisII.1540 said:

Now with the supply nerf and 50% change it's harder to close up objectives once, let alone twice, let alone if there was a double team attack and multiple walls are down, forget about it. That's where the prep supply drain work went to, nerf to the supply storage and mass repairing walls/gates after one attack.

Most times now it's either a double team and defenders don't have enough to cover both, or they're busy with one side while the other free train caps everything else, or stuff is paper so it can't even hold out long enough for defenders. Notice how no one wants to double team Mag though, but they do it all the time to each other. Prime time most objectives look like reset night, towers flip with little to no conflict, except it doesn't have the 4 map queue population as reset night. 🤷‍♂️

 

          Do you feel as though double team attacks have gotten worse since the recent update, or is it an ongoing issue you're calling out?

 

[XenesisII.1540]

On 4/30/2024 at 8:50 PM, Roy Marks.7689 said:

          Do you feel as though double team attacks have gotten worse since the recent update, or is it an ongoing issue you're calling out?

Yes. Since objectives fall so much faster(did you guys nerf the lord scaling too?), never allowed to fully upgrade as much anymore, it's pretty easy for the 3rd side to just run through 2-3 objectives while 1 and 2 are in a prolonged battle. You've made it harder for scouts to hold out to wait on reinforcements.

2v1 has always been an issue, it's to be expected on a 3 sided game, but more often than not it happens as 2 strongest beating on the weakest because it's easy.

https://i.imgur.com/VWSBjG7.jpeg

/slowclap

Edited May 2 by XenesisII.1540

[Dreggon.6598]

I have some lukewarm takes to drop. I am a fairweather player who only plays in EBG, and only at reset - I like having large, three-way fights on a fully-queued map, with and against people who really want to be there. You don't get into Maguuma EBG at reset unless you spam HARD the second it opens up for the week, and I do mean the second - if you wait until the second second (heh) it's full. Enjoy the queue, it won't be moving for two hours.

Anyway - the Takes.

I hate boonblobs. They can feel very unassailable - a full set of boons on every player, stability so you can't move them out of position, max stacks of might, protection, and projectile blocks. Oh lord the projectile blocks. One skill prevents a whole category of damage options (i.e. projectiles) from hitting 50+ people. A max limit on how many times a skill can block projectiles would be a nice change.

Then there's the boons. You rip off 5, they get reapplied instantly. Except you can't rip off 5 anymore because boonrips keep getting nerfed. Give Winds of Disenchantment its mojo back? Maybe let Null Field prevent boon application on enemies? Heck they only affect 5 people at a time, a blob of 50 isn't even going to notice. I would like more boons to stack intensity rather than duration so that it matters more when they get stripped. Losing a full stack of might is harder to get back than a binary boon.

My last issue is the healing. While the boons in blobs get applied to subgroups, that doesn't always apply to healing - for each person in your subgroup that's on full health, the healing applies to somebody in another group instead. It's never incorrect to spam heals out because you're always going to heal somebody. Same principle for condition cleanses, just toss em out and somebody is getting cleansed even if they aren't in your sub. This ties into the boon intensity suggestion above, and having it apply to regeneration, then shifting a lot of AoE healing effects to apply regeneration instead. Similar healing over time, but much less spike healing, and it won't be overflowing to other subgroups at 100% of its value anymore.

 

thanks for coming to my TED talk