World versus Walls

[Chaba.5410]

13 minutes ago, EstaticFear.7692 said:

You're missing the point. The data shows significant disparities in performance, like Kormir's Library with a 1.72 K/D ratio, which discourages defense from weaker worlds. When one world dominates, others lose motivation to defend, leading to the widespread sentiment of dissatisfaction. The problem is clear: the current system is flawed, and it demoralizes players from even attempting to defend.And also people need to feel a sense of belonging to be motivated to defend. This is another form of motivation. 

Grenth's Door doesn't look demoralized. You'd expect them to be given the incomplete data you are looking at.

Take for example skirmish 49.  Their KDR was 0.93 and they had less kills than Ettin's.  Ettin's KDR was 1.67.  Yet Grenth won the skirmish with over 900 more points than Ettin's back.  You call that demoralized?  Clearly someone is motivated to play there.

Now I don't care to look over all the stats.  It's time-consuming work that's best performed programmatically off large datasets pulled from the API.  My post is just to illustrate that one has to look at all the stats available and check them against that team's past performance against other servers to get a full picture that would allow one to detect more generalized trends.

Edited July 2 by Chaba.5410

[EstaticFear.7692]

10 minutes ago, Chaba.5410 said:

Grenth's Door doesn't look demoralized. You'd expect them to be given the incomplete data you are looking at.

Take for example skirmish 49.  Their KDR was 0.93 and they had less kills than Ettin's.  Ettin's KDR was 1.67.  Yet Grenth won the skirmish with over 900 more points than Ettin's back.  You call that demoralized?  Clearly someone is motivated to play there.

Now I don't care to look over all the stats.  My post is just to illustrate that one has to look at all the stats available and check them against that team's past performance against other servers to get a full picture that would allow one to detect more generalized trends.

By this logic, if we look at skirmishes 25 and 37, they were clearly outmatched as well..A single skirmish win doesn't negate the fact that ongoing imbalances demotivate players over time. The broader data reveals significant disparities in K/D ratios and kill counts across multiple tiers and skirmishes, indicating a systemic issue.

Based on these datas, it seems that WvW has turned into a kind of FPS deathmatch game mode focused more on ZvZ fights.So no one seems to care about capturing or defending anything.

[Trevor Boyer.6524]

11 hours ago, EstaticFear.7692 said:

The real issue is that in many parts of WvW, players no longer bother defending their objectives. This is a clear indication of a systemic problem where the gameplay mechanics and rewards do not incentivize defensive strategies adequately

^ this

The very large majority of players want to keep moving, keep tagging objectives like supply camps, keep tagging kills for bags, wvw xp, so they can maintain max pips.

There is a whole sociological/psychological discussion to be had here. For example: I've been playing a lot of wvw within about the last 6 months. I often see zerg vs. zerg stalemates where neither side is getting anywhere at all. In these situations, when there isn't objectives being tagged, when there isn't many deaths occurring for bags, and there isn't much wvw xp going on, people start dipping and leaving. Eventually commanders realize that "their zerg is getting bored", and they often have to bail on a defensive objective in favor of going somewhere else so they generate reward progression for the players following them, or else players dip and go somewhere else where there is reward progression, even if it's soloing camps.

Arenanet really should figure out a way to reward elongated siege situations for both the attackers and the defenders. This way people have an incentive to stay and play it out, rather than start thinking: "Hrm, I should dip and go somewhere else cause rewards are slow here".

[ArchonWing.9480]

A lot of defense activities are just not very fun or rewarding so people just don't want to do them. Especially if you're more casual and don't really see what's in it for you.

Maybe we should like force the devs to spend a day only repairing walls to at least 50% and see how it feels. I mean I don't think it proves anything, but it'd be funny.

Edited July 2 by ArchonWing.9480

[Chaba.5410]

45 minutes ago, EstaticFear.7692 said:

By this logic, if we look at skirmishes 25 and 37, they were clearly outmatched as well..A single skirmish win doesn't negate the fact that ongoing imbalances demotivate players over time. The broader data reveals significant disparities in K/D ratios and kill counts across multiple tiers and skirmishes, indicating a systemic issue.

Based on these datas, it seems that WvW has turned into a kind of FPS deathmatch game mode focused more on ZvZ fights.So no one seems to care about capturing or defending anything.

This is why I said you have to look at the larger dataset and I don't care to.  You haven't done that work either.  You don't have the adequate data to base your conclusions upon.  You haven't done any "broader data reveal"  And you continue to oddly associate KDR with something else.

Or as I wrote: "My post is just to illustrate that one has to look at all the stats available and check them against that team's past performance against other servers to get a full picture that would allow one to detect more generalized trends. "  Your assertions should follow where the data leads you to, not cherry pick specific data points to support your assertions.

Edited July 2 by Chaba.5410

[coro.3176]

7 minutes ago, ArchonWing.9480 said:

A lot of defense activities are just not very fun or rewarding so people just don't want to do them. Especially if you're more casual and don't really see what's in it for you.

Maybe we should like force the devs to spend a day only repairing walls to at least 50% and see how it feels. I mean I don't think it proves anything, but it'd be funny.

Defending is a thankless job. You spend a lot of time running around scouting. When there is an attack, you're on your own for a while until your blob shows up (if they show up). Probably get yanked off a wall and 40v1ed. Lose participation because repairing doesn't give you any. Pull Emergency Waypoint so your blob can come have a free fight. You maybe get a few kills there, then it's back to scouting.

And for what? What does holding the objective even *do* for your server? The rewards are almost identical whether you win or lose. From a purely selfish PoV, you're better off running with the Ktrain pressing 1 1 1 1 1 on their PvD circuit.

[Chaba.5410]

35 minutes ago, Trevor Boyer.6524 said:

Arenanet really should figure out a way to reward elongated siege situations for both the attackers and the defenders. This way people have an incentive to stay and play it out, rather than start thinking: "Hrm, I should dip and go somewhere else cause rewards are slow here".

Which is a different discussion.  I've expressed this very idea many years ago that Anet needs to find a better way to hold player interest during the long siege.

[coro.3176]

Literally, all you have to do is add some real incentive for winning, and it'll change the whole dynamic of WvW.

50g reward per week for the winning server. Guarantee you'll see people defending stuff and actually trying to win.

[EstaticFear.7692]

32 minutes ago, Chaba.5410 said:

This is why I said you have to look at the larger dataset and I don't care to.  You haven't done that work either.  You don't have the adequate data to base your conclusions upon.  You haven't done any "broader data reveal"  And you continue to oddly associate KDR with something else.

Or as I wrote: "My post is just to illustrate that one has to look at all the stats available and check them against that team's past performance against other servers to get a full picture that would allow one to detect more generalized trends. "  Your assertions should follow where the data leads you to, not cherry pick specific data points to support your assertions.

I am just a player who uses data to make my point more understandable and effective. It's not my job to analyze all the data. Of course, if Anet pays us for it, We can automate the data analysis and present the results with potential correction paths. But that's our my job . I'm just using the data to explain something that is already visible to everyone.

Many players I know have either stopped playing the game or only log in once or twice a week. Personally, I don't really care what Anet does in this situation; I'm just explaining the current system. If they fix the mess they've created, we'll continue playing. If not, GW2 is not the only MMORPG out there.

[SweetPotato.7456]

12 hours ago, EstaticFear.7692 said:

While you claim that everywhere you go has been a three-way fight and more active than before, this does not reflect the reality that many players face on a daily basis. The increase in activity in specific areas like SMC does not compensate for the widespread issues of lack of defense and meaningful engagement across the broader WvW landscape.

The truth is, many parts of WvW have turned into ghost towns where players are more focused on farming pips and attacking empty structures rather than engaging in actual  combat. The fact that you see more activity in certain hotspots does not negate the overall decline in quality and strategic depth that WvW once had.

What you fail to acknowledge is that these "active" spots are exceptions, not the rule. The broader experience for many players is one of disillusionment and frustration as the core mechanics and incentives no longer promote the balanced, strategic gameplay that WvW was originally designed for.

The argument isn't about isolated pockets of activity; it's about the overall health and integrity of WvW as a game mode. The radical changes made by Anet have failed to address the power imbalances and have instead fragmented the community, forcing players to hop from guild to guild in a desperate attempt to find meaningful gameplay.

If your experience is solely based on a few active zones, then you're either incredibly lucky or willfully ignoring the broader issues that plague the game. The reality is, for many players, WvW has lost its charm and purpose because the fundamental issues remain unaddressed.

So before you dismiss the concerns of the broader community based on your limited perspective, try to understand that the problem is systemic. It's about preserving the strategic, balanced, and engaging gameplay that WvW was meant to offer, not just a few instances of increased activity.
 

 

If you look at the poll under this topic, two-thirds of the voters prefer the old system, which already summarizes the situation.

 

Has all the players who play WvW voted?  or Only the ones who are too stubborn to join an alliance vote? this forum is all grumbling, what do you expect the outcome of such vote to be. 

another way to put it, players who are busy playing and enjoying the game isn't here to vote.

Edited July 3 by SweetPotato.7456

[ArchonWing.9480]

3 hours ago, coro.3176 said:

Defending is a thankless job. You spend a lot of time running around scouting. When there is an attack, you're on your own for a while until your blob shows up (if they show up). Probably get yanked off a wall and 40v1ed. Lose participation because repairing doesn't give you any. Pull Emergency Waypoint so your blob can come have a free fight. You maybe get a few kills there, then it's back to scouting.

And for what? What does holding the objective even *do* for your server? The rewards are almost identical whether you win or lose. From a purely selfish PoV, you're better off running with the Ktrain pressing 1 1 1 1 1 on their PvD circuit.

I don't even care about most of these things; I'm the type that just finds it entertaining to stick it to the enemy, regardless of it benefiting server. Though yes, to nobody's surprise defense is actually detrimental to your tewards.

Still though lack of siege participation sucks because it makes using siege to do a long siege highly undesirable, and then there's also this patching the wall stuff that is tedious even with several people to the point that you just write structures off as lost because as long as they bang their head against it you will lose it and there's no real way to punish them anymore for playing badly.

There are also many aspects of the game that get abandoned because of this, but oh well.

Oh yea devs should definitely treb a wall for 15 minutes.

Edited July 3 by ArchonWing.9480

[Dinas Dragonbane.2978]

4 hours ago, Chaba.5410 said:

That doesn't look like "far ahead".  Any one of these servers can suddenly surge ahead of the others in a single day

What for? Why would they do such a thing? Most of the servers with the uber high kill counts compared to their competition seem to have low or mid victory points. Seems like it's a garrison keep farm, but on more of a server scale.
I am more dreading their upcoming score change plans instead of being optimistic, but they almost need to multiply kill scores by 5 of its current so that these servers that just massacre en-masse can actually move up tiers where they can all fight each other instead of most of them not moving at all, or moving downwards where there are some really low performing servesr on kills and victory points.

[Dinas Dragonbane.2978]

4 minutes ago, ArchonWing.9480 said:

4 minutes ago, ArchonWing.9480 said:

Oh yea devs should definitely treb a wall for 15 minutes.

I actually think this happened once, and is the reason for all of the close range siege changes and defense nerfs! You might be on to something! They probably also were following a tag with 49 other people and 1 guy stopped them at a keep/tower, or both!

[SweetPotato.7456]

5 hours ago, coro.3176 said:

Literally, all you have to do is add some real incentive for winning, and it'll change the whole dynamic of WvW.

50g reward per week for the winning server. Guarantee you'll see people defending stuff and actually trying to win.

50g per server is minuscule

[Chaba.5410]

10 minutes ago, SweetPotato.7456 said:

50g per server is minuscule

We in TLC were thinking more along the lines of a currency that would allow one to purchase Gifts of Exploration or some WvW-based legendary weapons.

Edited July 3 by Chaba.5410

[Chaba.5410]

2 hours ago, Dinas Dragonbane.2978 said:

What for? Why would they do such a thing?

Match manipulation, of course.  If winning matches were incentivized better, might see different behavior.  The usual argument in the past about how rewards can't be given for winning matches usually involved references to the transferwagons.  We don't have that with WR anymore.
 

2 hours ago, Dinas Dragonbane.2978 said:

I am more dreading their upcoming score change plans

I'm assuming it may have something to do with activity levels, but your guess is as good as mine.

Edited July 3 by Chaba.5410

[CafPow.1542]

Oh imagine you could only get to buy a GoB for a week when your server won the previous week lol.

we would all drown in salt avalanches.

[One more for the road.8950]

15 hours ago, ArchonWing.9480 said:

Hmm Eu T3 curiously has all 3 servers below 1.0 KDR

Fall damage ftw?

In EU, I seem to remember it was T1 the week before WR, there was several times where all three servers had K/D of 1 or more.

[bq pd.2148]

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

In EU, I seem to remember it was T1 the week before WR, there was several times where all three servers had K/D of 1 or more.

above 1 happens from 3way fights because 1 death can count for 2 servers kills. 
below 1 kdr however, i am not sure if fall damage/death to npc count to get the numbers down? would still have to happen more than 3way kills.

[Zok.4956]

16 hours ago, Chaba.5410 said:

Take for example skirmish 49.  Their KDR was 0.93 and they had less kills than Ettin's.  Ettin's KDR was 1.67.  Yet Grenth won the skirmish with over 900 more points than Ettin's back.  You call that demoralized?  Clearly someone is motivated to play there.

Of course. Everyone in the Alliance Community Server guild is motivated when a certain commander makes his traditional big regular public lead on Tuesday evenings. 😎

But that doesn't say anything about whether a server can keep up at other times of the day. Or other weekdays. In this respect, not much has changed compared to before (before WR). The times of the day when there are good fights and you are not dominated by others, or you dominate the others, are still quite short.

[Reztek.7805]

17 hours ago, EstaticFear.7692 said:

I am just a player who uses data to make my point more understandable and effective. It's not my job to analyze all the data. Of course, if Anet pays us for it, We can automate the data analysis and present the results with potential correction paths. But that's our my job . I'm just using the data to explain something that is already visible to everyone.

Many players I know have either stopped playing the game or only log in once or twice a week. Personally, I don't really care what Anet does in this situation; I'm just explaining the current system. If they fix the mess they've created, we'll continue playing. If not, GW2 is not the only MMORPG out there.

You just need proper visualization. There you go: EU T4 - You're welcome. 😉 

Almost 24/7 double warscore is not explained by skill disparities during prime time. But that's only true for T4.

[Chaba.5410]

2 hours ago, Zok.4956 said:

Of course. Everyone in the Alliance Community Server guild is motivated when a certain commander makes his traditional big regular public lead on Tuesday evenings. 😎

Everyone loves it when a visible tag appears; all breathing a collective sigh of relief that someone else is taking the lead.  Some things never change.

[TheGrimm.5624]

1 hour ago, Chaba.5410 said:

Everyone loves it when a visible tag appears; all breathing a collective sigh of relief that someone else is taking the lead.  Some things never change.

lol, or you get the opposites, why are you tagging up and trying to fight that guild tag, or why do we need a tag? As people are standing around in objectives doing nothing.

[Chaba.5410]

2 minutes ago, TheGrimm.5624 said:

lol, or you get the opposites, why are you tagging up and trying to fight that guild tag, or why do we need a tag? As people are standing around in objectives doing nothing.

🙂  Being a tag, especially a new one, is indeed hard for a lot of players.

[TheGrimm.5624]

There are a lot of different ways to add logic for rewarding end of week placement. Though it should allow for all 3 but be weighted towards trying to win. Again the Wizard Vault system adds a new way of doing it as well. Rewards can be shuffled and allow players to target WvW activities.