A Chat w/ Roy and Cecil About WvW Development Goals

[Hesione.9412]

3 hours ago, Cael.3960 said:

I feel the major divisive point of this discussion is the feeling that being outnumbered in a defensive role makes for an unsatisfying experience.

I should also add that the feeling of being significantly outnumbered/overwhelmed is an unsatisfying experience for all aspects of WvW regardless of the role a player chooses, but this encourages insight outside of many players' narrow focus and thus is not a relevant talking point within an echo chamber. We're not here to talk about ongoing population imbalances among servers, we're here to complain about the state of seige-vs-players and the "unstoppable boonball meta". 

To be honest, this is a situation which is difficult to balance without active player engagement. Being outnumbered on a borderland is as much a community/team issue as it is a game-balancing one. If your community/team doesn't respond to call outs, if there isn't a substantial militia population available to put out fires, or if the general level of experience/skill/coordination of a team is considerably less than the other team what you're really asking for is a developer-implemented handicap to overcome a player-based reluctance to engage with the game mode. The issue with such a handicap is that while some teams/servers may need something like this to even out the win/loss ratio so that both sides feel satisfied, teams/servers that ARE capable will use this same handicap to much greater effect. 

10 defenders with 5 arrowcarts and a comped party capable of pushing enemy groups can handle twice their number on a wall or gate. 10 Defenders manning trebs/shield generators can hold that same stretch of wall or gate almost indefinitely against three times that number if skilled and coordinated. Factor in supply drain via cows/traps, siege use to knock the players off rams so that the rams can be burned fast by DPS and other siege, a 10-man roaming cloud harassing the enemy group or placing defensive siege in blind spots... A defending group that knows what they're doing can make a siege so unpalatable for another group that many casual players will try once, fail, and spend the rest of the night flipping t-0 towers instead. Add in a 40-man defensive boonball to this mix and very quickly the odds of even a quality group taking down a tiered objective become very low. Why bother attacking a fortified position if you know you're going to fight tooth and nail for 3-5 minutes before you even get a sniff of a reward from it?

Plus, all this comes with the understanding that even should they break through the walls and push on the lord... the 'content' might just run and abandon the objective without a fight anyway. This has frequently become the case when fight groups encounter heavy-PPT servers who see siege/walls as the first and only line of defense.  In the time it takes a large attacking group to flip one of these objectives they often lose most of their third on a map. A PPT team doesn't need to 'win' these defensive events to succeed in their matchup, all they need is to occupy a majority of the enemy team for a long enough time so that their teammates can balance the PPT by flipping the rest of the map. Quite often all that's needed to pull a 'boonball' off a keep is just to attack one of their tiered objectives instead. If they can't blow straight through to the lord and kill it in less time than it takes to pop OJ's somewhere else, most will just abandon the siege instead.

I've seen a 40-man cloud build half a dozen arrowcarts, a couple catapults, and a treb  in less than 10s just to pound the lord room of a t-1 tower that was under attack. They didn't even need to enter the tower to defend it, just siege it up on the open field to the point where a comp'd group couldn't sustain long enough to kill the lord. When the attacking group abandoned their attack just to preserve the squad, that 40-man cloud just ran away. No fights given, just siege. A successful defense without actually 'defending' anything. 

Now let's buff arrowcarts so that they strip and deal more damage. Let's make trebs cheaper and reduce the cooldown on shield generators. How about tactics that implement a 'burn' mechanic on any hostile siege within 1200 range of a wall? Let's make catapults and flame rams more susceptible to damage from guards and siege. Let's make operators on cannons immune to CC and take 50% less damage. Why not make it so that attackers dying in the objective funnel their supply into the objective's supply hut? Because defenders need the help and the game devs should acknowledge this and give them anything they ask to keep them playing the game. No, it's not a skill issue. It's not a community issue. It's not a strategy or coordination issue. There are absolutely no drawbacks to improving the defense ability of solo and small-scale groups that much larger groups can abuse in a multiplicative fashion.  Players don't need to learn to use the tools they already have, they should be given more and better tools so they can continue to ignore them while others use them to much greater effect. 

It's always the same complaints. At some point, I feel, even the most community-first developer has to acknowledge that you can't satisfy everyone. Especially those who refuse to engage in any other gameplay except the very narrowly defined one they currently enjoy. I would encourage people to try a variety of WvW experiences before demanding large-scale changes to drastically improve the ease of success for their preferred style of play. There's a pretty good chance that what you want for yourself comes at a cost which is not healthy to your own future enjoyment, you just aren't able to see the repercussions because there's no foundation for any other perspective. 

I've had a blob go on siege even though there were about 10 of us trying to get into the structure to get onto the lord. And a small group on arrow carts and ballistae cannot break a boon ball. The support is too strong. And now you seem to be arguing that defensive siege will be removed.

I have never seen a 10-person group hold off a blob. When the blob sees what is happening, the reapers, mesmers, and guardians in the blob go close to do pulls, and the rangers and elementalists put damage pressure on the wall, and just behind it. And everyone murders the people who got pulled off. The defenders end up with one treb, if that.

A 40-person cloud building half a dozen arrowcarts, a couple of catapults, and a treb in less than 10 seconds in open field? I've not seen that. I've only ever been hit by siege that has been insta-built inside the objective.

Again, you are in support of the status quo. You seem to be anti any changes that might support small groups. We have been saying that small groups was more fun years ago - anet could go back through their changes and discover reasons why that was so. And then revert some changes they made since that time, which have made it horrible for small groups.

It's always the same complaints because the boonball is being improved with every patch. Those in the boonball have nothing to complain about. Those of us who do not play in boonballs - I am one and there is no boonball on when I play because there aren't enough players - are the ones that feel the brunt of these changes. You seem to feel we should just shut up. Well, that seems to be the attitude of the devs as well. People shut up when they stop playing, either WvW or the entire game. Anet should be more worried when the complaints stop.

[ChrisWhitey.9076]

4 hours ago, Cael.3960 said:

I feel the major divisive point of this discussion is the feeling that being outnumbered in a defensive role makes for an unsatisfying experience.

This is why WR exists to make all sides balanced. Problem is we know it is not working perfectly but with a few tweaks we should hopefully be closer to all sides having somewhat equal numbers though I don't think it will ever be perfect it is a goal anet has in mind.

[Cael.3960]

1 hour ago, Hesione.9412 said:

I've had a blob go on siege even though there were about 10 of us trying to get into the structure to get onto the lord. And a small group on arrow carts and ballistae cannot break a boon ball. The support is too strong. And now you seem to be arguing that defensive siege will be removed.

I have never seen a 10-person group hold off a blob. When the blob sees what is happening, the reapers, mesmers, and guardians in the blob go close to do pulls, and the rangers and elementalists put damage pressure on the wall, and just behind it. And everyone murders the people who got pulled off. The defenders end up with one treb, if that.

A 40-person cloud building half a dozen arrowcarts, a couple of catapults, and a treb in less than 10 seconds in open field? I've not seen that. I've only ever been hit by siege that has been insta-built inside the objective.

Again, you are in support of the status quo. You seem to be anti any changes that might support small groups. We have been saying that small groups was more fun years ago - anet could go back through their changes and discover reasons why that was so. And then revert some changes they made since that time, which have made it horrible for small groups.

It's always the same complaints because the boonball is being improved with every patch. Those in the boonball have nothing to complain about. Those of us who do not play in boonballs - I am one and there is no boonball on when I play because there aren't enough players - are the ones that feel the brunt of these changes. You seem to feel we should just shut up. Well, that seems to be the attitude of the devs as well. People shut up when they stop playing, either WvW or the entire game. Anet should be more worried when the complaints stop.

It's pretty clear either you haven't seen much or you've been playing with servers/teams who don't engage with most of the game's tools and mechanics. Either that or you've chosen to ignore these cases entirely because they don't fit your preconceived bias. 

I have, as recently as last night in fact, seen a 40-man cloud build that much siege within seconds. By the way, a sincere 'well done' offered to SILK on Mithric Cliffs, I was with the Ruined Cathedral of Blood tag who watched your very impressive super-speed-siege tactics at Klovan Gully and the repeated use of trebs from inside nearby towers to spend as little time at risk of a fight as possible... even if you had 20-30 more players than our tag. The fights weren't bad when you gave them, you should really try it more often. 

I've also seen a 10 person group hold off a blob. I've commanded for such a group in the past, though expectations and your personal strategy need to be paired with the encounter you're facing. You're not going to kill that group. You're not even going to get more than a few downs if you try. Recognizing that your real target is the siege and the supply those players are carrying is the first step to assembling a viable strategy. From there it's important to understand that the real resource isn't damage or numbers (you don't have either of those things) it's your ability to prey upon over-confident players, exploit gaps in player knowledge and awareness, and to buy time for a larger response. If the attacking blob is garbage at using their siege bubbles to mitigate damage (and so, so many of them are) and their members squirrel off tag easily, half the battle is won for you already. The problem with many small groups or solo players is that they treat the blob as a PvE raid boss and feel they can bring it down if only they throw enough damage and boonstrips at it. Recognizing what your group can and can't do is a part of being an effective leader, not many ever grow beyond this. That's why 'blobs' wipe to smaller, better comp'd and organized groups all the time. Numbers matter only when everyone is pushing toward a common goal. 

I never stated I was for, or against, the status quo. This was an assumption on your part, and not the first I should add. In fact I encouraged players to seek as wide a variety of gameplay as possible before drawing their own conclusions on the current meta. To state it more clearly for you: I'm against broad-sweeping buffs to specific gameplay without first analyzing it's impact on the interlinked systems of the game mode. I'm against introducing force-multipliers as a solution for small-scale engagements when those multipliers can go on to create significantly deeper imbalances for large-scale engagements. 

A solution exists to improve the satisfaction of players who refuse to interact with the larger community but insist upon being the balance priority within the game mode. But it's also important to recognize that this game mode IS a community effort. You can't do everything yourself, nor should you. There's a role for every size of squad, from the solo roamer to the 'boonblob'. No specific way of playing the game is best, they all have their place. Persisting with the belief that your particular hammer is the best solution for all WvW problems is naive. Boonballs are not an effective strategy for winning victory points in a match. They ARE effective for resetting tiered objectives, but that strength comes at the cost of little-to-no representation across the rest of the map. If the enemy wants to put all their eggs in one basket, let 'em. If you can't summon a group of your own to smash them on the field, the collective PPT of the rest of the map can easily survive the loss of a tiered objective. Complaining that you should be able to hold EVERYTHING all at once with significantly fewer numbers is unreasonable. You're approaching the situation from a perspective that doesn't make sense given the limitations of individual players and the available resources at your disposal. Sometimes you fight, sometimes you ninja everything that's not bolted down. It's on you to recognize when each is appropriate and when the gains are the greatest, rather than apply one viewpoint to every situation. 

As for the 'boonball being improved with every patch'... that's what happens when skilled players apply theorycrafting to the meta. The current meta is the most interdependent collection of classes, skills and builds it's ever been. The difference between a comp'd 'boonball' and a collection of pugs acting as a 'boonball' is enormous. One, justifiably given the dedication toward it's creation, is extremely durable and successful in what it does. The other is farmed by far less players with an equal level of ability. You're complaining that dedicated players who work together put players who don't work together at a disadvantage. This is an obvious truth to anyone who looks at the situation objectively. More people working together can get more done than fewer people working independent of each other. If you don't have the people, you're at a disadvantage whether they boonball or not. That's a problem which extends beyond the profession balance of the game... and that population imbalance was the heart of this discussion in the first place. Maybe we should stick to that conversation first since it's precisely where the devs are asking for constructive feedback. Let's try to create a more solid foundation before we get fixated on the flashy details. 

[Zyreva.1078]

More aoe boon spam and healing does not equal more teamplay or coordination. Quite the opposite is the case, the easier it is to maintain perma boons, the less actual coordination is needed.

[TheGrimm.5624]

2 hours ago, Sheff.4851 said:

I'm confused. I thought that the wall repair change was good, because it does make my job more difficult. It means my squad needs to play tighter to tag, pay attention to supporting their party, follow my movements while I break line of sight, deal with defensive siege, etc, otherwise they're going to die and never make it back into the objective. That's why I've been saying the wall repair change from 10% to 50% was a good change, because it benefits groups that are actively defending an objective, pressuring attackers, and running supply to maintain repairs at crucial times over the course of a fight.

I have not tried to get those changes removed, I think they make my life more interesting as a commander that attacks objectives.

Before you might have had a roamer closing off your reinforcements. Now you might need a small havoc being coordinated to get it closed at an appropriate time, or a tag asking some defenders to break off and get it closed. The lower wall percentages allowed for more timely closes.

What some defenders complained about were people closing it while they were using it to fish for attackers or closing it and locking defenders out before they could get back inside. There are indeed bad times to close some structures, example, closing a group into a tower where they know there is only one way back in can be bad for your side, but slamming it shut as attackers are rushing it can be good. With the higher numbers tactically closing now requires a lot more doing it.

 

[Hesione.9412]

34 minutes ago, Cael.3960 said:

It's pretty clear either you haven't seen much or you've been playing with servers/teams who don't engage with most of the game's tools and mechanics. Either that or you've chosen to ignore these cases entirely because they don't fit your preconceived bias. 

I have, as recently as last night in fact, seen a 40-man cloud build that much siege within seconds. By the way, a sincere 'well done' offered to SILK on Mithric Cliffs, I was with the Ruined Cathedral of Blood tag who watched your very impressive super-speed-siege tactics at Klovan Gully and the repeated use of trebs from inside nearby towers to spend as little time at risk of a fight as possible... even if you had 20-30 more players than our tag. The fights weren't bad when you gave them, you should really try it more often. 

I've also seen a 10 person group hold off a blob. I've commanded for such a group in the past, though expectations and your personal strategy need to be paired with the encounter you're facing. You're not going to kill that group. You're not even going to get more than a few downs if you try. Recognizing that your real target is the siege and the supply those players are carrying is the first step to assembling a viable strategy. From there it's important to understand that the real resource isn't damage or numbers (you don't have either of those things) it's your ability to prey upon over-confident players, exploit gaps in player knowledge and awareness, and to buy time for a larger response. If the attacking blob is garbage at using their siege bubbles to mitigate damage (and so, so many of them are) and their members squirrel off tag easily, half the battle is won for you already. The problem with many small groups or solo players is that they treat the blob as a PvE raid boss and feel they can bring it down if only they throw enough damage and boonstrips at it. Recognizing what your group can and can't do is a part of being an effective leader, not many ever grow beyond this. That's why 'blobs' wipe to smaller, better comp'd and organized groups all the time. Numbers matter only when everyone is pushing toward a common goal. 

I never stated I was for, or against, the status quo. This was an assumption on your part, and not the first I should add. In fact I encouraged players to seek as wide a variety of gameplay as possible before drawing their own conclusions on the current meta. To state it more clearly for you: I'm against broad-sweeping buffs to specific gameplay without first analyzing it's impact on the interlinked systems of the game mode. I'm against introducing force-multipliers as a solution for small-scale engagements when those multipliers can go on to create significantly deeper imbalances for large-scale engagements. 

A solution exists to improve the satisfaction of players who refuse to interact with the larger community but insist upon being the balance priority within the game mode. But it's also important to recognize that this game mode IS a community effort. You can't do everything yourself, nor should you. There's a role for every size of squad, from the solo roamer to the 'boonblob'. No specific way of playing the game is best, they all have their place. Persisting with the belief that your particular hammer is the best solution for all WvW problems is naive. Boonballs are not an effective strategy for winning victory points in a match. They ARE effective for resetting tiered objectives, but that strength comes at the cost of little-to-no representation across the rest of the map. If the enemy wants to put all their eggs in one basket, let 'em. If you can't summon a group of your own to smash them on the field, the collective PPT of the rest of the map can easily survive the loss of a tiered objective. Complaining that you should be able to hold EVERYTHING all at once with significantly fewer numbers is unreasonable. You're approaching the situation from a perspective that doesn't make sense given the limitations of individual players and the available resources at your disposal. Sometimes you fight, sometimes you ninja everything that's not bolted down. It's on you to recognize when each is appropriate and when the gains are the greatest, rather than apply one viewpoint to every situation. 

As for the 'boonball being improved with every patch'... that's what happens when skilled players apply theorycrafting to the meta. The current meta is the most interdependent collection of classes, skills and builds it's ever been. The difference between a comp'd 'boonball' and a collection of pugs acting as a 'boonball' is enormous. One, justifiably given the dedication toward it's creation, is extremely durable and successful in what it does. The other is farmed by far less players with an equal level of ability. You're complaining that dedicated players who work together put players who don't work together at a disadvantage. This is an obvious truth to anyone who looks at the situation objectively. More people working together can get more done than fewer people working independent of each other. If you don't have the people, you're at a disadvantage whether they boonball or not. That's a problem which extends beyond the profession balance of the game... and that population imbalance was the heart of this discussion in the first place. Maybe we should stick to that conversation first since it's precisely where the devs are asking for constructive feedback. Let's try to create a more solid foundation before we get fixated on the flashy details. 

I routinely play where there are few people in WvW, on my side. I have made this clear in every post I have done. We face boonballs, or recognised fight guilds with fewer people than 50, we leave WvW for the night. A blob does not die to 6 people, even if we are all on arrow carts. We can't generate any deaths, even if we can get downs. Even if we fend them off for a while. Because we are not getting deaths, participation starts to decay, a second reason to leave WvW for the night.

You have ignored my point, consistently made, that a small group of people, thrown together by the fact they play at the same time, cannot fend off a blob. Even if that blob is not comp'd. After they break in, because our defensive siege is useless against them, they will run towards one player at a time killing them.

Because there are so few of us, the blob lacks "content". They've taken everything except t0 towers and some camps. It's not that we "can't hold everything". We can't hold *anything*. We go to a map to try to flip a tower, and get run over by the blob. Being so small, we can get little siege up even if everyone has max supply. We cannot, on keeps, get both outer and inner down without running supply back and forth. The blob goes to the objective and jumps on us.

The blob and boonball, when facing a small number of players, requires no skill. The boonball compensates for low-skill players because their mistakes are covered by the supports. The challenge for skill would be if there were no boons at all. Theory crafting doesn't apply because it's a very large group against a very small group. In a blob that is not comp'd, which group do you think is going to win? Even when the small group works together, they get run over.

Facing blobs when earlier in the week a comm managed to scrape together a squad of 20, and being run over, means that players log out for the week. Some will never return. Eventually WvW will just be blob versus blob.

Thread after thread has pointed out population imbalances. This problem is, of course, created by players because it is their organising that is creating the blobs. Say, for example, in a time zone there are 2500 active WvW players. In NA, that's 2500 players split across 15 shards (3 teams, 5 tiers). What sounds like a large number of players suddenly isn't. Of those 2500 people, 1000 are in two large guilds, and they are on two different shards. The other 1500 people are spread across 13 shards. That's the problem. Large alliances, because people want to play in a blob, creating small pockets of other players spread across shards. And then the large guilds complain there's no-one to fight.

[Hesione.9412]

8 minutes ago, Zyreva.1078 said:

More aoe boon spam and healing does not equal more teamplay or coordination. Quite the opposite is the case, the easier it is to maintain perma boons, the less actual coordination is needed.

Yes, those non-comp'd blobs have it so rough coming up against 10 players.

[Cameirus.8407]

The changes to WvW has been abyssmal.

they have killed casual playing entirely, matches are dominated by tryhards (not a bad thing in moderation).

PUG commanders are pretty much dead now. why? well because the community has gone. On servers you'd get to know your pug commanders, you'd play with them a lot, you'd get to know how they played and the groups adapated to them naturally. so they functioned pretty well with that build up of community knowledge. plus there were server discords that people knew to use.

Now....you dont spent long enough with commanders before relinks, in prime the "alliances" crowd servers worse than before so getting a pug up is difficult and its probably matched against tryhard groups, and with no community cohesion built up, and often no voice, they get stomped and quickly disband. and those commanders dont return as much, if at all.

And matchups are abyssmal, sure servers were not always balanced, but at least they were at least in the region of being so....now...no. guild stacking has meant massive imbalances. weeklong spawn camps.

the shear damage Anet has done to WvW makes me wonder if they are deliberately trying to change the game mode from WvW into an organised competitive guild v guild with fixed group numbers because that would be a lot less work for them to maintain. I cannot honestly believe that anyone who cares about WvW could have thought up, let alone implemented, these changes.

[Kozumi.5816]

20 hours ago, DeceiverX.8361 said:

Thing is it doesn't really matter what this team does, because the primary reason people don't care is that the balance team's philosophies have failed the mode to the point that the combat itself isn't really any fun and is largely devoid of meaning outside of "big boon bar go brrr."  Reality is, even if scoring is perfect and the systems underlying WvW were utterly flawless and could bring player satisfaction in the end result of a win or loss, the question needs to be asked:  "Is the act of playing WvW itself any fun?"

To most players, the answer is simply a flat "no."  To most former players, it has entirely to do with profession design and balance, and a limited scope of others like how Warclaw and sentry buffs slashed efficacy at small group havoc.  The PvP experience here is just weak because the builds and tactics alike state either "when it comes to scoring, play in a big group or play off-hours, otherwise it sucks to suck."

There are no alternatives and every unique trait and effect that could possibly offset boon dependence has either been nerfed, deleted, or replaced with boons.

People talk a big game about strips, but strips still play into the boonball meta, because there are no existing counters to strips; the best way to deal with them is just access to more boons.

For boonball to go away, boons themselves need to be less powerful of a play strategy, and boonless builds need to be more present as viable alternatives to deal with strips.  This means colossal nerfs to concentration or even its downright removal and a revert/rework on tons of traits that were changed in the name of PvE group support viability, and even bigger reworks in the realm of reduced CC and removal of tons of powercreep.

And frankly, I sincerely doubt the skills/class/systems team or whatever they call themselves these days will deliver on that in the name of WvW.

Until then, there's absolutely nothing bringing me back to the game, because the entire PvP combat experience in GW2 is just outright bad thanks to how the classes have been designed and balanced.

It's not strictly their fault; it's just if their only answer is "that's not in our ability to change and rests on the skills team," who we never hear anything from except when new weapons/skills/traits are introduced with expansions, then frankly they might as well state outright they'll never be able to improve the experience.  Because that communication would honestly do them more favors and let people quit with closure rather than wasting their time and flaming.

I think you're confused.

The devs vision for WvW is boon ball vs boon ball where someone is screaming on voice chat when to attack and where to attack while everyone mindlessly follows like a brainless zombie being commanded.

WvW is literally being designed as an ego fantasy for an extremely, extremely, extremely small minority of players because those are the 10 people the devs listen to, while killing off their entire game mode for the other thousands of people.
 

It makes absolutely no sense, because no other MMO has any type of game mode equal to WvW and Anet could market it hard and have a complete monopoly on it, yet they choose to design it for 10 people that are just having ego power trips leading around lemlings on voice chat. (No, ESO does not have WvW, it lags and is unplayable still to this day).

[ArchonWing.9480]

6 hours ago, Sheff.4851 said:

I'm confused. I thought that the wall repair change was good, because it does make my job more difficult. It means my squad needs to play tighter to tag, pay attention to supporting their party, follow my movements while I break line of sight, deal with defensive siege, etc, otherwise they're going to die and never make it back into the objective.

That's not really a good argument for it; That's what nerfs do. People have to compensate for whatever is missing. This would be true regardless of whatever is being nerfed or how big the nerf is. Like you could make the same argument if walls had to be repaired to 100% to come back up, or even if they were removed altogerher.

I mean, there was a while where my right hand was injured, and I had to find other ways to play the game, and learning how to use my other hand did make me have to focus more and I improved in some aspects.  But that doesn't exactly mean injuring my right hand was a good thing, does it? It just means I made the most out of a bad situation-- but the situation itself objectively made things worse.

 

Edited July 23 by ArchonWing.9480

[Kozumi.5816]

4 hours ago, Cael.3960 said:

I've also seen a 10 person group hold off a blob.

This is mathematically impossible due to target caps.

[Sheff.4851]

56 minutes ago, Kozumi.5816 said:

I think you're confused.

The devs vision for WvW is boon ball vs boon ball where someone is screaming on voice chat when to attack and where to attack while everyone mindlessly follows like a brainless zombie being commanded.

WvW is literally being designed as an ego fantasy for an extremely, extremely, extremely small minority of players because those are the 10 people the devs listen to, while killing off their entire game mode for the other thousands of people.
 

It makes absolutely no sense, because no other MMO has any type of game mode equal to WvW and Anet could market it hard and have a complete monopoly on it, yet they choose to design it for 10 people that are just having ego power trips leading around lemlings on voice chat. (No, ESO does not have WvW, it lags and is unplayable still to this day).

Sounds like you've just followed bad commanders. I've definitely run across commanders on ego trips, but I just stop playing with them. There's others around.

[Cael.3960]

1 hour ago, Kozumi.5816 said:

This is mathematically impossible due to target caps.

Hold off. Not 'win', hold off. When an enemy group has no siege, no supply, and no ability to sustain PvD on a gate due to the siege and supply inside, they have been held off. This can be achieved with as few as 10 players when planned well and skillfully executed. In most cases you only need to prolong a siege for a couple minutes in this fashion before the group abandons their attack to resupply.

 

Is is possible against all groups? No. Some groups are better than others. And this strategy is indeed 'mathematically possible' even with target caps, though inexperienced or uncoordinated players are unlikely to achieve this on their own. And it certainly helps when your opponent is a pugmanded squad that isn't particularly effective at anything beyond being a better version of a dolyak. 

[Cael.3960]

5 hours ago, Hesione.9412 said:

I routinely play where there are few people in WvW, on my side. I have made this clear in every post I have done. We face boonballs, or recognised fight guilds with fewer people than 50, we leave WvW for the night. A blob does not die to 6 people, even if we are all on arrow carts. We can't generate any deaths, even if we can get downs. Even if we fend them off for a while. Because we are not getting deaths, participation starts to decay, a second reason to leave WvW for the night.

You have ignored my point, consistently made, that a small group of people, thrown together by the fact they play at the same time, cannot fend off a blob. Even if that blob is not comp'd. After they break in, because our defensive siege is useless against them, they will run towards one player at a time killing them.

Because there are so few of us, the blob lacks "content". They've taken everything except t0 towers and some camps. It's not that we "can't hold everything". We can't hold *anything*. We go to a map to try to flip a tower, and get run over by the blob. Being so small, we can get little siege up even if everyone has max supply. We cannot, on keeps, get both outer and inner down without running supply back and forth. The blob goes to the objective and jumps on us.

The blob and boonball, when facing a small number of players, requires no skill. The boonball compensates for low-skill players because their mistakes are covered by the supports. The challenge for skill would be if there were no boons at all. Theory crafting doesn't apply because it's a very large group against a very small group. In a blob that is not comp'd, which group do you think is going to win? Even when the small group works together, they get run over.

Facing blobs when earlier in the week a comm managed to scrape together a squad of 20, and being run over, means that players log out for the week. Some will never return. Eventually WvW will just be blob versus blob.

Thread after thread has pointed out population imbalances. This problem is, of course, created by players because it is their organising that is creating the blobs. Say, for example, in a time zone there are 2500 active WvW players. In NA, that's 2500 players split across 15 shards (3 teams, 5 tiers). What sounds like a large number of players suddenly isn't. Of those 2500 people, 1000 are in two large guilds, and they are on two different shards. The other 1500 people are spread across 13 shards. That's the problem. Large alliances, because people want to play in a blob, creating small pockets of other players spread across shards. And then the large guilds complain there's no-one to fight.

Sounds like you have a problem with engagement on your team/server. Or you're simply unfortunate to be playing during a timezone when there isn't much population to go around. There are solutions to this problem; alliance guilds exist that do not have a boonball focus, just a large community of singles and havoc squads. But if, for whatever reason, joining a more active community isn't suitable you may have to adjust your expectations or explore other ways to play the game mode. 

Yes, it sucks to be constantly outnumbered and overwhelmed with no commanders or organization rally the few people you have to mount a defense. Or push out and attack something. But in these situations the boonball doesn't care about collecting your bags, you're not big enough content to warrant the attention. If there's no response by your team to an attack, their choices are to continue flipping objectives for PPT (if that's what they like) or log off because there's no player-vs-player interaction. Also participation doesn't require enemy kills to keep ticking. It just means you have to flip more camps, kill more guards, and generally be a more active player instead. Which is what an outnumbered team should be doing anyway; spreading out to contest as many objectives at the same time as their strained logistics can allow. You won't be able to fight something 5X your size so there's no reason to try. Just wait 5 mins after the flip, take your stuff back, and watch your participation be maintained. 

I didn't ignore your point. I simply don't agree with you. I acknowledge that your preferred way to play the game is heavily countered by large-scale groups and I'm suggesting there are alternatives to explore rather than demand a handicap which may have consequences for the game mode beyond your specific satisfaction. I'm also encouraging you to consider the perspective of enemy groups as communities with their own goals rather than hostile and oppressive force that's determined to ruin your day. They get bored too. I'm sure for many of them their matchup against a vastly underpopulated server is every bit as boring and unsatisfying as your own feeling. 

It's a very common assertion by players who don't play in comped parties to assume large squads are filled with unskilled players. That's a perspective based more in egotism and ignorance than practice. Large squads have more unskilled players AND more skilled players. This happens when you have a larger sampling size; you get more outliers. I would add that large groups composed primarily of a single guild also tend to theorycraft, train, and equip meta builds/gear more often than unafilliated players. These groups, skilled or not, have much more practice working with one another and this cooperative ability allows individual players to perform at a greater level than they would on their own. That's why 'boonballs' succeed. Not simply because they spit out endless boons (any 5 man havoc squad can be a boonball by this logic. So too can many roaming builds) but because they compliment each other's strengths. 

Larger groups tend to beat smaller ones, yes. But high-skilled groups will regularly dominate weaker skilled ones. That's why a 35-man of skilled players in meta-comp parties will w-key a map que of pugs. I recognize that in your timezome you may not ever see two map ques squaring off against one another, but in NA prime I see this almost every night. My experience doesn't invalidate yours, but it is another perspective which is reasonable to consider. 

I would argue that a legacy of PvE content where new players are strongly encouraged to seek out a commander tag on any map they have no experience with is also to blame. That's why you frequently see players hanging out at spawn or the nearest friendly keep. They're waiting for a commander tag to rally around so someone with more experience can guide them to whatever rewards are found in the game mode. They're not wrong about this. Commanders are a focus for content/conflict on any map and if you want to go where the action is... it's usually wherever a commander ends up. Many of these tags don't need these players, but they include them in the squad not just for more numbers but because their friends or new players they want to encourage in what is very clearly a diminishing population base. 

I disagree on your estimates with regards to player activity across NA servers. I would argue that there are at least that many active players per tier. Gw2mists currently has over 2100 players with at least 1 kill in this past matchup in NA. As many of the players registered to gw2mists are veterans with a particular interest in WvW, it's safe to assume the casual playerbase is equal or substantially larger than this. It's even more active on the EU side. One problem here is that guild-cohesive tags often run invisible on maps because they can't fit their squad (sometimes as small as 25) because of the existing ques. This perceived lack of commanders CAN drive many of these casual players away from the game because there's no one to guide them in their inexperience. That is a problem. But entitlement is also a problem with new players and at some point one must put the needs of their guild over the expectations of unaligned players. 

From my experience, I don't complain about maps where there's nothing to fight. I complain about equal-sized groups who bunker behind walls, build tons of siege and refuse any fight except one where they take minimal risk. I complain about the trebuchet meta where nothing happens until an objective has been mouse-holed from extreme long range (well outside the ability of most defenders to effect any defense at all) and it's a race to rush the lord room and burn it down before any kind of counter-group can scare them off. I complain about a game mode which is becoming more of a tower-defense style game than a large-scale battle simulator. I think a push toward indomitable defenses to appease the masses on this forum would create a stagnant, repellant style of gameplay where there is no progression of capture on any maps and most groups avoid fights entirely because they don't want to engage without the overwhelming advantage of a defensive structure at their back. I see watchers on the walls and no war at all, and that is what ultimately kills WvW. 

[Hesione.9412]

35 minutes ago, Cael.3960 said:

Sounds like you have a problem with engagement on your team/server. Or you're simply unfortunate to be playing during a timezone when there isn't much population to go around. There are solutions to this problem; alliance guilds exist that do not have a boonball focus, just a large community of singles and havoc squads. But if, for whatever reason, joining a more active community isn't suitable you may have to adjust your expectations or explore other ways to play the game mode. 

Yes, it sucks to be constantly outnumbered and overwhelmed with no commanders or organization rally the few people you have to mount a defense. Or push out and attack something. But in these situations the boonball doesn't care about collecting your bags, you're not big enough content to warrant the attention. If there's no response by your team to an attack, their choices are to continue flipping objectives for PPT (if that's what they like) or log off because there's no player-vs-player interaction. Also participation doesn't require enemy kills to keep ticking. It just means you have to flip more camps, kill more guards, and generally be a more active player instead. Which is what an outnumbered team should be doing anyway; spreading out to contest as many objectives at the same time as their strained logistics can allow. You won't be able to fight something 5X your size so there's no reason to try. Just wait 5 mins after the flip, take your stuff back, and watch your participation be maintained. 

I didn't ignore your point. I simply don't agree with you. I acknowledge that your preferred way to play the game is heavily countered by large-scale groups and I'm suggesting there are alternatives to explore rather than demand a handicap which may have consequences for the game mode beyond your specific satisfaction. I'm also encouraging you to consider the perspective of enemy groups as communities with their own goals rather than hostile and oppressive force that's determined to ruin your day. They get bored too. I'm sure for many of them their matchup against a vastly underpopulated server is every bit as boring and unsatisfying as your own feeling. 

It's a very common assertion by players who don't play in comped parties to assume large squads are filled with unskilled players. That's a perspective based more in egotism and ignorance than practice. Large squads have more unskilled players AND more skilled players. This happens when you have a larger sampling size; you get more outliers. I would add that large groups composed primarily of a single guild also tend to theorycraft, train, and equip meta builds/gear more often than unafilliated players. These groups, skilled or not, have much more practice working with one another and this cooperative ability allows individual players to perform at a greater level than they would on their own. That's why 'boonballs' succeed. Not simply because they spit out endless boons (any 5 man havoc squad can be a boonball by this logic. So too can many roaming builds) but because they compliment each other's strengths. 

Larger groups tend to beat smaller ones, yes. But high-skilled groups will regularly dominate weaker skilled ones. That's why a 35-man of skilled players in meta-comp parties will w-key a map que of pugs. I recognize that in your timezome you may not ever see two map ques squaring off against one another, but in NA prime I see this almost every night. My experience doesn't invalidate yours, but it is another perspective which is reasonable to consider. 

I would argue that a legacy of PvE content where new players are strongly encouraged to seek out a commander tag on any map they have no experience with is also to blame. That's why you frequently see players hanging out at spawn or the nearest friendly keep. They're waiting for a commander tag to rally around so someone with more experience can guide them to whatever rewards are found in the game mode. They're not wrong about this. Commanders are a focus for content/conflict on any map and if you want to go where the action is... it's usually wherever a commander ends up. Many of these tags don't need these players, but they include them in the squad not just for more numbers but because their friends or new players they want to encourage in what is very clearly a diminishing population base. 

I disagree on your estimates with regards to player activity across NA servers. I would argue that there are at least that many active players per tier. Gw2mists currently has over 2100 players with at least 1 kill in this past matchup in NA. As many of the players registered to gw2mists are veterans with a particular interest in WvW, it's safe to assume the casual playerbase is equal or substantially larger than this. It's even more active on the EU side. One problem here is that guild-cohesive tags often run invisible on maps because they can't fit their squad (sometimes as small as 25) because of the existing ques. This perceived lack of commanders CAN drive many of these casual players away from the game because there's no one to guide them in their inexperience. That is a problem. But entitlement is also a problem with new players and at some point one must put the needs of their guild over the expectations of unaligned players. 

From my experience, I don't complain about maps where there's nothing to fight. I complain about equal-sized groups who bunker behind walls, build tons of siege and refuse any fight except one where they take minimal risk. I complain about the trebuchet meta where nothing happens until an objective has been mouse-holed from extreme long range (well outside the ability of most defenders to effect any defense at all) and it's a race to rush the lord room and burn it down before any kind of counter-group can scare them off. I complain about a game mode which is becoming more of a tower-defense style game than a large-scale battle simulator. I think a push toward indomitable defenses to appease the masses on this forum would create a stagnant, repellant style of gameplay where there is no progression of capture on any maps and most groups avoid fights entirely because they don't want to engage without the overwhelming advantage of a defensive structure at their back. I see watchers on the walls and no war at all, and that is what ultimately kills WvW. 

Thank youf for taking the time to reply, and writing out detail in your response.

We disagree over blobs. I will set that to the side as we will never have a meeting of minds.

For the player numbers, I should have been specific that I meant OCX on NZ servers. Where I consider it a fair view that there is roughly 2500 WvW players, perhaps maybe a bit generous. Having two very large guilds versus small guilds has sucked the fun out of OCX hours. And this is what I meant by player-caused problems. Those large groups of players decided they were going to be large groups of players. Which means no-one fights against them because we just don't have numbers.

Coming back to numbers. The blobs have scouts. We find it hard to take anything much more than camps due to our small size. Anything tiered, the blob arrives fast, frequently before we can get the walls down. The blob follows the small group of players because those of us in the small group are literally their only "content". Also, when there is only maybe 20 players across 4 maps, yes you can squad up. You can then only attack or defend one objective at a time. You don't know if any objectives on another map, that you hold, below t3, are being attacked as the objective doesn't show as contested on that map. The blob is also scouting you, and will see what objectives were are flipping. They then go to that map and run us over. One suggestion is to swap maps. Do that, and the blob swaps maps as well. We don't even get a chance to flip objectives back before the blob runs us over again. And then they complain about lack of content *insert eye roll here* They can't even flip objectives because they already did that and no-one has been able to flip them back.

One option, for the hours when fewer players are on, is to dramatically reduce the player cap per map. Drop from 80-ish per side to 25-ish. That would introduce content for most of the 15 shards in OCX, as the alliances would be reduced in size during OCX hours. Blob v blob v blob on multiple shards works well during NA, not OCX. As players drive the blobs, not Anet, the one thing Anet can do is to reduce the number of players during off-hours. 

[obastable.5231]

Sheff, I thought the stream was very enjoyable, loved casual yap vibes. I hope you can convince Anet to do more of these. 

As to some of the comments here .. 

I don't know how it's so hard to understand that any change made balance wise to benefit small scale groups will exponentially offer more benefit to larger groups.  They have more people, they will always gain more benefit. 

Lower AoE caps hurt smaller groups more than larger ones, because you have less AoE to waste and your enemy can target cap it. 

Larger AoE caps hurt smaller groups more than larger ones because every person in your group will take damage from more sources as opposed to some people in your group. You also, consequently, still have less access to AoE because you have less people. 

Damage buffs mean you die faster. Damage nerfs mean you can't kill as easily. 

Res utility buffs means they can res more downs then you can. Nerfs hurt you, not them, they have 6x more res than you to begin with. 

Nerfing boon access doesn't help you much, now you also have less boons and less sources of application. The big group has three times the people, boon nerfs to a state it would be detrimental enough that 6 to 10 people would matter vs 50 is not a state of the game you want to explore. 

No downstate might be the closest thing to a buff for small scale, not because it's actually a buff but because it has potential for more skilled players or groups to succeed. It's not a benefit to less skilled players at all. 

I've been playing WvW since launch, probably close to 10,000 hours roaming and small scale fights alone across the tiers, and a few more thousand hours with comped groups and am a GvG enjoyed on the side.  The list of things that were better before than they are now is incredibly small and none of it is reflected in this thread. 

The fights were not better because the game was better, the fights were better because moderately skilled players that understood the game could more easily farm low skilled players who did not. 

Don't for an instant think we did that without using boons, or that the larger groups didn't somehow have exactly the same boons from more application sources. They did then just like they do now, the only difference is skill expression. 

Anet has repeatedly levelled that playing field by introducing specs that allow low skilled players to jump in and casually enjoy the game while also feeling effective. This is not a bad design decision, it encourages people to join WvW and gives them a low barrier to entry. Some of those implementations have been overtuned, some of those balance issues have been addressed, and the current state of the game is actually not horrible compared to how it was a few short years ago. 

When people complain about "boonball" what you're saying is you actively choose to not play the game as it's fundamentally been designed to play from the very beginning. Boons are support. TBT to launch, there were no healer specs, only a self heal and boons. 

"But boons make it harder to kill people! "

Well duh, they are support mechanics, that's what they're supposed to do. 

"But the enemy has so many people and so many boons!"

You have the same map cap, this isn't a design disparity favoring one group over another. It's a personal choice to ignore fundamental game mechanics. You can choose to not use boons to the same advantage as your opponents, I don't know why you would choose to make the game more difficult for yourself but that's certainly a thing you can do. 

Making the choice for yourself to not engage with the games mechanics is one thing, but making it and then complaining the game should balance around your choice in direct opposition to it's foundational design mechanics is not constructive feedback of any sort. 

WvW is a sandbox casual PvP mode, it's meant to be hop in and hop out at your leisure.

There are no rules or restrictions on how you choose to play. 

This applies to everyone. It's not a "no rules for me but rules for thee!" situation where one group gets to tell others how to play. 

Big groups aren't telling you how to play, they are telling you that if you want to engage with them then you'll have to also engage more with the games mechanics. It's very possible to win outnumbered fights, but there's no situation where you should be able to do that 6 v 50. The game absolutely should not cater to that kind of disparity, and the only reasons it existed in the past was due to the lower skill level of players coupled with less low skill builds for them to be effective on. 

Boons in and of themselves are not bad. Boon strips are not bad. Both offer levels of gameplay for players to think about and interact / plan around / make decisions about. If you think that comped 30 man isn't actively managing their resources you're lying to yourself, and a dishonest position is no way to have a conversation. 

[Zyreva.1078]

5 hours ago, obastable.5231 said:

No downstate might be the closest thing to a buff for small scale, not because it's actually a buff but because it has potential for more skilled players or groups to succeed. It's not a benefit to less skilled players at all.

This does not only apply to no downstate, but to many other changes too (such as increased offensive aoe caps). Winning outnumbered is and always should be about playing better than the opponents. But the game needs to allow and require active counterplay for that to be possible instead of adding more and more fail safe mechanics for larger numbers.

5 hours ago, obastable.5231 said:

Don't for an instant think we did that without using boons,

Nobody thinks that. Everyone knows that boons have been in the game since release and that they were always important for grp play. But number, access and uptime of boons has gone way up across the board, while at the same time counterplay has gone down significantly. That means there is no effective counterplay to boon spam anymore, (unless outnumbering you opponent ofc), while at the same time boon spam reduces or even straight up removes the neccessity for active counterplay from larger numbers, because boons alone passively counter many combat mechanics.

5 hours ago, obastable.5231 said:

When people complain about "boonball" what you're saying is you actively choose to not play the game as it's fundamentally been designed to play from the very beginning.

Boon balls are pretty much the opposite of the original combat design, that is a lot about a large variety of active and reactive counterplay, movement and positioning, timing, combos and so on. Boons are part of the original game design, yes, but current "boon balls" are not and complaining about them is not the same as complaining about the mere existence of boons ...

5 hours ago, obastable.5231 said:

WvW is a sandbox casual PvP mode, it's meant to be hop in and hop out at your leisure.

There are no rules or restrictions on how you choose to play.

True. And therefore the game should cater to a variety of playstyles, instead of pushing everyone into a single (and for many unfun) playstyle, while actively discouraging everything else.

5 hours ago, obastable.5231 said:

Boons in and of themselves are not bad. Boon strips are not bad. Both offer levels of gameplay for players to think about and interact / plan around / make decisions about.

But if one gets continuosly buffed and the other one continuously nerfed, there's a lot less to "think about and interact / plan around / make decisions about".

5 hours ago, obastable.5231 said:

If you think that comped 30 man isn't actively managing their resources you're lying to yourself, and a dishonest position is no way to have a conversation. 

Whenever i watch some boon blob gameplay, most (boon) buttons are just pressed on cd. So much managing of resources, wow.

Edited July 23 by Zyreva.1078

[Loke.1429]

To give consistent feedback here that isnt so reactive and doesnt mix too many things, I will attempt to split it up below.

Balance: I already commented on it in this thread and the wvw forum is filled with feedback. Summary of my view is that I've played since beta and never saw worse (less skill based and broken) balance (boonball overload and willbender, etc.). Balance feedback is ignored or not not acted upon for far too long. I get the impression that Cecil and Roy's hands are somewhat tied on this, which is not good and is no excuse. E.g. Cecil cant manage the competitive product experience effectively when 90% of the content (balance) is being decided by others (if I understand it correctly). Also note that balance flaws are being more and more compounded through more readily available player gear changes from legendaries.

Defence versus offense of objectives: very good and quite extensive changes overall lately (especially removal of "timeout" tactics/siege and objective tagging), but too many changes at once / in a row that helps attackers and too few that helps defenders.

World Restructuring: Excellent changes, allowing for more player agency. Now it is actually possible to play with those we want to. The natural effect of WR and this player agency is more megablobs being formed, since they are too strong. As such, WR also compounds the balance problems because changes in who plays together and how many run together are far more easily available. On the community side I would support community/alliance/battleguild building better from within the game (as was mentioned in the  stream). Beyond the feeling of identity loss and less server pride / need to win, those that complain here are those that were unable to form discord, guild or similar communities before the changes. They should be heard (get better ingame support), but they are not without possible immediate solutions. I understood from the stream and the earlier competitive stream that anet plans to increase the need to win with better rewards, which is very good. Possibly the "battleguild" roster size is currently too large, making balancing matchups more difficult, and still allowing too much "server stacking".

Scoring changes: Perfect changes. Each player's time is equally important now. The people that complain expected their time to matter more (nightcappers), which makes no sense (even if it used to be like that).

The stream asked some good questions, but was lacking some structure and had people speaking at the same time. Cecil and Roy need to dare to comment on wvw balance (more directly than "Closeted Guardian Main"). E.g. "we know this is an issue and here are the gradual minor fixes we will try going forward".

Edited July 23 by Loke.1429

[Dawdler.8521]

49 minutes ago, Loke.1429 said:

Scoring changes: Perfect changes. Each player's time is equally important now. The people that complain expected their time to matter more (nightcappers), which makes no sense (even if it used to be like that).

A player at 03:00 used to be worth exactly the same as a player playing at 20:00. Literally 1:1 score no matter the time of day. The amount of players online never mattered.

It has worked like this for a decade or so - ever since they changed the skirmish system and deleted “night capping” as an advantage. Before the 1:1 24h skirmish system, score was based on war score instead which led to runaway points at night.

Now a player at 20:00 give a lot more score per played time than a player at 03:00.

But somehow it’s more equal. And somehow the “nightcappers” expected to be worth more despite everyone praising the skirmish change that deleted nightcapping so many, many years ago. Somehow.

Edited July 23 by Dawdler.8521

[Sonderm.4639]

36 minutes ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

A player at 03:00 used to be worth exactly the same as a player playing at 20:00. Literally 1:1 score no matter the time of day. The amount of players online never mattered.

Yes and no. The impact of a single player (while never THAT high) is of course bigger the less people are playing which varies during the day. Though admittedly in the case of night crews the issue is not so much the impact of a single player but whether your team has players playing at all or not. Treating all skirmishes the same was problematic because in terms of competitiveness they clearly weren't.

However, the fact that they introduced these changes (which I think are way over-engineered - without consulting the scoring table and doing some math it is difficult to gauge what a lead of, say, 75 VP means now), seems to indicate that they (probably sensibly) gave up on the plan of balancing the teams for 24 h coverage.

EDIT: Assuming that skirmishes should contribute to the score based on their competitiveness (how equal are the numbers of players all three teams field) the new system is probably way overtuned towards prime-time. Without doing the math, I assume losing prime-time everyday would make it very hard for a team not to go down.

Edited July 23 by Sonderm.4639

[Dawdler.8521]

56 minutes ago, Sonderm.4639 said:

Treating all skirmishes the same was problematic because in terms of competitiveness they clearly weren't.

But it was fair.

The argument that prime is somehow worth more per player just because more players are online is the same as saying a player in a 50 man is worth more than any other player on the basis that he is in a 50 man. Not treating all skirmishes the same is saying that 1 player is not worth 1 player anymore. 

And of course it spills over to others.

So the 30 people AFK in various spawns at prime are worth far more and are more competitive than the players having a 3vs5 in the night, on the basis that those 30 just happen to online at prime (and also giving automatic worth to all others that are online). That the 3vs5 is “problematic” but the 30 people AFK is a-ok because they’re more players.

Edited July 23 by Dawdler.8521

[Sheff.4851]

1 minute ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

But it was fair.

The argument that prime is somehow worth more per player just because more players are online is the same as saying a player in a 50 man is worth more than any other player on the basis that he is in a 50 man. Not treating all skirmishes the same is saying that 1 player is not worth 1 player anymore. 

And of course it spills over to others.

You’re saying the 30 people AFK in various spawns at prime are worth far more and are more competitive than the players having a 3vs5 in the night, on the basis that those 30 just happen to online at prime (and also giving automatic worth to all others that are online).

It was fair towards making the efforts of a single team count the same. It was not fair for making the efforts of individual players count the same. NA prime has at least five times the activity of off hours, with hundreds of players fighting across borderlands throughout early NA, NA prime, and late NA. The victory points from those skirmishes were worth exactly the same as 4am eastern skirmishes, when there may only be a few dozen people online. If you divide the victory points earned by the number of players that were online earning them, it's fairly obvious that an individual player's contributions during NA prime mattered far, far less than an individual player's contributions in early EU timeslots on NA servers.

But if you look at it from the perspective of the entire team, ignoring timezone activity patterns, yes, it was much more fair. But that's not the only way to consider fairness. Also, let's not pretend that people AFK in spawns are a problem unique to primetime slots.

[Dawdler.8521]

32 minutes ago, Sheff.4851 said:

 It was not fair for making the efforts of individual players count the same.

Is it not? I would argue that 1 roamer running for an hour scouting, intercepting enemy roamers, running to defend before the zerg comes, etc is worth as much as a zergling hugging the commander for 1 hour in a 50 man squad.

Are you gonna say that roamers play hour was worth less compared to the zerglings hours, on an individual player basis? That your time is worth more than someone else’s time?

Now the scoring change being about Anets inability to properly weigh timezone groups in the WR algorithm and thus it being the cheap&lazy method to weight score higher at prime and making coverage worth less… that’s another matter.

Edited July 23 by Dawdler.8521

[Zyreva.1078]

36 minutes ago, Sheff.4851 said:

It was not fair for making the efforts of individual players count the same.

If you want to make efforts of individual players "fair", how about we start splitting rewards among players, instead of multiplying everything? So that in a 50vs1, a zerg player only gets 1/50th of the kill reward instead of 100% - you know, finally put rewards in relation to the "effort".

Edited July 23 by Zyreva.1078

[Sheff.4851]

10 minutes ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

Is it not? I would argue that 1 roamer running for an hour scouting, intercepting enemy roamers, running to defend before the zerg comes, etc is worth as much as a zergling hugging the commander for 1 hour in a 50 man squad.

Are you gonna say that roamers play hour was worth less compared to the zerglings hours, on an individual player basis? That your time is worth more than someone else’s time?

Now the scoring change being about Anets inability to properly weigh timezone groups in the WR algorithm and thus it being the cheap&lazy method to weight score higher at prime and making coverage worth less… that’s another matter.

Yes, because the roamer is one player playing for an hour, and the zerg is 50 people playing for an hour. Your score should reflect the number of people on your team actively playing, so that your tier placement reflects the activity of your server overall. The old scoring changes allowed small groups in dead timezones to have an outsized effect on VP, which is why all the servers at the top tiers were coverage servers that we relatively dead in NA prime.