How to really fix WvW through game design

[morrolan.9608]

I have nothing specific to add, I think WvW should be moved to a 3 faction system like the battlegroup proposal, however all of the suggestions in here are worthwhile considering. I don't think anything will be done because the game is all about positive feedback loops and fighting on siege.

[Trajan.4953]

Excellent post Chaba.

[X T D.6458]

None of those ideas make any sense. WvW is a 24/7 game mode, what sense does it make to reset the tiers on objectives every 2 hours? It makes them completely pointless and would just encourage a constant ktrain at the start of each skirmish because everything would essentially be paper and not worth defending.

What do you mean when you say winning server? Do you mean a server winning in a specific skirmish or in a matchup? How would this 2v1 work? Are you seriously proposing that 2 sides would essentially become neutral and non hostile to each other and only be able to attack one side simply because of their placement? Yea this cant possibly be abused right?

What do you mean when you say winning server would always be revealed? Does that mean they do not even need to be Marked by a sentry or watchtower? Their locations would just always be revealed at all times?

Another thing, outnumbered is not a Buff, it is an effect. Changing it to give an advantage to any side is wrong and misguided.

Allowing SMC to drain supplies from other objectives in EB, simply by holding it does nothing but favor the larger server and disadvantage a smaller server by slowly supply starving them to a point where they can no longer defend a structure.

Yaks do not need to have their speed or supply changed, because of their location.

[Chaba.5410]

@X T D.6458 said:None of those ideas make any sense. WvW is a 24/7 game mode, what sense does it make to reset the tiers on objectives every 2 hours? It makes them completely pointless and would just encourage a constant ktrain at the start of each skirmish because everything would essentially be paper and not worth defending.

What do you mean when you say winning server? Do you mean a server winning in a specific skirmish or in a matchup? How would this 2v1 work? Are you seriously proposing that 2 sides would essentially become neutral and non hostile to each other and only be able to attack one side simply because of their placement? Yea this cant possibly be abused right?

What do you mean when you say winning server would always be revealed? Does that mean they do not even need to be Marked by a sentry or watchtower? Their locations would just always be revealed at all times?

Another thing, outnumbered is not a Buff, it is an effect. Changing it to give an advantage to any side is wrong and misguided.

Allowing SMC to drain supplies from other objectives in EB, simply by holding it does nothing but favor the larger server and disadvantage a smaller server by slowly supply starving them to a point where they can no longer defend a structure.

Yaks do not need to have their speed or supply changed, because of their location.

In some of your questions, I feel like you don't understand how the current WvW mechanics provide positive feedback. Like you don't understand how upgraded objectives that stay upgraded between skirmishes help a winning server have an easier time at winning (snowball) into the next skirmish? If you don't want to defend paper objectives that have full tactics, improvements, and built siege blueprints on them in order to maintain first place because that would be more difficult than if the objective were upgraded, then the game would be providing the appropriate negative feedback.

Negative feedback mechanisms are intended to make winning more difficult if you are in first place. Like the article I linked mentions, positive feedback mechanisms can cause players who are not winning to become bored because the game allowed the winner to snowball the win. It is always a big turn-off to many players when they log in to play WvW and see almost everything T3'd and the winning server that did it has such an easy time to defend the structures.

[hunkamania.7561]

upgraded structures and these new wvw tactics are killing the game and anything to nerf all the t3 crap would be great. Look at the state of wvw right now. Everyone just afk farms and barely anyone does anything. If I were a commander i wouldn't want to try to take all this t3 crap unless i got a big reward which we all know is a crappy champ bag.

[roamzero.9486]

From a small-scale perspective I noticed that dailies can have a big impact on how much fun there is for that aspect of WvW. Dailies for capturing camps and ruins in particular spread people away from zergs. Somekind of bounty system that mimics what these dailies do could make WvW a lot funner.

Another thought I had for spreading people out is reducing T3 wall strength to T2 but require holding the ruins to do damage (in the borderlands).

[Meurto.8520]

@roamzero.9486 said:From a small-scale perspective I noticed that dailies can have a big impact on how much fun there is for that aspect of WvW. Dailies for capturing camps and ruins in particular spread people away from zergs. Somekind of bounty system that mimics what these dailies do could make WvW a lot funner.

Another thought I had for spreading people out is reducing T3 wall strength to T2 but require holding the ruins to do damage (in the borderlands).

I highlighted the part of your post that anet absolutely refuses to change in any way. In fact, there are mechanics and systems in place to encourage people to join a single map blob which I really feel are hurting the game.

• small map size
• no wvw xp scaling
• aoe cap
• large amounts of cc with no immunity timers
• down state

I don't think I have played a game where they have done so much to discourage smaller groups. In other games larger numbers in and of itself was an advantage, but apparently it just isn't enough here. I would love to see something introduced to split up the full map blob, but I doubt we will be so lucky.

[hunkamania.7561]

soon this game will have everyone hiding behind t3 walls refreshing siege once all the guilds and commanders leave. it will be just what anet wanted all along.

[X T D.6458]

@Chaba.5410 said:

@X T D.6458 said:None of those ideas make any sense. WvW is a 24/7 game mode, what sense does it make to reset the tiers on objectives every 2 hours? It makes them completely pointless and would just encourage a constant ktrain at the start of each skirmish because everything would essentially be paper and not worth defending.

What do you mean when you say winning server? Do you mean a server winning in a specific skirmish or in a matchup? How would this 2v1 work? Are you seriously proposing that 2 sides would essentially become neutral and non hostile to each other and only be able to attack one side simply because of their placement? Yea this cant possibly be abused right?

What do you mean when you say winning server would always be revealed? Does that mean they do not even need to be Marked by a sentry or watchtower? Their locations would just always be revealed at all times?

Another thing, outnumbered is not a Buff, it is an effect. Changing it to give an advantage to any side is wrong and misguided.

Allowing SMC to drain supplies from other objectives in EB, simply by holding it does nothing but favor the larger server and disadvantage a smaller server by slowly supply starving them to a point where they can no longer defend a structure.

Yaks do not need to have their speed or supply changed, because of their location.

In some of your questions, I feel like you don't understand how the current WvW mechanics provide positive feedback. Like you don't understand how upgraded objectives that stay upgraded between skirmishes help a winning server have an easier time at winning (snowball) into the next skirmish? If you don't want to defend paper objectives that have full tactics, improvements, and built siege blueprints on them in order to maintain first place because that would be more difficult than if the objective were upgraded, then the game would be providing the appropriate negative feedback.

Negative feedback mechanisms are intended to make winning more difficult if you are in first place. Like the article I linked mentions, positive feedback mechanisms can cause players who are not winning to become bored because the game allowed the winner to snowball the win. It is always a big turn-off to many players when they log in to play WvW and see almost everything T3'd and the winning server that did it has such an easy time to defend the structures.

You really don't see how resetting objectives to being essentially paper every 2 hours would make it easier for larger servers to ktrain an entire map very quickly? And also how this would put defenders at a great disadvantage? Just fyi this feature already exists...in EoTM. This idea would just discourage any players from defending, scouting, or anything else that involves upgrading because all that effort will just be a waste when the skirmish ends. I think seeing your entire map being constantly papered, and having no incentive to even try because your efforts will be wasted would be a bigger demoralizing factor. This would go far beyond population and coverage issues, because this would be a mechanic that basically tells people...nope sorry nothing you do matters.

[Chaba.5410]

@X T D.6458 said:

@Chaba.5410 said:

@X T D.6458 said:None of those ideas make any sense. WvW is a 24/7 game mode, what sense does it make to reset the tiers on objectives every 2 hours? It makes them completely pointless and would just encourage a constant ktrain at the start of each skirmish because everything would essentially be paper and not worth defending.

What do you mean when you say winning server? Do you mean a server winning in a specific skirmish or in a matchup? How would this 2v1 work? Are you seriously proposing that 2 sides would essentially become neutral and non hostile to each other and only be able to attack one side simply because of their placement? Yea this cant possibly be abused right?

What do you mean when you say winning server would always be revealed? Does that mean they do not even need to be Marked by a sentry or watchtower? Their locations would just always be revealed at all times?

Another thing, outnumbered is not a Buff, it is an effect. Changing it to give an advantage to any side is wrong and misguided.

Allowing SMC to drain supplies from other objectives in EB, simply by holding it does nothing but favor the larger server and disadvantage a smaller server by slowly supply starving them to a point where they can no longer defend a structure.

Yaks do not need to have their speed or supply changed, because of their location.

In some of your questions, I feel like you don't understand how the current WvW mechanics provide positive feedback. Like you don't understand how upgraded objectives that stay upgraded between skirmishes help a winning server have an easier time at winning (snowball) into the next skirmish? If you don't want to defend paper objectives that have full tactics, improvements, and built siege blueprints on them in order to maintain first place because that would be more difficult than if the objective were upgraded, then the game would be providing the appropriate negative feedback.

Negative feedback mechanisms are intended to make winning more difficult if you are in first place. Like the article I linked mentions, positive feedback mechanisms can cause players who are not winning to become bored because the game allowed the winner to snowball the win. It is always a big turn-off to many players when they log in to play WvW and see almost everything T3'd and the winning server that did it has such an easy time to defend the structures.

You really don't see how resetting objectives to being essentially paper every 2 hours would make it easier for larger servers to ktrain an entire map very quickly? And also how this would put defenders at a great disadvantage? Just fyi this feature already exists...in EoTM. This idea would just discourage any players from defending, scouting, or anything else that involves upgrading because all that effort will just be a waste when the skirmish ends. I think seeing your entire map being constantly papered, and having no incentive to even try because your efforts will be wasted would be a bigger demoralizing factor. This would go far beyond population and coverage issues, because this would be a mechanic that basically tells people...nope sorry nothing you do matters.

I'm not entirely sure what you expect the outcome of a "ktrain an entire map very quickly" is supposed to produce as your point. These so-called larger servers need to have the people on to spend time walking yaks and re-upgrading these objectives to get their snowball points which they are not necessarily going to be able to do across all four maps during off-hours. Think of reset night during NA primetime when populations tend to be more balanced and it isn't so easy to simply ktrain everything. What it does do is take away the upgraded objective advantage from the winning server that snowballs into the next skirmish or two. Successfully defending a T3 keep always needs about half as many people as the attacking force, an advantage that larger/winning servers get as positive feedback currently.

[Drinks.2361]

yeah I think they have buffed defence WAY too much in the game, siege should only be able to hold off a zerg long enough for players to get there & respond not some 4h shield spam.

We had golem week, cannon beta, I think it's time we had a week where they deleted gates. Even if just the keeps in EBG it would get some fights going on interesting terrain/

but yeah Chaba I think you're right about the positive feedback, hopefully someone from Anet reads it.

[Haematic.4913]

I always liked the idea of Eotm style upgrades and skirmish resets like Eotm, except in alpine/EBG/dbl.

[Trajan.4953]

@Drinks.2361 said:yeah I think they have buffed defence WAY too much in the game, siege should only be able to hold off a zerg long enough for players to get there & respond not some 4h shield spam.

We had golem week, cannon beta, I think it's time we had a week where they deleted gates. Even if just the keeps in EBG it would get some fights going on interesting terrain/

but yeah Chaba I think you're right about the positive feedback, hopefully someone from Anet reads it.

This.

[Reaper Alim.4176]

The only realistic way I can see WvW getting fixed through game design. Is only if someone flatout brought out NCsoft and ArenaNet. And invested millions of USDs into improving the gamemode, so that it MAY yield them a proper return in the distant future. This endeavor would take a rich, enthusiastic, and patient person or group of people to pull off.

[Chorazin.4107]

@Chaba.5410 said:

• Introduce a DAoC-like new map/raid/dungeon only accessible to the server that is winning that makes it more difficult for that server to hold onto territory by pulling away population.

The dungeon should be called Falling Darkness.

[Namer.9750]

@shiri.4257 said:Hmm...guess better way to put is 4hrs of scoring and 2hrs off with no scoring or basically closed wvw. purpose for the 2 hr closure is to offset some of the deadzone coverage issues and semi force players to play in set time blocks. Take those 2 hrs to take a dump or go outside.

What if those two hours are the only times you can play? You work 9 to 5, get home at 6 or 7, have some food, finish up some work, maybe get on GW2 at 9 pm.

And lo and behold, closed WvW. So you sit and take a dump until 11 pm, play for 30 minutes, then go to bed.

Please think about suggestions you make, for the love of god.

@Drinks.2361 said:yeah I think they have buffed defence WAY too much in the game, siege should only be able to hold off a zerg long enough for players to get there & respond not some 4h shield spam.

We had golem week, cannon beta, I think it's time we had a week where they deleted gates. Even if just the keeps in EBG it would get some fights going on interesting terrain/

but yeah Chaba I think you're right about the positive feedback, hopefully someone from Anet reads it.

There's a bit of a problem with that though. You can currently hold of 30-40ish people with 10 people if you have a good understanding of how to use siege. There isn't always help coming, even in primetime. That 4h shield spam? Attackers can also do that, and to far greater effectiveness because they only have to protect the small spot around sieges, while defenders have to protect every breakable wall and gate (you can always turn your siege and hit at an angle that shield gens don't protect; you can do this on almost every wall).

[Dawdler.8521]

@Reaper Alim.4176 said:The only realistic way I can see WvW getting fixed through game design. Is only if someone flatout brought out NCsoft and ArenaNet. And invested millions of USDs into improving the gamemode, so that it MAY yield them a proper return in the distant future. This endeavor would take a rich, enthusiastic, and patient person or group of people to pull off.The only way that is going to end is a publisher like Trion buys it and we get $100 lootboxes.

You know it will.

[Drinks.2361]

@"Namer.9750" said:There isn't always help coming, even in primetime.

If you don't have people that will show up to defend you lose the structure, I don't really see that as a problem. If you start losing a chunk of the map it'll compress the players you do have into a smaller area so you've got a better shot at winning the next fight.

Structures on the map should promote fights, draw players from enemy servers together so they can fight each other. With siege creep where we're at now structures separate players from each other, siege spamming from the almost invulnerability of walls. It reduces all the effort Anet has put into designing classes & balance into pressing buttons on cooldown. There is no reactive counter play, I know someone is going to post something along the lines of "you can place a shield gen" that is about as active as a game of checkers. Maybe siege disablers are active but that's the only one.

[Feanor.2358]

@"Chaba.5410" said:

• (Once suggested in the past) Enforce a 2v1 against a winning server by making the two other servers temporary allies.

There's no need for that, because it usually happens naturally and is a kind of auto-balance. And even better, leaving it to happen naturally also leaves the element of uncertainty. You never know when your supposed "allies" will turn on you.

[Aeolus.3615]

If u guys get the matches towards EOTM timers.. RIP WvW.

I would not mind a RO, war of emperium system rather than low timer skimirshes that hold no value on the game.

[Chaba.5410]

@Feanor.2358 said:

@"Chaba.5410" said:

• (Once suggested in the past) Enforce a 2v1 against a winning server by making the two other servers temporary allies.

There's no need for that, because it usually happens naturally and is a kind of auto-balance. And even better, leaving it to happen naturally also leaves the element of uncertainty. You never know when your supposed "allies" will turn on you.

You can say it happens naturally, but it really only happened very very rarely. What naturally happens most often is the two larger servers gang up on the smaller one. That's not negative feedback.

[Grim West.3194]

I hope the devs take a look and seriously consider some of these ideas.

WvW needs some changes at a very basic level. The bandaids are not working.

[shiri.4257]

@Namer.9750 said:

@shiri.4257 said:Hmm...guess better way to put is 4hrs of scoring and 2hrs off with no scoring or basically closed wvw. purpose for the 2 hr closure is to offset some of the deadzone coverage issues and semi force players to play in set time blocks. Take those 2 hrs to take a dump or go outside.

What if those two hours are the only times you can play? You work 9 to 5, get home at 6 or 7, have some food, finish up some work, maybe get on GW2 at 9 pm.

And lo and behold, closed WvW. So you sit and take a dump until 11 pm, play for 30 minutes, then go to bed.

Sounds like an ideal raid night! i believe your presumption is you think the suggestion was to cover every wvw player. it's not, the Skirmish on and Skirmish off zones purpose is to concentrate players during certain hours and mitigate dead time zones. I'm assuming Anet has graphs that show activity and coverage per server and thats what they were doing with links. The question more measuring 1) what is considered dead zone activity? 2) how much time is spent on dead zone activity? 3) setup Skirmish on and Skirmish off hours.

With a 4 on and 2 off, would provide 16hours of wvw per day and 8 hours off. Which is mitigating an estimated 33% of dead zone coverage if that's how much each server has.

Of course there are ratios we can use. Such as 6hrs on and 2 hrs off or even 3hrs on and 1hr off. ( same amount of off time). These scenarios will mitigate 25% of play time and hopefully mitigate run away dead zone scoring.

Why choose 3 hrs, 4 hours, or 6 hours? Simply bias on my part, my attention span is about 3-4hrs for a raid if that. Say the skirmish time starts at 6pm and i can't make it until 7/8pm. Sucks, but then its just about life choices. Changing my work schedule or changing my game schedule? Choosing a 3/1, 4/2, 6/2 or any on/off scoring has pros and cons.

I do not advocate any idea that will make everyone happy, because it does not exist. The underlying problems are 1) mitigate coverage wars without sidelining too many players. 2) Get the most bang for your buck in a raid (action). The resetting objectives in between off times, can provide that. Honestly, not too many people want to spend 1/3 of their raid desieging t3 structures, 1/3 trying to break outter, and the last 1/3 of their raid breaking into inner. But this cane be mitigated also by getting rid of fortified gates altogether, so we can embrace the life of middle fort.

[Lowen.7109]

Recomputed every skirm:

1. Lowest server gets auto-watchtower on all stuff they own and do not cause swords when attacking an objective.
2. Highest server - any blob gets a symbol over it, similar to OJs, but without needing to be in combat (something to the effect of, any group over 20% of the server population of all 4 maps put together).

[Bish.8627]

Know what I would love? Put the emphasis on players defending towers and keeps rather than siege and walls. Stop giving abilities that pull off walls and make far less skills work damaging defenders on walls. Then nerf siege and defences especially for T3.

Seriously, stop us being pulled off walls.