Jump to content
  • Sign Up

There's potential in shorter matchups


Recommended Posts

One of the things that can make WvW frustrating is that even if you play well in your own timezone, it may be negated by others playing while you're asleep/at work/whatever.

One potential solution would be shorter matchups. I don't mean that they would replace the current ones, but that players or guilds could sign up for a matchup that was just a single skirmish long, or maybe two. That way you would have more control over the relative numbers of each side and could have a very competitive contest.

For example: let players/guilds sign up for a tournament in which each match is only 90 mins long, and there would be some kind of significant reward for winning (or bragging rights). I don't see that this would take much in the way of development resources to implement.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, bigmouse.2163 said:

One of the things that can make WvW frustrating is that even if you play well in your own timezone, it may be negated by others playing while you're asleep/at work/whatever.

One potential solution would be shorter matchups. I don't mean that they would replace the current ones, but that players or guilds could sign up for a matchup that was just a single skirmish long, or maybe two. That way you would have more control over the relative numbers of each side and could have a very competitive contest.

reducing the match duration so most players would be there for the entirety would make numbers more balanced, but i would further reduce it to 1 map and teamsize of maybe 25-30. so you can actually have teams competing that dont just consist of 90% pugs, as too large teams would cause it to be again too random instead of competitive.

Edited by bq pd.2148
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, bigmouse.2163 said:

One of the things that can make WvW frustrating is that even if you play well in your own timezone, it may be negated by others playing while you're asleep/at work/whatever.

One potential solution would be shorter matchups. I don't mean that they would replace the current ones, but that players or guilds could sign up for a matchup that was just a single skirmish long, or maybe two. That way you would have more control over the relative numbers of each side and could have a very competitive contest.

For example: let players/guilds sign up for a tournament in which each match is only 90 mins long, and there would be some kind of significant reward for winning (or bragging rights). I don't see that this would take much in the way of development resources to implement.

How would this prevent a side from zerging down what might be considered 'prime'? The reason it is a 24x7 clock is that allows all time zones to have potential. No, the current method that was put in place in 2016ish to counter overnight still works the best as we saw during the limited test that was run. New World tried to 'schedule' when WvW would happen, it turned into a social experiment of who knows who versus creating any balanced fights. -1 here. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To make the dev time worth it, how many teams would regularly and fairly participate with current WvW structure?

I'd rather have opt in open world pvp for anyone who's not vibing much with current WvW,  with open world territories to contest and if contested, the teams could fight it out then and there or agree to load into an instance and play out a balanced match for match specific rewards and in game supported recognition. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Basically this already exists, it's called EotM.

The only thing it lacks is PIPS.

But if we add PIPS to EotM, then normal WvW is honestly dead.

So the only real question is: Do you want WvW or EotM? It would be trivially easy for ANet to enable full rewards/PIPS in EotM, but they've also seen in the past what happens if EotM has good rewards (Aka, WvW dies). Personally not for or against either of those options, I just wish people where clear in saying what they actually want.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, joneirikb.7506 said:

I just wish people where clear in saying what they actually want.

We wanted to improve the balance between teams in a team game, and we ended up making teams useless, so let's come up with another way to play WWW again. This is really my impression of the spectacle I witnessed here. We have taken it so out of place that the question you have to ask yourself is: but is it still a team game? By definition, a team game is: activities that involve several people working together to achieve a common goal. But what is the common goal in a team game that provides that the teams count for nothing for anyone? How was it possible to achieve this while we wanted to get better teams in terms of numbers and hours of play, to give them a better, more believable and more engaging comparison?

I guess I've been clear over the last 3 years that I have no interest in this half-done WR, but here we are anyway.

Edited by Mabi black.1824
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, joneirikb.7506 said:

Basically this already exists, it's called EotM.

Technically… it’s also called WvW. 

Skirmishes are 120m. A guild can easily plan to go into a skirmish at full blast and aim to win it at the end, can they not? They don’t really have to care about the skirmish before or the skirmish after for their personal achievement. “Winning” technically do give more loot for everyone on the team, since highest score give more pips.

The only difference is that many objectives will be harder to cap since they don’t begin at 0. Nothing any self-proclaimed “tournament grade” guild should have a problem with though.

Edited by Dawdler.8521
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they really want to make it fun they should make a "destroy their spawn" game mode. Matchups like PvP but takinga few hours with the goal to raid the spawn. Destroying it will remove the team from the map. Once one team is left at the map - they will get one point. And/or they win. (If you give 1 point it could use the normal system with weekly matchups while just awarding points that way. If the whole thing was won immediately it would need remake new matchups might not work with many players and "shards" and each one taking a different time.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am sorry but the boonball guilds, the hardcore guilds, those that Arena Net spoke to that told them that they need to cater towards them and WvW will be saved have got their chance. It did not turn out well, because it excluded the larger part of the population, it excluded all other game play because Anet made defense useless and mostly not possible. You should not get another chance to break WvW even more by making it even smaller. WvW is and was always about team play. Team play in many shapes and forms, big and small, with guilds, pugs, groups, havok, clouds, roaming and so on. 

You had your chance, it did not work out. Guilds also have the gvg arena in EotM outside of that noone runs in WvW anyway. I am not avoiding EotM because no pip, i really dont care that much about pips, as long as there are ways to fight for all in WvW i am happy.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Chaba.5410 said:

Who the heck are you talking to?  The guy who started this thread is a roamer.

Does not change my post at all, because nowhere in that post does it talk about roaming but about bigger scale fights and making EotM a thing again. So my point is still valid. Big groups have got their chance already and it did not work out. WvW need to be inclusive again and that was my point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Leaa.2943 said:

Big groups have got their chance already and it did not work out. WvW need to be inclusive again and that was my point.

Sounded inclusive to me that a roamer was asking for a new type of large scale WvW-like fight mode that was simply shorter in length that anyone can sign up for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...