Comprehensive Discussion on Fixing WvW Population and Participation!

[Vieux P.1238]

@starlinvf.1358 said:

@"Vieux P.1238" said:Problem with WvW is the same problem as Guildhall's.

IT'S INSTANCES.

Not many ppl like to break off immersion & hang in instances for to long.Map's of WvW should of started in the same map world of Tyria. SPECIFIC ZONES dedicated to fight for & affect's the entire economy of tyria.Giving a real reason to fight for.But no. Just settle for splitting up population into a game mod that's instance & has no purpous at all but to zerg & go threw a boring reward track.

That could never work given the economy is global, and the WvW servers are Realm based. Who gets the benefit, and how do you stop match manipulation? Match stacking was, is, and always will be a huge problem unless all 3 sides in a match up are consistently close in the running. (which is almost never outside of T1, and only IF theres a 24 hour map queue).

The fundamental problem is the players have to accept that either people will lose (which players will never accept when rewards are on the line), or the fights don't matter. You also can't design a system that snowballs in favor of the dominant faction, because why bother if theres no chance at real competition. Not enough players, especially among the "Likes PvP" crowd, understand this concept; nor do they believe its important to a better population, when so many are caught up in wanting losers to lord over.

If I were to ask "what is sport?", I wonder how diverse the answers would be.

No your wrong.Of course i din't give any specifics on what i ment. & your right about the global economy. But take into consideration that implementing my idea means compartmentalize economy. It could be groups, (Guild or main cities or even servers wich i would stay away from. ) But point is, 1 groupe would be economicaly advantage over the others. Thus giving you good reason to groupe up & go to does specific zones & take over. & i don't mean zerg around castle to castle WvW type of taking over. I mean more like epic fights & smaller scale ones such as Eve online type take over.) There's so many ways to go at it.

[Tehologist.5841]

@shiri.4257 said:

@Tehologist.5841 said:WvW could never be balanced for fair fights, the gear is way too overtuned for that, outnumbered fights are a joke. it definitely is not a competitive PvP mode, it is a large scale combat mode which does at times involve large groups of people smashing into each other to get an advantage. It is fun when you have guilds with parties 5 -10 trying to outplay each other. More often than I like it is just pugs waiting for someone to tag so they can get easy bags by hitting 1 repeatedly.

WvW is a competitive game mode, just not setup for even fights. There just aren't that many leaders in the world that will grind out in an uneven platform over and over. GvG players used to be the apex players, then their reputation and attitude slowly diminished overtime as WvW dodgers. GvG guilds were filled with incompetent leaders who couldn't even manage 5 people much less 50, so they dodged WvW and Reeeeeee to anet.

What made gvg competitive was that both sides had equal numbers. Gear in gw1 largely didn’t matter, so different from wvw. I am on a currently extremely overstacked server and I can tell you that wvw is purely a number of players game. That is all you need to win, a very high population.

[Grim West.3194]

@Tehologist.5841 said:There are two types of players, those that play wvw because they enjoy it and those that play to get easy rewards. The second group do not make wvw more fun or better.

There is a third type. RvR players who loved DAoC, and enjoyed WarHammer, Aion, (before their 2 faction nonsense killed it). etc, etc and came to GW2 for WvW only to find out that ANET's version of RvR is sadly lacking. Most of those players left years ago unfortunately. ANET's inability to keep those players is why WvW failed.

[Tehologist.5841]

I am a huge fighting game fanatic, gw2 is the closest thing to multiplayer fighting game I have found. Wvw is a great sand box mode, don’t go in expecting to win every fight as their is class advantage and counters which I find awesome. Enjoy it for what it is, yes it can be better, though nothing Anet can do will compare to what us as players can bring to the game. The worst thing for me about guild wars 2 is that it isn’t guild wars 1. I know I am not the only one that feels this way. I still love it for what it is though.

[Handin.4032]

Obviously what WvW needs are more parades. Great military parades! By that I mean Dolyaks. Dolyak parades. That's what we need! With little quaggan escorts.

[Vieux P.1238]

@Handin.4032 said:Obviously what WvW needs are more parades. Great military parades! By that I mean Dolyaks. Dolyak parades. That's what we need! With little quaggan escorts.

Yeah....sure... that will fix thing's. Throw in a parade. Yay! huh..

[XenesisII.1540]

@Tehologist.5841 said:It is a sandbox mode for large scale warfare of course it leans heavily on siege and not player killing. To take a keep or capture anything you literally just kill an NPC. It is turning into an easy reward, we won't do anything unless there is a commander or a mode for people who just want to grief players for fun. There are also the people that log in off hours for easy caps so their servers can advance next week. When played as intended it is a pretty fun mode, you should try it.

You say it's a sandbox mode but then try to exclude player killing... ok, might as well turn this into a pve mode then huh.If someone wants to sit on an ac killing npcs to capture something there's silverwastes available.I don't think some of you realize how really boring this mode can become if it was mostly about sieging.

[Safandula.8723]

@Gav.1425 said:1) Increase WvW loot rewards in line with PvE content such as Domain of Istan. Why should I get more rewards running around mindlessly tagging enemies in Istan than I do when I am mindfully tagging enemies in WvW?

2) Remove weekly limit from WvW Skirmish Claim Tickets. You could make them increasingly difficult to get. but once you've completed your final Diamond Reward Chest, WvW feels even that much less rewarding.

3) ???

4) Profit!

@Gav.1425 said:1) Increase WvW loot rewards in line with PvE content such as Domain of Istan. Why should I get more rewards running around mindlessly tagging enemies in Istan than I do when I am mindfully tagging enemies in WvW?

2) Remove weekly limit from WvW Skirmish Claim Tickets. You could make them increasingly difficult to get. but once you've completed your final Diamond Reward Chest, WvW feels even that much less rewarding.

3) ???

4) Profit!

1. There would be to many ppl coming to wvw which would result in big ques, and noone want it. 5 g/h would be good imo.
2. Fully agree, if someone plays enough wvw to repeat diamond, he rly deserves to get more tickets.
3. Titties and beer.
4. Fame and fortune!

[shiri.4257]

@Tehologist.5841 said:

@shiri.4257 said:

@Tehologist.5841 said:WvW could never be balanced for fair fights, the gear is way too overtuned for that, outnumbered fights are a joke. it definitely is not a competitive PvP mode, it is a large scale combat mode which does at times involve large groups of people smashing into each other to get an advantage. It is fun when you have guilds with parties 5 -10 trying to outplay each other. More often than I like it is just pugs waiting for someone to tag so they can get easy bags by hitting 1 repeatedly.

WvW is a competitive game mode, just not setup for even fights. There just aren't that many leaders in the world that will grind out in an uneven platform over and over. GvG players used to be the apex players, then their reputation and attitude slowly diminished overtime as WvW dodgers. GvG guilds were filled with incompetent leaders who couldn't even manage 5 people much less 50, so they dodged WvW and Reeeeeee to anet.

What made gvg competitive was that both sides had equal numbers. Gear in gw1 largely didn’t matter, so different from wvw. I am on a currently extremely overstacked server and I can tell you that wvw is purely a number of players game. That is all you need to win, a very high population.

Equal numbers isn't competitive. Equal numbers is just for those too incompetent to fight through adversity or develop strategy. We aren't inspired by battles where 100 nerds faced off against another 100 nerds in a flat field. We are inspired by battles of the few who fought off thousands. The thousands that conquered hills and fortified terrain.

That's where gvg guilds died, they failed to overcome adversity or show their prowess in the field. That's where the false perception of being the elite of wvw has deterioted. Incapable of facing overwhelming odds. I'm not even talking about coverage, but just in respective time zones. It takes a dozen "fight/gvg guilds" to stack, to give each other reach arounds so you feel relevant as you fight the 1 pugmander. How many of so called "GvG guilds" will stand on their own? Anchor a map? Be the sole group leading the charge? Be the last one standing in a protracted fight? No my friend, our most "elite" wvw warriors scurry and hide in a guild hall chest thumping and reforming under a different banner like a bunch of apes.

[Trae.2384]

@Gav.1425 said:1) Increase WvW loot rewards in line with PvE content such as Domain of Istan. Why should I get more rewards running around mindlessly tagging enemies in Istan than I do when I am mindfully tagging enemies in WvW?

2) Remove weekly limit from WvW Skirmish Claim Tickets. You could make them increasingly difficult to get. but once you've completed your final Diamond Reward Chest, WvW feels even that much less rewarding.

3) ???

4) Profit!

1 - agree to an extent although a second istan level farm would decimate certain parts of the market like it did, some love it some hate it personally i dont really care but the easy to obtain t6 mats has made last few legs much cheaper

2 - Totally agree here because by Sat evening im no longer getting tickets and feel like wth did i do that so fast for, and now Ive got nearly a week of reset remaining. However the developers have to take into account ppl who play much more casually when making them harder to obtain so maybe keep it as is except add a very small amount per repeating diamond. If you want to grind tickets you should be allowed to.

3 - listed as third but this is personally my biggest problem with how wvw is in my limited experience there of about 4ish months. SOmething has to be figured out with the population shifts and then transfers absolutely screwing over other servers. The hod sor link is great example, basically this hod came out of nowhere and was so insanely populated that they just rolled over opponents, and thats not fair or fun for anyone, even the players on the overstacked server are likely bored after a bit. How this can be fixed without pissing off zillions of ppl is the tough part. Also my guildmates and all my friends are on Blackgate yet I cant wvw with them, thats very broken. Our server faces Blackgate all the time and there no where near as insanely blobby as sor yet sor is open and bg isnt, thats busted. They should really put accounts that havnt logged in in years or dont wvw at all and put them on a low pop server to open up full ones for ppl who want to play.

[Tehologist.5841]

^^^ This just makes me happy. Yes, fight and adapt at what the world throws at us. That is what we should be doing and be happy that we have a mode that lets us do this.

[Dayra.7405]

There is only one way: make wvw great again by make it rare, I.e. open it only a few. Hours a week. :)

Only things you cannot get all times are wanted

[Tehologist.5841]

Of a server is inclusive with its guilds and communicates, they deserve to win. Find ways to encourage this.

[Kaiser.9873]

@Vieux P.1238 said:Problem with WvW is the same problem as Guildhall's. IT'S INSTANCES.Not many ppl like to break off immersion & hang in instances for to long.Map's of WvW should of started in the same map world of Tyria. SPECIFIC ZONES dedicated to fight for & affect's the entire economy of tyria.Giving a real reason to fight for.But no. Just settle for splitting up population into a game mod that's instance & has no purpous at all but to zerg & go threw a boring reward track.

This has been WvW forever. Plenty of people liked to hang in instances for hours on end in the beginning. BEFORE rewards were even implemented. The problem is, as its always been, motivation. Fewer players playing the game = fewer players playing WvW = less action = more boredom.

It very well might make WvW more interesting to replace the current BLs with city maps. Urban combat might be awesome.

[starlinvf.1358]

@Vieux P.1238 said:

@starlinvf.1358 said:

@Vieux P.1238 said:Problem with WvW is the same problem as Guildhall's.

IT'S INSTANCES.

Not many ppl like to break off immersion & hang in instances for to long.Map's of WvW should of started in the same map world of Tyria. SPECIFIC ZONES dedicated to fight for & affect's the entire economy of tyria.Giving a real reason to fight for.But no. Just settle for splitting up population into a game mod that's instance & has no purpous at all but to zerg & go threw a boring reward track.

That could never work given the economy is global, and the WvW servers are Realm based. Who gets the benefit, and how do you stop match manipulation? Match stacking was, is, and always will be a huge problem unless all 3 sides in a match up are consistently close in the running. (which is almost never outside of T1, and only IF theres a 24 hour map queue).

The fundamental problem is the players have to accept that either people will lose (which players will never accept when rewards are on the line), or the fights don't matter. You also can't design a system that snowballs in favor of the dominant faction, because why bother if theres no chance at real competition. Not enough players, especially among the "Likes PvP" crowd, understand this concept; nor do they believe its important to a better population, when so many are caught up in wanting losers to lord over.

If I were to ask "what is sport?", I wonder how diverse the answers would be.

No your wrong.Of course i din't give any specifics on what i ment. & your right about the global economy. But take into consideration that implementing my idea means compartmentalize economy. It could be groups, (Guild or main cities or even servers wich i would stay away from. ) But point is, 1 groupe would be economicaly advantage over the others. Thus giving you good reason to groupe up & go to does specific zones & take over. & i don't mean zerg around castle to castle WvW type of taking over. I mean more like epic fights & smaller scale ones such as Eve online type take over.) There's so many ways to go at it.

All you accomplished was changing the target of the bandwagon from purely bag farming, to that of a guilds/servers/cities. If its in any way exclusionary to the PvE players, now you have that whole group jumping into the argument about they have no agency in a system that gives players an advantage just because they're part of a particular group.

This is the WRONG way to go about it, because you're still centering the whole incentive system around rewards, when the game's economy and its player base aren't setup up to be compatible with this specific type of it. If you want a compartmentalized reward, you set up a tournament style of system with a purse prize. This doesn't drag the PvE players into the mess, guilds/alliances have to actively register and can organize around it, and a prize purse is a one time reward that doesn't create a loop hole in the economy (and at worse just results in an influx of gold spent), Think about it.... whats the point of having 5 cities have different TPs, when theres nothing stopping any player from simply going where its cheapest? It could work for WoW, because WoW has 2 game wide factions, in direct opposition, with their own dedicated territories, and limited access to the enemy territory (aka mutual exclusion).

But since you want to foolishly bring EVE up as an example, let me tell you why you screwed up. EVE is built entirely from the ground up to be an Economics/Trade simulator with forced competition among all players. Players control just about everything, produce everything, destroy everything, and consume everything the Economy contains. Wealth doesn't come from drops off of respawning NPCs and events. Everything is open world PvP- and even in the most secure areas of space, someone can still kill you, steal you stuff, or suppress you to the point of getting nothing done. Corps war over territory, and the whole game is designed in a way to encourage that. It is everything GW2's PvE is made to avoid, because EVE is about Competition, while GW2 Tyrian side is all about Cooperation. And unlike GW2, EVE dedicates its ENTIRE game design to the singular purpose of enabling the development of Economic, and thus Political Super powers, for the purpose of generating conflict.

The only way I can see any of this idea of your working is by compartmentalizing the entirely of WvW into a self-contained resource war. And to much credit, thats what a good number of WvW suggestions have been trying to push for with a WvW game mode overhaul. The reasons are many, but they all culminate into the fact that WvW maps, objectives, siege play, strategic overview, and tactical play are NOT designed around the kind of combat the game is good at. Siege is a mess because it and structures don't serve the right purpose; basically being a completely separate game mode of PPT that often clashes with combat rather then aid it. SMC is about as close as compatible as the set up can get, because its design correctly promotes conflict, and offers multiple ways to approach it with equal weighting. ..... which is really sad once you realize that what makes it work, is having enough maneuvering space to allow an indoor version of an open field fight. The logistics system is more of a hindrance then anything else, and gives no reason to involve the territories other then needing Yaks to upgrade structures. Given the way they're laid out, the only advantage Towers actually offer is Watchtower upgrade to track enemy moment. The whole flip/reset on capture mechanic is symptomatic of other aspects of the design not working toward a higher purpose, and focuses more on PPT and upgrades then any kind of strategic advantage. When was the last time it was ever worth defending a tower other then to avoid it being papered? Each element of WvW is doing something that has no value other elements; so it shouldn't come to a surprise to anyone that it eventually devolved into blob fights, as its the one thing that actually has any real time dynamic to it.

But even if we assume the game mode was designed perfectly for itself, and populations were close enough to enable a fair fight....... attached to the game is a PvE mode that cares nothing for it, and needs nothing from it. But to try and incorporate a PvE hook into what WvW is doing, the interdependence its creates is toxic by nature. Open world PvP is the only viable option for a design that involves an economics motivated conflict. But thats not an easy thing to do where a small scale guild can have some kind of agency in the world, because by force multiplying them through the design side, you're enabling a scaling problem that can be easily abused.... which is exactly what happened in many of the Survival PvP that popped up in the last few years. Once one faction found a way to get entrenched, there was no point in fighting against them, and simply had to wait for them to implode (leaving a power vacuum) to which other factions would swarm to grab control. Which brings us back to EVE..... EVE got this to work by the massive amount of real estate players had to work with, and had diminishing returns on power the more territory they owned. They also used a single world concept to prevent loop holes.

Its simply not something you can take half a design from and expect to work, because what EVE is, is only capable of existing by being what it is. What you failed to realize is that small scale fights in EVE are NOT small scale. Its interwoven into a much massive tapestry of conditions and events that lead to it, and will in turn influence other things in its wake. That might sound abstract on face value... but when you stop and think about the events leading up to it, and everything involved directly and indirectly, from the reason for the fight, to the resources spent on the fight itself, its not something that simply happened in isolation. You can't split the WvW and PvE Economy and expect players from both to not try and carry over wealth between them. And you sure as hell can't make them interlinked with a partition to control the flow, because players WILL find a way around it. But if you cut the economy influence out of the equation, you also cut down the exponential complexity that normally comes with it.

[Subversion.2580]

Haven't we been through this a couple of loops by now?It is pointless to do anything regarding server-wide rewards before there is at least some semblance of balance in population and scoring. Rewards do not help with population and participation issues on their own. Rewards without balance will rather affect population and participation negatively long term.

Anet is already trying to adress some of the needed issues with the alliance system.

No, the alliance system is not perfect (arguably it is even rather underwhelming given the tools that are already in the game which could be used to build something more precise or sophisticated and the time it is taking to implement) but it will at least deal with some of the issues and put more agency into the hands of the players. That is the good thing about it, the agency, possibly enough to at least get a little bit excited for the system to come and shake things up for a while, while laying a foundation that something different can be built upon.

Given that the project is likely skeleton crewed or designed off-hours by some rogue developers (as has been seen on similar projects in other games) - at least it's a bone thrown and we have someone and their effort to be thankful towards.

[Substance E.4852]

@Subversion.2580 said:put more agency into the hands of the players. That is the good thing about it, the agency

Giving players the agency to engineer match-ups is what ruined people's enthusiasm for WvW.

[Slick.7164]

If Anet ever went to 3 tiers instead of 4, what would that do? Make the match ups closer in population? Make ques bigger but maps more equal? Less dollars for anet if guilds stop band wagon? I dont know. If I was anet, I would have zero incentive to balance this because of how easy it is to spend $20 and make peeps manipulate the game. I would have my employees stack one server and manipulate the players into they thinking they in control. Buy gems and transfer, use real life money to pay peeps etc. Wish they went public, I would buy some stock.

[Sovereign.1093]

@Slick.7164 said:If Anet ever went to 3 tiers instead of 4, what would that do? Make the match ups closer in population? Make ques bigger but maps more equal? Less dollars for anet if guilds stop band wagon? I dont know. If I was anet, I would have zero incentive to balance this because of how easy it is to spend $20 and make peeps manipulate the game. I would have my employees stack one server and manipulate the players into they thinking they in control. Buy gems and transfer, use real life money to pay peeps etc. Wish they went public, I would buy some stock.

=) well, removing one tier will ensure more activity on the remainder. and possible use of ther mode in game like eotm while in queue.

remember there are still 3 tiers so transfering is still possible and there are many micro transactions now thru which u can upgrade ur toon or bank or fashion.

a good manager would study warren buffet's management style. rewording it, doing the work for those who are staying in the long run.

on the stock thing, i did mention that before, but they are under ncsoft.

[Slick.7164]

Been studied Good comment

[Lucius.2140]

Im not in WvW, but i like the idea of the game mode and it in other games. Saying that the problems i haveare this ones: (you can correct my inexpert impressions):

• Zergs: WvW large scale combat tend to be less minded and i dont like it. Playing well outnumbered tends to still be not enough.Suggestion: Buff combos and skills synchronization.

• Roaming: Lack of balance. Could go with a PU mesmer and win easily a 4vs1 back when i played actively and that build was a thing, for what i know theres similar problems now.Suggestion: More WvW balance, limit damage, regenaration and tankiness to a maximum to avoid 1 shots without much skill cost, nearly unkillable builds and super tanky builds.

• WvW organized groups: Tend to stack over each other.Suggestion: AOE damage doesnt have a limit of targets.

• Attacks to fortificated outposts are only by one side:Suggestion: Add stairs and the skill for players that infiltrated the stronghold to open the gate. This way taking outposts will be more strategical and the fights will also become more spread.

Also add more fortification upgrades, for example:Been capable to send canon balls for inside the walls, that can knock back enemies. (you throw it and the ball its redirected from vertical to horizontal to hit the enemies below you).The canonballs could be produced in certain camps or mines.

• Rewards: Lackusters, most people i know that dont play wvw, if needed reward tracks go to pvp, even if they hate it more, because they are more rewarding by far.Suggestion: Buff rewards x1.5.

• Battles: Are focused in about one spot per map.Suggestion: Some of the others suggestions could help, but im not sure if they will be enough.

Pd: Not my main language.