Does WvW need a total scrap and revamp in your opinion?

[Cambeleg.7632]

@joneirikb.7506 said:

Not a joke, though it is unlikely that it turned out as they intended.

But it is fully possible that the mode itself is designed exactly as they planned out/wanted. And they just didn't predict how players would mess that up. It's a surprisingly common mistake in game design :p

When you're designing a game or a game-mode, you have to try to predict how players interacts with it. It's very easy to get blindsided by your own bias and perceptions, and not see how the game/mode can completely collapse under cynical gamers trying to exploit every system they can find. Or just flat out avoiding PvP in a PvP mode etc.

Players are always the problem ;)

Half point for you. Tho, just part of the problem comes from the players.

When you design a game, you must play it and watch in first person how it develops with the tools you provide. Until this point, everything's fine. BUT when you play in just certain servers (and THIS is a clear fact, easily checked in every Twitch streaming), your view is partial, and by this reason, wrong.

But where I consider you wrong is that players exploit the system by themselves. You can't exploit a system if this system doesn't allow it. It was very easy to see Linking system would be exploited just checking the transfer costs, making misleading links for the sake of unbalanced matchups (something that even a blind man would notice quickly) and encouraging the zerging.

Players have their part of the blame? Yes, absolutely. All those bandwagoners are a big part of the problem, those who only see a portion of the whole frame are part of the problem too... and I blame them, indeed.

Anet has its part of the blame? Of course yes. They allowed WvW to downgrade year after year without caring to really listen the players... those who aren't part of the problem, of course.

[joneirikb.7506]

@"Cambeleg.7632" said:

Players are always the problem. That doesn't mean they're the only problem. Just a constant.

;)

But where I consider you wrong is that players exploit the system by themselves. You can't exploit a system if this system doesn't allow it. It was very easy to see Linking system would be exploited just checking the transfer costs, making misleading links for the sake of unbalanced matchups (something that even a blind man would notice quickly) and encouraging the zerging.

That is playing directly into my point. (Separating the linking system from this, it is its own issue.)

The designers have to create a game/mode, and they have to take into consideration all the different ways players can play it and exploit it. That is flat out impossible, the more ambitious the game/mode the harder that is. Creating a game/mode as open-ended and flexible as WvW would be impossible to pull off without any exploits possible.

By designing a game how "They" wanted to play it, they've also designed a game free-form enough that players can play in many different ways. The freedom means that players can invent their own ways to play, and some of those runs counter to what "they" planned in the first place, because they didn't think anyone would (Human limitation of perceptions).

If they where going to design a game/mode and remove things that we consider "exploits" today, this game mode would be something completely different, something that likely wouldn't have much freedom at all, and almost guaranteed wouldn't be the game/mode "they" wanted to create in the first place. (passive pip farming, back-capping, karma training, every opinion on siege, every opinion on duels and ganking, every opinion on zerg/blob, etc. Doesn't even beging to take population and coverage into account).

Let us say they remove WvW and make a mode to "solve" all of that, what would it be like? I'm guessing something like a flat out openfield mass slaughter map, just spawn in a safe camp, run out and join the general giant 100vs100vs100 brawl in the middle until you die and respawn. Get loot for anyone you killed or get killed. So the faster you kill or die you get more loot. Essentially a titanic kill/death grind. With some random bits behind that doesn't detract from that.

Because half the features people consider to be "exploits" today are things that where considered features at launch/design. The freedom to actually do what you want etc. And it is those freedoms that players "exploits" to find ways to play that others doesn't enjoy to play against.

---

Linking:

Is just simply a band-aid system to attempt to make servers feel somewhat populated again, without doing server merges, because that could ruin the remaining fragile rests of server culture, while simultaneously make the remaining server-stacking even worse.

Though I can't remember them stating it, it seems pretty transparent that it wasn't their ideal way of solving it, but a bad-aid to get WvW somewhat playing again without the need for everyone to transfer stack into the top 9 or so servers (back in NA at least). I remember bronze in NA, all 3 match-ups could barely fill EBG in prime time.

While it also encourages band-wagoning by letting the usual suspects all jump onto whatever medium server that is groupwed with their object of desire, it also moves them in 2 months again. My guess is that they figured the cost would likely even it out somewhat.

They also voiced the idea of making multiple smaller worlds in order to split people up, so they could balance out the links better. Basically a variant of the Alliance system they're now working on. But players refused, for all the usual reasons.

If anything, I'd say that ANet's main fault is being too Naive. Though linking specifically was just "the lesser evil".

---

Sorry that got long.

[Baldrick.8967]

Voted no because there is no hope that they would ever do it- wvw has one intern working on it on a Friday afternoon, they aren't going to suddenly throw dozens of people and millions of man hours completely redoing it for GW2.

[XenesisII.1540]

@"Cambeleg.7632" said:Of course I accept a certain % of variation in the numbers, Xene. I'm not this naive, having previous experience in MMOs. But, said this, since devs said that one of the values they'll consider valid about Alliances will be the hours you spent in the Border of the Mist, I can say without doubts that Alliances won't be a success at all, but just same "thing" (I'll avoid a crappy name for this, for the sake of avoiding mods to overwork with me, no need to thank me the effort) with different name in the end.

Said this, servers can accept a, let say, 5% of variation in the cap for controlling this balance of populations, plus closing servers that were clearly empty or make a tier system where servers with similar numbers would stay playing in the same tier, avoiding these stomprolling matchups that made many to leave the game mode 'cos frustration and rage mixed.

Time ago, I suggested this tier system, before the lame Linking system started to mess the game mode, with detail. Sadly, since forums were "vacuumed", was lost in the Mist.

I fully understand why you think it will fail if it continues to follow current world links which is just hours spent, even though the secondary benefits of the system will indeed be an improvement over the current system. Hours spent is just one of the meta tags they can use for sorting. If you go back and read the world restructuring thread you will see they will be able to collect different data and be able to apply whatever they need to create the worlds, that includes things like time of day which will be important to spread coverage out.

World CreationThe system creates new worlds and assigns them a pre-generated name at the start of each season. We use 'season' to describe the time between World Restructuring. We plan on eight-week seasons, which is similar to the current time between links. We will discuss more about seasons later.

World Creation builds teams so they have similar predicted participation, skill, coverage, and language. Team assignment moves players onto teams by calculating the contribution value of a player and using that calculation to distribute players fairly. We plan to track stats like play hours in WvW, commander time and squad size, time of day, and participation levels. The exact stats have yet to be determined and we are open to suggestions of other stats to use in this system. This new system will expand upon the current calculation that uses play hours for linking.

If a player has played WvW before, we will be able to use the statistics from their account to sort them into a new world. The system also makes a world assignment for players who have not played WvW before, when they first begin WvW. Ideally the system will assign a new player to a world on which their friends or guild mates play, thereby making it easier than it is at present for people to play with friends in WvW.

They later said they will start with hours played to begin with to basically get the system running. Which is why I'm cutting them some slack on this, maybe they can get it working properly early, maybe it'll take a couple live cycles of world recreations before they're comfortable with it, but the point is they have plans for it already.

Old forums were backed up, you could probably find your old posts there. https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum

[Cambeleg.7632]

@"XenesisII.1540"

Yeah, I get this point, Xene. Still, played time in the Border shouldn't count, so either in Sanctum. These aren't values that contribute to the competitive side of WvW.

However, the Alliances don't encourage -in the way they were explained- a different route than actual WvW state shows. Attending the way how the Alliances were explained when first were mentioned (with not many details, be said), the picture that comes to me is 3-4 full Alliances in a same tag for not having "unwanted guests" linked with them, and rest of them, with non-aligned players that will eventually leave the game mode after being stomprolled by the big fishes a few times, noticing nothing changed at the end.

@"joneirikb.7506" said:

Players are always the problem. That doesn't mean they're the only problem. Just a constant.

Of course, Jone, you always must consider players an important factor. But not the most important here.

The designers have to create a game/mode, and they have to take into consideration all the different ways players can play it and exploit it. That is flat out impossible, the more ambitious the game/mode the harder that is. Creating a game/mode as open-ended and flexible as WvW would be impossible to pull off without any exploits possible.

So you're telling that they weren't able to notice the bunch of exploitable spots that allow players to enter into structures with teleporting skills or mount? Alright, I'll buy this if you explain me why, as soon as these exploits were reported, they weren't cut until weeks later (when they are cut, thing that doesn't happen actually, still there are exploitable spots in the maps).

Also, you're telling that "Core swap" event, already known by being exploited clearly, couldn't be stopped one day after first videos showing how was exploited (and fixed if possible)? The "Golem + Ice bow" exploit couldn't be cut but after two weeks later than players started to report it? The "underground" exploit? Do I countinue?

By designing a game how "They" wanted to play it, they've also designed a game free-form enough that players can play in many different ways. The freedom means that players can invent their own ways to play, and some of those runs counter to what "they" planned in the first place, because they didn't think anyone would (Human limitation of perceptions).

At the beginning of WvW going, yes, there were many different ways to play it. BUT the "balance patches" that Anet addressedm plus a good bunch of the structure features, are the reason why many of those way to play the game mode literally died. That is also part of fault of the players? Of course, but 50%.

If they where going to design a game/mode and remove things that we consider "exploits" today, this game mode would be something completely different, something that likely wouldn't have much freedom at all, and almost guaranteed wouldn't be the game/mode "they" wanted to create in the first place. (passive pip farming, back-capping, karma training, every opinion on siege, every opinion on duels and ganking, every opinion on zerg/blob, etc. Doesn't even beging to take population and coverage into account).

I think you confused what I was pointing as "exploit". Read up, please.

Let us say they remove WvW and make a mode to "solve" all of that, what would it be like? I'm guessing something like a flat out openfield mass slaughter map, just spawn in a safe camp, run out and join the general giant 100vs100vs100 brawl in the middle until you die and respawn. Get loot for anyone you killed or get killed. So the faster you kill or die you get more loot. Essentially a titanic kill/death grind. With some random bits behind that doesn't detract from that.

This is what many would want. Not me, for sure. I just request a balanced value of deaths and sieging for stopping this non-sense of PPK vs PPT. Both are valid and both should be scoring in a balance field.

Linking: [all the writting you added here]

They had other ways to change the game mode. Players gave suggestions and they weren't heard. Many of them, just left the game 'cos feeling alone in this ship, while the captain continued heading to the big iceberg in front.

If anything, I'd say that ANet's main fault is being too Naive. Though linking specifically was just "the lesser evil".

It ended being "the biggest evil", as you can see.

[bluberblasen.9684]

give wvw players:

• better rewards
• better balance
• less skill lags
• rings with 3 infusion slots ( i dont like fractals...)
• better participation
• better " population management"-> class 1 less than seven hours a week ( the system do not count them to the wvw population )-> class 2 8 - 14 hours a week ( the server count them as 10 % population )-> class 3 14 - 21 hours a week ( the server count them as 40 % population )-> class 4 more than 21 hours a week ( 50 % population )

[XenesisII.1540]

@Cambeleg.7632 said:

@"XenesisII.1540"

Yeah, I get this point, Xene. Still, played time in the Border shouldn't count, so either in Sanctum. These aren't values that contribute to the competitive side of WvW.

However, the Alliances don't encourage -in the way they were explained- a different route than actual WvW state shows. Attending the way how the Alliances were explained when first were mentioned (with not many details, be said), the picture that comes to me is 3-4 full Alliances in a same tag for not having "unwanted guests" linked with them, and rest of them, with non-aligned players that will eventually leave the game mode after being stomprolled by the big fishes a few times, noticing nothing changed at the end.

Play time from Sanctum and eotm probably makes up like less than 0.1% of the total play time of a server, it's negligible, there's no reason to go there unless to gvg. The same with a couple scouts on empty borderlands, their hours would be small compared to when multiple zergs comes on for a few hours every night. Obviously using just hours played is not a good metric for balance with a 24/7 game mode, but neither is using actual player numbers as they can get really out of hand in comparison, you could end up with situations with one server has more players that clock 10 hours a day than another server than has more players that clocks 2 hours a day, that makes the coverage issue even worse.

Time of play during the day is also important and like I said it's something they have already considered tracking so I'm willing to cut them some slack on this. Even looking at commanders and their times could be important to spread pug commanders around. All these things can make the system work well, it's just a matter of setting it up properly. There hasn't been any other rvr game that has attempted to setup the worlds like this, just about every rvr game has suffered with lopsided stacking of sides in some way.

Also players are not all going to choose where they end up in the new worlds, they can only select one guild, and if their guild is in an alliance then they will all be placed in the same world, but that doesn't guarantee that other friendly guilds/alliances will end up in the same world. We don't have confirmation of how the recreation process will happen, but I firmly believe the sorting will start from biggest to smallest(it makes the most sense to start with the biggest pieces). If there's 6 worlds, they will take the 6 biggest alliances and place them in each of those worlds, when start with the smaller alliances to fill in the space while trying to maintain close numbers, then on to single guilds, and then on to single players to fill out the rest.

Now even before these alliances you had guilds who cooperated and ran together, some would even move to new worlds together, this has been happening for years already. The rest of who they play with they have no control over, and they can try and stack if they want but every 8 weeks it resets, this will hopefully discourage some movement since they will start in the same world as their alliance or guild anyways, and even when it's automated anet would probably have the option to reset whenever they want. The biggest difference is you won't have a server like BG that was super stacked for years with actual numbers of players before links and wvw population activity time became a thing, which still allows them to have better coverage than everyone else(even though a big part of why they still win is because they have willing scouts and defenders still).

The way wvw will operate will be no different than it currently does, if people can't stand losing and dying and then leave, then frankly the game mode isn't for them, a lot of that happens every single day in wvw, part of that struggle is dealing with it, learn, hopefully get more allies, and try to outsmart your opponent next time. Also part of why the steamroll has been happening recently is because after every relink servers need to readjust to the tiers they belong in, especially when servers change from link to host. Like FC should be in T1, and Mag should be in T2. If alliances don't want to work with their server, but want to win(especially if tournaments become a thing then) they will just put more pressure on themselves to play more to keep up.

[SinisterSlay.6973]

Nerf everyone damage by 80%, boost crafted weapon emplacement player damage by 300%. It should not be possible to 1 hit kill a player by another players basic attacks. This will allow less optimal builds from beginners to actually survive more than 5 seconds and not get so discouraged. However, a trebuchet to the face or a cannon to the groin absolutely should at minimum knock you down and cause you to bleed out. An entire zerg attacking a wall should absolutely be able to be wiped out by a couple cannons. This would force some actual strategy and force the invading army to have to actually set up their own ranged siege weapons.

Pretty sure everyone will hate my idea, but these were the things that drove me nuts and made wvw thoroughly unenjoyable for me.

[Kovu.7560]

@SinisterSlay.6973 said:Nerf everyone damage by 80%, boost crafted weapon emplacement player damage by 300%. It should not be possible to 1 hit kill a player by another players basic attacks. This will allow less optimal builds from beginners to actually survive more than 5 seconds and not get so discouraged. However, a trebuchet to the face or a cannon to the groin absolutely should at minimum knock you down and cause you to bleed out. An entire zerg attacking a wall should absolutely be able to be wiped out by a couple cannons. This would force some actual strategy and force the invading army to have to actually set up their own ranged siege weapons.

Pretty sure everyone will hate my idea, but these were the things that drove me nuts and made wvw thoroughly unenjoyable for me.

Holy crap noThis isn't real life. Enjoyable gameplay should take priority over your proposed realism. Nobody wants a couple of guys on cannons to be able to wipe out entire zergs, from both fun and balance perspectives.

~ Kovu

[DemonSeed.3528]

First anet needs to work on the lag issues and bottlenecks. Then cut cut cut things like all the insane boon and condi going around. Then go from there. Don't keep adding, but subtract. Right now the soup is overflowing. Maybe reduce target caps and aoe radius. Promote skill plays over passives and spam. Get rid of the crutches, make way for the skill plays for fights big and small.

[iKeostuKen.2738]

Go back to how WvW was in vanilla and just take away the orbs. Much better system if the balance is also reverted to vanilla state with a few tweaks.

When stacking was met with your entire group getting epidemic bombed.

[DemonSeed.3528]

@iKeostuKen.2738 said:Go back to how WvW was in vanilla and just take away the orbs. Much better system if the balance is also reverted to vanilla state with a few tweaks.

When stacking was met with your entire group getting epidemic bombed.

hehe I remember when they brought epidemic back, I think it was 2k16 or 17? Watching masses of people just drop

[b k.1648]

In vanilla, epidemic wasn't used because conditions did basically nothing against a zerg. Actually I don't think it came into play until PoF?

[jaif.3518]

People are going to play games over the word "total", but I think it's much closer to that than to "tweak".

I think the single biggest change needed is to go with PvP builds/amulets. No ascended, no food. This will limit some of the more grotesque disparities.

[Kylden Ar.3724]

Let the past die. Kill it, if you have to.

[zinkz.7045]

You can't rework a fundamentally flawed concept, RvR does not work as a game mode, which is why it is dead in GW2, dead in ESO and so on.

If we are in some alternate reality where Anet actually have resources to do stuff, then they would be better off adding battlegrounds rather than wasting more time on the lost cause that is WvW.

[XenesisII.1540]

@Ben K.6238 said:In vanilla, epidemic wasn't used because conditions did basically nothing against a zerg. Actually I don't think it came into play until PoF?

That changed in the june 23rd 2015 patch (before hot) when conditions were brokenly overpowered, burn in particular, made it very useful in zergs. Used on enemy lords and siege for maximum effect (siege part was nerfed since), then had a projectile to help see when it was coming, only thing that has been nerfed in pof is 50% reduced durations. It hasn't been needed with scourge since it's better to corrupt.

[iKeostuKen.2738]

@DemonSeed.3528 said:

@iKeostuKen.2738 said:Go back to how WvW was in vanilla and just take away the orbs. Much better system if the balance is also reverted to vanilla state with a few tweaks.

When stacking was met with your entire group getting epidemic bombed.

hehe I remember when they brought epidemic back, I think it was 2k16 or 17? Watching masses of people just dropI was on hiatus then =[ Did it spread to more then 5 players?

@Ben K.6238 said:In vanilla, epidemic wasn't used because conditions did basically nothing against a zerg. Actually I don't think it came into play until PoF?I found great usage from it. Even if it didnt get kills it provided pressure and panic in the olden days heheh. (The war of uplevels vs uplevels)

[spectrito.8513]

@zinkz.7045 said:You can't rework a fundamentally flawed concept, RvR does not work as a game mode, which is why it is dead in GW2, dead in ESO and so on.

If we are in some alternate reality where Anet actually have resources to do stuff, then they would be better off adding battlegrounds rather than wasting more time on the lost cause that is WvW.

Agreed, but will never happen.

[Sovereign.1093]

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@Sovereign.1093 said:

@Dawdler.8521 said:

@Sovereign.1093 said:yes. links, bloodlust needs to goThats not a scrap and revamp, what exactly are you voting for here?

it is for me. unless there is a definition of terms set on top where there isn't one. :PDoesnt need that much definition.

Bloodlust is a very small part of WvW and you could delete with minor impact. removing it is nowhere near a "total scrap and revamp".

Removing the links would just make regular servers. Increasing the amount of tiers and emptying out EB and all borders

because reasons

is nowhere near a "total scrap and revamp", its just adjusting the population and tiers. Its the same with alliances, if thats what you meant to refer to - its a change in how the matchups and population works, but it does zero difference to WvW otherwise, hence nowhere near a "total scrap and revamp".

So the OP said

total scrap and revamp

. What you seemingly want is neither. Unless thats exactly what you want but failed to mention what total scrap and revamp of WvW it is.

Which is why I'm asking what you really voted yes on.

And why this poll is silly. Because probably 90% of those voting yes will have lots of ideas somewhere way, way short of a "total scrap and revamp" yet they are coerced by a public poll to say yes because they simply want things to change.

well yes is my answer.

blood lust, linking needs to go.

seasons needs to be implemented.

sifting of none active players needs to be done.

tiers needs to be cut and or removed based on population of active players.

these things may seem minor to you but the programming involved is not small. unless you know how to or can tell me otherwise t

[Jugglemonkey.8741]

Changing the matchup system without a corresponding WvW specific balance pass won't change things that much honestly. Too much has been power creeped beyond all reason, and too many skills/traits are still borderline useless in comparison, which shows itself by how some things can't kill you and other things just outright instagib you. It's all extremes, and eventually people get bored of rock paper scissors, no matter how many varieties it comes in.

[DemonSeed.3528]

@iKeostuKen.2738 said:I was on hiatus then =[ Did it spread to more then 5 players?

I can't remember the exact details, but it basically copied everything [?] and at one point even affected allies, sm fights were hilarious. I think necros were running antitoxin runes at the time.

[Paradoxoglanis.1904]

let the wvw community rework everything. They could be in charge of class balance, new maps, server populations, everything would finally be perfect.

[joneirikb.7506]

@Paradoxoglanis.1904 said:let the wvw community rework everything. They could be in charge of class balance, new maps, server populations, everything would finally be perfect.

Worlds biggest crater.

[Lauren.3061]

@zinkz.7045 said:You can't rework a fundamentally flawed concept, RvR does not work as a game mode, which is why it is dead in GW2, dead in ESO and so on.

If we are in some alternate reality where Anet actually have resources to do stuff, then they would be better off adding battlegrounds rather than wasting more time on the lost cause that is WvW.

Agreed. I wish WvW could just be scrapped entirely and some new modes be put in place, including ones that supported proper gvg.