Guild Wars 2

PariahX.6970:

Deniara Devious.3948:

1. scaling creatures, new and more difficult NPCs and unique bosses at each objective
- No need. This is NOT pve. You already have too much of this in Living Story. Please don’t make WvWvW more into pve-like experience.

2. Increased emphasis on verticality
Please no. This was one of the big design mistakes of the EotM map and Skyhammer, which is the least favorite spvp map.

3. More chokepoints
While every map needs a good balance of open places, some hills, cliffs, water and chokepoints, EotM has way too many chokepoints. Please use current Eternal Battlegrounds as your standard of map design, not EotM.

4. A much shorter match time
This could be considered, but I feel that EotM completely lacks the community aspect of the game and rapidly changing opponents make guild rivalries from opposing servers more difficult. EotM is nothing but just a big karma train and eventually it will get very boring, just like the ruins of power first had players, because of the achievements attached to it. When the novelty runs out, what then? WvWvW should be designed better to cater guilds and EotM is simple going to the wrong direction with that.

5. Destructible terrain
Doesn’t seem to add much.

Few things to add: I think the added new game mechanisms (player based buffs) and traps, turrets etc were BAD in EotM and I wish to see none of them outside that map. Rule of design: Keep It Simple Stupid (KISS), but keep refining the existing rules to perfection. A chess wouldn’t become a better game by adding more pieces and chokepoints to the board.

I think Arenanet is concentrating on wrong aspects. The biggest problems of WvWvW are none of the above. Some of them are difficult to solve and some easy:

1. More balanced match ups and more fair scoring
Now coverage and numbers decide the winner. Some matches are very imbalanced, making them boring for both parties and really desperate to those who have just few players on a map vs enemy zergs which spawn camp them outside their spawn point. Rewards are based on who manages to tag the most amount of opponents who die by the karma train. If only one the killers would get a reward (decided randomly) this would make karma train much less feasible. Of course the individual loot bag rewards should be adjusted upwards accordingly.

2. Better class balance and balancing WXP abilities
Hammer melee train has been the meta since Autumn 2012 and it has been buffed multiple times in the “balance” updates, which are entirely based on spvp/tpvp. Look at the profession distribution of WvWvW. Surely you can see it is not balanced at all!
Some WXP traits were uncalled for and further make things more imbalanced (massive buffs to siege damage, area, skills, guard leech and applied fortitude). Add to this power of the mists and bloodlust border buffs, which should both also be removed.

3. Better commander UI
This has been asked since launch! We need an open to have the commander tag visible to your own guild members only. Ability to select different colored commander tags. Easier graphical user interface to check supply info.

I am just going to quote this one because I agree with every word said. I am surprised and frankly more than a bit concerned that so many people seem to think changing WvW into Red vs Green vs Blue is actually a good idea. . . You think the communities are messed up now? That would just put the final nail in the coffin for a lot of Realm Pride folks who are still hanging on and some of the communities we’ve managed to cobble together are actually quite lovely. I like having an identity to fight for.

Agreed completely. If you don’t listen to anyone else, the post above is right one.

GLOBAL FACTION ALIGNMENT (1/3)

PROPOSAL OVERVIEW

Replace server alignment of players in WvW with a global faction alignment of the player’s choice. There would be 3+1 factions a player could choose.

For lack of any good ideas at all, I will call the three main factions Frostlands Alliance, Overreach Empire, and The Badgrowth. The real ones could be loosely based on any overarching groups that appear in the present or past lore, or some new ones made up just for this. The +1 faction would be known as Mercenaries.

GOALS OF PROPOSAL

The goals are to (1) allow old school WvW to exploit the best feature of EOTM — dynamic map balance and overflows; (2) up-end the server stacking and coverage meta and allow everyone, on every server, to get into the good fights every week; and (3) do these things without killing the sense of pride that comes with having the stable identity of a “home” community that players belong to.

This proposal goes a bit beyond “What from EOTM should we add to old-school WvW.” But just stick with me till the end and it will all come together.

PROPOSAL FUNCTIONALITY

PLAYER ALIGNMENT

Each player character would start life with no faction alignment. He or she could pledge loyalty to a faction at an time, by vising a representative of that faction located in some neutral social hub.

Players also could “betray” their faction and join another at any time, for a nominal fee (say, 30 silver), but with a seven-day cooldown, like server transfers have today. Also, queueing for WvW at any time would lock your faction choice and prevent any betrayal until after the end of the current match or tournament.

Players who never want to do WvW would not have to choose a faction, or even know that factions exist. Faction alignment would have no effect on anything outside WvW, and would not be tied to other choices like race or order.

GUILD ALIGNMENT

Guild leaders could declare a faction for their guild, and then only players of that faction could join the guild. Guilds that are aligned could only have players of the same alignment as members. Unlike with players, who can change faction at will, faction choice would be permanent and irrevocable for a guild.

Players who have chosen a faction would only be able to join an aligned guild of the same faction or an unaligned guild. If a player joins an aligned guild and then wants to switch sides, they would have to quit their aligned guild first.

No cross-faction guilds would be allowed; but real life Guilds could maintain more than one in-game guild — one of each faction, for instance — if they want to allow members to faction hop at will.

Guilds that do not select any alignment could welcome all players regardless of faction alignment. BUT, an unaligned guild would not be able to claim objectives in WvW, could not build or activate any guild-based WvW bonuses, and would have no presence on the faction leaderboards.

Members of unaligned guilds also would not have access to their guild chat, guild bank, or other guild resources and bonuses while in WvW (basically an unaligned guild is no guild at all while in WvW, except for the tag). This would stop unaligned guilds from being a convenient channel for spies. Of course, people still could use out-of-game channels like voice comms to spy; but they can do that today as well.

MATCHUPS

In WvW, matches and queues would be global, and maps would spawn overflows filled by players from all servers, just like EOTM.

However, unlike in EOTM, players would be grouped by their persistent faction alignment, not randomly grouped into colors. Faction identity and loyalty — for those who like that sort of thing — would take the place of server identity.

Players of each faction would be pitted against players of the other two factions from across the entire game world. The factions would rotate from week to week through the three colored home borderlands.

LEADERBOARDS

Faction alignment would take the place of home server for keeping score and deciding which faction places 1st, 2nd, and 3rd each week.

Also, there would be factional leaderboards, which would rank all guilds and players within each faction by their total contribution to the war effort at the end of each match (or, with spring coming, each tournament).

This, of course, would mean some new math under the hood to keep track of individual and guild contributions to capping and holding objectives.

PERSONAL REWARDS

Players would get the same types of instant rewards (karma, WXP) as they do now, regardless of their leaderboard rank. Players also would get personal leaderboard credit for their active contribution to the war effort (e.g., capping objectives).

GLOBAL FACTION ALIGNMENT (2/3)

PROPOSAL FUNCTIONALITY

GUILD REWARDS

Objective-based “PPT” would only count toward the guild score for the leaderboards and the total faction score for the match or tournament win ranking. While the player score would come at capture from flipping an objective, the guild score would come over time from claiming and holding that objective.

With the low number of objectives on the maps, the system would need to allow multiple guilds to “contribute” to claiming and holding a given objective. There also would be an ongoing “cost” (e.g., gold+influence) taken out of the guild bank on a periodic basis as long as a guild holds a claim on a facility.

This might require a new form of influence that only could be farmed in WvW (by capping and killing) and only could be spent to pay for holding objectives. Holding an objective also should give some modest but meaningful buffs to all guild members active in WvW all the time, as well as to all allies inside each objective, in order to make the benefit of holding worth the effort to pay the bills.

MAP BALANCE

The trick to making this all work better than server match ups do now would be having the map queues enforce a tight balance of faction numbers on active WvW maps.

The war would proceed on a base set of maps and N overflows. Overflows would be spawned and would collapse and be destroyed as needed to provide just enough instances to allow the greatest number of active players possible into as many fully balanced maps as could be filled.

If a faction gets too many people on a map, then nobody from that faction could enter and players on that side only could leave until either the map is empty and the overflow is destroyed, or the numbers for the other two sides come back into balance.

If all active maps are equally full, no new overflows could be created until enough players were queued up on all three sides to both be balanced and hit a certain minimum total number needed to form a viable, active map.

The result would be that “stacking” one faction would just lead to people on that side sitting in endless queues, never getting to fight. That would give a reason for those who want to fight instead of wait to de-stack to an outnumbered side.

And since changing factions would be cheap and easy (keeping in mind the active match and 7-day lockouts), the faction balance would tend to even out over time, as players seek out the side with the lowest queue times in their preferred time slots, instead of the side with the biggest blobs and broadest coverage.

Any attempt to stack numbers would be self-defeating because it would never let one side put significantly more people on any map than the other sides. Intead they would just wind up with more people on the bench (who would spend all that queue time thinking about swapping sides).

MERCENARIES

A player could “enlist” as a Mercenary instead of pledging a main faction. Mercenaries would be special in that, for the first time only during each match or tournament, they could choose to queue on the side of any of the three main factions.

This would help to micro-manage the population balance from week to week, by letting Mercenaries pick the “underdog” side on the fly to get better queue times (for them) and better coverage (for the “low pop” side).

Players who don’t care about being on a side and want to just hop around and get the best queue times can play as Mercenaries full-time if they want. However, once you queue up for a side during a match, you would be locked to that main faction’s side until the match (or tournament) ends.

Mercenary aligned guilds should be allowed, for those that want to hop between sides each week without having to maintain a separate guild on each faction. There should be a switch that would stop any member of a Mercenary guild from queueing until a member assigned a (new) “Warmaster” privilege logs in to choose the guild’s side for the week (then all members would be locked to that side for the duration).

There also would be one big downside for Mercenaries: No leaderboard credit.

Each player still would get all the same normal rewards in WvW as other players, and you or your guild still could claim objectives and receive faction or objective bonuses (Bloodlust, +5 supply, etc.).

But as long as you and your guild remain enlisted as Mercenaries and not aligned with any main faction you would not accrue any credit toward guild or personal leaderboard standings.

This would make Mercenary an attractive choice for players who don’t care about the leaderboards, but would prevent everyone from just defaulting to Mercenary for the flexibility, since many would still want to make the commitment in exchange for having the chance to gain standings.

GLOBAL FACTION ALIGNMENT (3/3)

ASSOCIATED RISKS

It sounds like a kitten-ton of work and would require a lot more than just a bit of grafting neat stuff from EOTM onto the old maps (though in the end it would benefit from and greatly leverage new bits like the map balance and overflow parts already created for EOTM to make some huge improvements in traditional WvW).

There also would be some issues when it is first rolled out dealing with players who are in existing guilds that choose to align, and in multiple guilds. There probably would need to be a staging period when people could make alignment choices ahead of time and get everything sorted, before any of it takes effect.

And it could be severely disruptive for existing server communities. However, unlike the current stacking / coverage meta, it would be disruptive in a way that would lead to something better and more stable, rather than in a way that inevitably causes communities to grow up and then crash and burn with toxic frequency.

I couldn’t really do it all in one post with the proposed format, so I made my own spreadsheet to go through some of the top features with comments on each.

See here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?key=0AimpKIvH_06ldHBob3FTTWZDdXZuOFE0Y3dja0VqWnc&output=html

Also I gave a pros and cons list of eotm here: https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/Edge-of-the-Mists-A-Friendly-Critique/first#post3643804

Profanity.8016:

zhonnika.1784:

Proposal Overview
Eliminate ‘server vs server vs server’ and replace it with Green vs Blue vs Red, the same way EOTM works.

This ^ would be awesome

I could imagine there would be little need to ever transfer servers if that happened. Might kill a lot of revenue that Anet gets from gem sales involving server transfers.

It would also kill WvW. You have to remember that a lot of people play WvW with most of their game time. Communities are built and each server has its own culture. You start to see the same people every day and that makes you want to play more every day.

Your approach gives more even coverage (even though it seems to me that every time I go into eotm one side is totally dominating) but kills the community aspect. The quality of game play is also much lower, at least compared to where I am.

It would definitely be a big negative to implement your approach.

PariahX.6970:

Deniara Devious.3948:

1. scaling creatures, new and more difficult NPCs and unique bosses at each objective
- No need. This is NOT pve. You already have too much of this in Living Story. Please don’t make WvWvW more into pve-like experience.

2. Increased emphasis on verticality
Please no. This was one of the big design mistakes of the EotM map and Skyhammer, which is the least favorite spvp map.

3. More chokepoints
While every map needs a good balance of open places, some hills, cliffs, water and chokepoints, EotM has way too many chokepoints. Please use current Eternal Battlegrounds as your standard of map design, not EotM.

4. A much shorter match time
This could be considered, but I feel that EotM completely lacks the community aspect of the game and rapidly changing opponents make guild rivalries from opposing servers more difficult. EotM is nothing but just a big karma train and eventually it will get very boring, just like the ruins of power first had players, because of the achievements attached to it. When the novelty runs out, what then? WvWvW should be designed better to cater guilds and EotM is simple going to the wrong direction with that.

5. Destructible terrain
Doesn’t seem to add much.

Few things to add: I think the added new game mechanisms (player based buffs) and traps, turrets etc were BAD in EotM and I wish to see none of them outside that map. Rule of design: Keep It Simple Stupid (KISS), but keep refining the existing rules to perfection. A chess wouldn’t become a better game by adding more pieces and chokepoints to the board.

I think Arenanet is concentrating on wrong aspects. The biggest problems of WvWvW are none of the above. Some of them are difficult to solve and some easy:

1. More balanced match ups and more fair scoring
Now coverage and numbers decide the winner. Some matches are very imbalanced, making them boring for both parties and really desperate to those who have just few players on a map vs enemy zergs which spawn camp them outside their spawn point. Rewards are based on who manages to tag the most amount of opponents who die by the karma train. If only one the killers would get a reward (decided randomly) this would make karma train much less feasible. Of course the individual loot bag rewards should be adjusted upwards accordingly.

2. Better class balance and balancing WXP abilities
Hammer melee train has been the meta since Autumn 2012 and it has been buffed multiple times in the “balance” updates, which are entirely based on spvp/tpvp. Look at the profession distribution of WvWvW. Surely you can see it is not balanced at all!
Some WXP traits were uncalled for and further make things more imbalanced (massive buffs to siege damage, area, skills, guard leech and applied fortitude). Add to this power of the mists and bloodlust border buffs, which should both also be removed.

3. Better commander UI
This has been asked since launch! We need an open to have the commander tag visible to your own guild members only. Ability to select different colored commander tags. Easier graphical user interface to check supply info.

I am just going to quote this one because I agree with every word said. I am surprised and frankly more than a bit concerned that so many people seem to think changing WvW into Red vs Green vs Blue is actually a good idea. . . You think the communities are messed up now? That would just put the final nail in the coffin for a lot of Realm Pride folks who are still hanging on and some of the communities we’ve managed to cobble together are actually quite lovely. I like having an identity to fight for.

I agree with most everything except the Green, Blue, and Red idea. On lower tiers due to mass transfers ect. there are no communities. Sure you have a few people that are die hards but the reality is every new Guild/Transfer is bound to leave at some point. The color coding system could work if done correctly, leave tiers as they are but make it so each tier has a direct impact on the score based on color. To further this allow a guesting type system here is why, I’m currently on AR and guess what were doing this week … NOTHING. Not because were outnumbered but because we outnumber or opposition, even with people taking a week off which is boring as all hell were still winning. I would like to have the option to guest to a server in the lower/mid tier range to enjoy the game and avoid weeks like this one. I have NO desire to PvD for a week straight, I would love to get some good fights and contribute without feeling like a mindless zombie. That is why the color coding system is a good idea imo, it lets players actually play, if higher tiers are dominating their matchup they could move down to say Kain or ET so the bottom tiers are not a waste of server space.

Nuzt.7894:

I agree with most everything except the Green, Blue, and Red idea. On lower tiers due to mass transfers ect. there are no communities. Sure you have a few people that are die hards but the reality is every new Guild/Transfer is bound to leave at some point. The color coding system could work if done correctly, leave tiers as they are but make it so each tier has a direct impact on the score based on color. To further this allow a guesting type system here is why, I’m currently on AR and guess what were doing this week … NOTHING. Not because were outnumbered but because we outnumber or opposition, even with people taking a week off which is boring as all hell were still winning. I would like to have the option to guest to a server in the lower/mid tier range to enjoy the game and avoid weeks like this one. I have NO desire to PvD for a week straight, I would love to get some good fights and contribute without feeling like a mindless zombie. That is why the color coding system is a good idea imo, it lets players actually play, if higher tiers are dominating their matchup they could move down to say Kain or ET so the bottom tiers are not a waste of server space.

That is reason to try fix low tier servers, not to destroy every community that exist now. With color system not server, community can’t exit when every week you play with different people, People will not care to defend anything, like they don’t care in EOTM, win or lose it is all same, no one in EOTM not know score, just karma train. You can’t use community Teamspeak when you play with different people every week. Don’t destroy WvW with that, if some like mindless, not strategy and no organization play they can go in EOTM, but don’t do that to WvW.

There is no way to “Fix” lower tiers without destroying communities, lower tier to T2 communities have been destroyed already. That ship sailed a long time ago and Anet did nothing to help prevent it, even the T1 communities are not safe just take a look at whats happening to SoR. If you leave the Tiers intact and allow the color coding/guesting your still going to be on your server and there will be no reason to transfer and further hurt what little is left of the communities.

I think you might be miss understanding what I’m saying. I do not want us just thrown into random matches based on color like EotM, I want the matchup system to remain the same but the score is based off of ALL the Green servers. The option to guest is simply there to help avoid blowouts, you would still be on your server with your server mates unless you made the decision to actively assist another server that shares your color that week. You would not be stuck on that server for the duration, it would work like guesting, for a 24 hour period (or whatever limit would work) you would only be able to guest to the server(s) you chose to guest to with the option to return to your server at any point in time.

Matches should be shorter. Everything else about it is just fine. Also, it would be cool to get at least something extra for winning, doesn’t have to be anything big. Just to motivate people to participate.

Red vs Blue vs Green.
I play in the mid tier, by choice. I for one don’t want to play against 60-80 man blobs, I’m here because we want smaller fights )5-20).
If you want massive zerg battles, epic amounts of AC’s and 24/7 coverage, transfer up, because we in mid don’t really care about ppt.

If you, somehow, still want to be on “your” server and be competative in the ppt/coverage game, start recruiting off peak players and guilds, but don’t ask Anet to carry you to the top.

Coloured Teams like Eotm in WvW

In a nutshell this is a very bad Idea, because it will kill all server communitys in an instance.

One of the big archievements of WvW was the server-communitys it created. The more or less organized public zergs is what keeps WvW alive and enables everybody to join WvW and NOT be alone like in sPvP and this nearly whenever you want, this is nothing a Guild can archieve.
In NA this might be possible to build up very fluid systems for organizing groups and zergs, but what about the EU, the language differences will make this impossible.

All tactics and long time projects like upgrading a keep/tower will be lost due to the Karmatrain we will get instead, because there is not enough communication for more.

The only winner of this are Hardcore-WvW Guilds that have even more Karmatrains to farm.
You want “balanced” matches with karmatrains and no tactics besides 1,1,1,1,1,1 join EOTM, but don’t make WvW a second EotM, one is already enough.

greetz

NOTE:
A heavy decrease in the matchup time will have a similar effect. It will also create more Karmatrain and less real combat.

Proposal Overview:

This is WVW not another parking area for PvE players that need WvW for their personal fun while they have a break from PvE.
Moreover most of the comments here are focussing on the PvE already present in the WvW are from USA players. Probably as a EU player I have a different view of what is a WvW that for sure, is not a place for PvE and for powerkiller NPCs.

Goal of Proposal:

Since the release we (at least in EU dunno there) asked to reduce or even remove all the PvE from the WvW and here we have WvW players (seriously?) who are asking to improve the PvE?!?
I follow the few WvW players in this thread with a copy/paste.

Proposal Functionality

1.No need scaling creatures, new and more difficult NPCs and unique bosses at each objective. Really? NPCs in towers and keeps are just an excuse to capture the attention of the enemy… who never care about the NPCs in WvW O_o I don’t know how many times we attacked a tower or a keep ’cause there was no enemies on the map, it was just waste time to say: “hello enemies, we are here, can you come out from the spawn?”

2. Increased emphasis on verticality
Please no. This was one of the big design mistakes of the EotM map and Skyhammer, which is the least favorite spvp map.

3. A much shorter match time maybe, ’cause the unbalance match are really boring when from the other side there are no enemies.

4. Destructible terrain funny, but probably one of the last things we need inWvW

5. More balanced match ups and more fair scoring
Some matches are very imbalanced, making them boring for both parties and really desperate to those who have just few players on a map vs enemy zergs which spawn camp them outside their spawn point. Rewards are based on who manages to tag the most amount of opponents who die by the karma train. If only one the killers would get a reward (decided randomly) this would make karma train much less feasible. Of course the individual loot bag rewards should be adjusted upwards accordingly.

6. A WvW armor that you obtain without PvE I don’t wanna feel me forced to farm PvE or to improve the skill crafting of my character to get an asc weapon/gear. I’m a WvW player, all the time I’m stucked in an area out of WvW I feel I’m wasting my time and my willing to play the game is zero.

7. Balancing WXP abilities or introduce something new as demostration about how much interesting is for a WvW player interact with the enviroment, most of us has spent their WXP in the same abilities:
-Guard Killer
-Defense Against Guards

Do you really think because of the guards? no, because this abilities at the last stage give us an increment on the stats… who cares of the damage guards -_-
Then, someone has spent points for the ram, or has preferred keep the wxp waiting for something better. WvW players don’t care about PvE in WvW npc, mosquitos, centauros etc they are good just out of the spawn to stack sigils and no more.

8. Resetting WvW skill points Maybe give this chance at the end of a match or at the end of a season. There are still players that since this feature pop up in game, didn’t have an idea how spend their points and now are spent in useless abilities.

9. A warband structure This is one of that things asked during the beta and still in the far world of “maybe, dunno, perhaps”. When we raid with our guild, we raid in more than 5 players, I wanna see all the members of the team not just my 4 team mates, we are playing together even when we are 20.

10. Icon guild commander After introduced the warband team, you could introduce a double function for the icon commander such:
- Visible to all players
- Visibile just to all guild mates

So finally, when the warband leader switch on “visibile just to all guild mates” we can use the target icon properly, instead like a second blue icon for guildies.

Deniara Devious.3948:

1. scaling creatures, new and more difficult NPCs and unique bosses at each objective
- No need. This is NOT pve. You already have too much of this in Living Story. Please don’t make WvWvW more into pve-like experience.

2. Increased emphasis on verticality
Please no. This was one of the big design mistakes of the EotM map and Skyhammer, which is the least favorite spvp map.

3. More chokepoints
While every map needs a good balance of open places, some hills, cliffs, water and chokepoints, EotM has way too many chokepoints. Please use current Eternal Battlegrounds as your standard of map design, not EotM.

4. A much shorter match time
This could be considered, but I feel that EotM completely lacks the community aspect of the game and rapidly changing opponents make guild rivalries from opposing servers more difficult. EotM is nothing but just a big karma train and eventually it will get very boring, just like the ruins of power first had players, because of the achievements attached to it. When the novelty runs out, what then? WvWvW should be designed better to cater guilds and EotM is simple going to the wrong direction with that.

5. Destructible terrain
Doesn’t seem to add much.

Few things to add: I think the added new game mechanisms (player based buffs) and traps, turrets etc were BAD in EotM and I wish to see none of them outside that map. Rule of design: Keep It Simple Stupid (KISS), but keep refining the existing rules to perfection. A chess wouldn’t become a better game by adding more pieces and chokepoints to the board.

I think Arenanet is concentrating on wrong aspects. The biggest problems of WvWvW are none of the above. Some of them are difficult to solve and some easy:

1. More balanced match ups and more fair scoring
Now coverage and numbers decide the winner. Some matches are very imbalanced, making them boring for both parties and really desperate to those who have just few players on a map vs enemy zergs which spawn camp them outside their spawn point. Rewards are based on who manages to tag the most amount of opponents who die by the karma train. If only one the killers would get a reward (decided randomly) this would make karma train much less feasible. Of course the individual loot bag rewards should be adjusted upwards accordingly.

2. Better class balance and balancing WXP abilities
Hammer melee train has been the meta since Autumn 2012 and it has been buffed multiple times in the “balance” updates, which are entirely based on spvp/tpvp. Look at the profession distribution of WvWvW. Surely you can see it is not balanced at all!
Some WXP traits were uncalled for and further make things more imbalanced (massive buffs to siege damage, area, skills, guard leech and applied fortitude). Add to this power of the mists and bloodlust border buffs, which should both also be removed.

3. Better commander UI
This has been asked since launch! We need an open to have the commander tag visible to your own guild members only. Ability to select different colored commander tags. Easier graphical user interface to check supply info.

This ^^ is spot on.
It’s your game, you can railroad any changes you want and you’ll always get a bunch of people to rubber-stamp them for you.
But if you seriously want to interest the players who are interested in person to person combat, this is what you should have been taking notice of, months ago.

UltraHiDef.4809:

So many responses from Devon Carver, I can’t even count ’em anymore. Keep the good communication with your players, ANet!

It’s unrealistic to expect he would respond in turn to suggestions, and that was not the stated plan anyway. They’re “collecting” input now, and responses will come in a consolidated posting or Ready Up review once they have discussed and digested.

Heezdedjim.8902:

UltraHiDef.4809:

So many responses from Devon Carver, I can’t even count ’em anymore. Keep the good communication with your players, ANet!

It’s unrealistic to expect he would respond in turn to suggestions, and that was not the stated plan anyway. They’re “collecting” input now, and responses will come in a consolidated posting or Ready Up review once they have discussed and digested.

Other threads have responses though. They’ve always had more responses.

I guess Devon’s just not a talky type. If things get done and we’re listened to, it doesn’t matter.

To be fair, he’s been burned pretty bad for things he’s said but then some of that comes from a general lack of communication about WvW since launch and that hasn’t really built up good will on that front. I often feel like in other modes some devs are people who show up regularly and the players are like friends with them while here the devs show up sparingly and so we take every opportunity to dump all our venting on them.

shrug It is what it is. Not all devs are the same and posts aside I am sure that they’re working kitten improving WvW (even though I would say they started pretty late). Even if we don’t have the chattiest devs, we still have the most fun game mode =)

It would be nice to get some responses though. wistful sigh

Guys… It’s 9 o’clock in Seattle… Can’t you wait one day?

Heezdedjim.8902:

UltraHiDef.4809:

So many responses from Devon Carver, I can’t even count ’em anymore. Keep the good communication with your players, ANet!

It’s unrealistic to expect he would respond in turn to suggestions, and that was not the stated plan anyway. They’re “collecting” input now, and responses will come in a consolidated posting or Ready Up review once they have discussed and digested.

You are definitely incorrect. It is COLLABORATIVE. It’s only been a day though so hopefully we’ll see some ANET involvement soon.

DevonCarver.5370:

Topic Goal:

The Edge of the Mists features numerous changes to the standard WvW mechanics.The most notable changes are: Scoring on capture of objectives, scaling creatures, new and more difficult NPCs, unique bosses at each objective, increased emphasis on verticality, more chokepoints, a much shorter match time, and destructible terrain. Of the changes included, which would you like to see implemented in the standard WvW maps?

I would like to test having resets twice a week for a month or so. The reset days could be Friday and Monday at the same time as now. Reset day is the most exciting WvW of the week and twice a week would be great. Anything more frequent would take away from the excitement.

The map from EoTM is a huge boon, elevation, switch backs, choke points are all good things, it makes full death meaningful since travel is not as easy and makes a small map feel bigger this also works on spreading people out and harder to zerg defend objectives due to travel times.

drawbacks, people don’t like travel time, making new maps takes a long time.

Welp, we got more than enough proposals (and many of them are redundant.)

Any chance we could get some direction as to which proposals we should discuss? Someone needs to steer the conversation.

Proposal Overview
Changes to strategic points on the existing WvW maps with features from EotM. Namely convert the Centaur and Skritt areas into areas that grant buffs and/or transformations much like those found in EotM. (additionally add worm holes for fast transport to the NE tower, NW tower, and North camp (so that players don’t take themselves out of the fighting for unreasonable amounts of time).
I wouldn’t mind seeing a moderate difficulty fight for the Bloodlust points. An event needing ~6-9 people to flip the point (instead of having one person stand there for 5 minutes) would make the Bloodlust more interesting and more rewarding for small groups.

Would also like to see similar changes to the mercenary camps in EBG. Scale the difficulty up a lot, but make the reward something very worthwhile (airstrike on walls of nearest structure, with SMC getting priority). That will not only make those events worthwhile and not waste of space, but will force smaller groups to fight nearer the castle and make the fighting over the structure more intense and make it more about combat than sneaking around to capture camps and attack enemy towers.

Second, adding some destructible terrain could be advantageous. The bridges south of the ruins, the one leading to Hills, and the one inside the Bay keep. Perhaps a VERY hard to trigger avalanche on the switchbacks leading from the North towers on the borderlands. These would add difficulties for both sides (resupplying and reinforcing more difficult vs. the added defense.

Lastly, the thing that most people want (not related to EotM) is that someone cannot be resurrected if no attempt has been made to resurrect them in over 1 minute (WvW only).

Goal of Proposal
To add variety and perhaps an increase in coordination for previously “simple” tasks, and to change the very formulaic fighting in the current WvW maps (EotM excluded)

The resurrection fix would prevent a lot of griefing and abuse of game mechanics for other than intended purposes.

Proposal Functionality
The first part of the proposal would simply be a change in the nature of existing content.

The second is a lot more complex in that it would be hard to predict how these changes would affect the game and people’s enjoyment of it.

The third change is a overhaul of a game mechanic, being altered for only one game mode. One that a majority would support and applaud however.

Associated Risks
The risks of the first part are simply a matter of changes and adapting to those changes. It’s also possible that the benefits and rewards could either be too overpowering or underwhelming to the point where there would be no benefit for participation.

The second part comes with high risks and would require a lot of testing and careful monitoring.

The third part has no negative for the players, but would require additional resources not currently allocated on the part of ArenaNet

DevonCarver.5370:

Matches last 8 hours, there are 21 matches in a week with the same 3 worlds, the winner of the week is the world that wins the most matches over the course of that time.

Could you weight the matches, based on how “lopsided” they are?

Hypothetical Scenario:
Green team has a large “morning crew” and brings three times more players than Blue or Red team. Obviously, Green team will always win the “morning” match. The “evening crew” for each team is equal.

Could the “value” of winning any 8 hour match depend on the ratio of participation between the teams? In this way, Green will always win the “morning” match, but it would not be as significant as the “evening” match where the teams are balanced.

DevonCarver.5370:

I’d say there is a pretty strong sentiment against the idea of collapsing all of WvW into 3 colors, rather than the current world set up. Which I agree with. I think world pride and association is an important part of the way that WvW works currently.

Here’s a possible version of shorter matchups that wouldn’t necessarily sacrifice the long term fight of a WvW matchup currently and wouldn’t involve merging everyone into one of three teams.

Matches last 8 hours, there are 21 matches in a week with the same 3 worlds, the winner of the week is the world that wins the most matches over the course of that time.

This solves some of the problems we see currently, namely the issues that can arise as matches get out of hand towards the end of the week. However, it would still give worlds with better coverage a leg up on their opponents. It also loses the feeling that you’ve had a long term battle for victory.

I’m curious what you all think of that? Does it retain the feeling of victory in WvW right now and solve problems or does it just introduce more issues without solving any core concerns?

21 matches really? That is too much.
8 hours is too short because you the cost of upgrading forts and all that stuff takes a lot of gold. And holding stuff becomes less viable.

With that said, of course there is strong opposition. The servers that spent money stacking for easy victory don’t particularly like the idea that they waste their money and their easy win.

The point being, having the matches be too short undermines bothering to capture and upgrade forts.

Making it into a red and green and blue insures that coverage is NEVER EVER a major issues. There is always someone somewhere and it comes with the added bonus that the smaller servers at gets to enjoy WvW in its full glory.

Short of doing that, WvW will always be a coverage and smaller non WvW focused servers are always going to be screwed.

ADDED: there is no point system that will fix WvW and make it fair. The only way to is go extreme and make coverage less of an issue. Assuming 18 main NA servers, having 6 servers together issues that there is always coverage.

to fix WvW, you have to go Nuclear and you will have to kitten people off, but they will get over it. It is better to have a functional WvW and make a few people mad than to have the current terrible system. Just remember a lot of people were mad about the existence of EoTM. In an MMORPG they will walys be mad and angry players, but you have to do what is best for the game even if it goes against some players interest.

DevonCarver.5370:

I’d say there is a pretty strong sentiment against the idea of collapsing all of WvW into 3 colors, rather than the current world set up. Which I agree with. I think world pride and association is an important part of the way that WvW works currently.

Here’s a possible version of shorter matchups that wouldn’t necessarily sacrifice the long term fight of a WvW matchup currently and wouldn’t involve merging everyone into one of three teams.

Matches last 8 hours, there are 21 matches in a week with the same 3 worlds, the winner of the week is the world that wins the most matches over the course of that time.

This solves some of the problems we see currently, namely the issues that can arise as matches get out of hand towards the end of the week. However, it would still give worlds with better coverage a leg up on their opponents. It also loses the feeling that you’ve had a long term battle for victory.

I’m curious what you all think of that? Does it retain the feeling of victory in WvW right now and solve problems or does it just introduce more issues without solving any core concerns?

Thats probably the main thing i hate about EoTM’s is that while I’m there I lose my servers identity. The shorter match up times is a good idea yet for normal WvW I feel 3/8/12 hours would be way too short perhaps 24hrs minimum per match up is more manageable preferably 2 days. If it was 12hrs or you would have ppl that current play “nightshift” left to start a match up from scratch whilst being outnumbered. At least with a 24hrs – 48hrs match up the “prime time” is able to lay some foundations for them, to have an enjoyable experience.

Proposal Overview
Dungeons as capture points, in which controlling players/server could buy and place creatures.

Goal of Proposal
Adding gameplay variation, opening up new interesting strategies.

Proposal Functionality
On WvW map, the enemy server players enter the dungeon, and the point to capture is in the middle of it, let’s say underground. On the way, enemy players fight mobs, placed by the dungeon owners. Choosing which monsters/traps to buy and where to place them could be an entire strategy. Each monster has an area (circle) around. If the monster is more powerful, that area is larger, so you can’t put another one just beside him. Each dungeon is divided in zones. Each zone has its own mob power limit. If the enemies capture the point, all the monsters die, and they need to be replaced.

Associated Risks

• Buying and placing mobs might be time consuming.

• It requires a different game ballance, harder to achieve. We count here that monsters alone might have a slight chance of defeating the players.

<200 words

DevonCarver.5370:

I’d say there is a pretty strong sentiment against the idea of collapsing all of WvW into 3 colors, rather than the current world set up. Which I agree with. I think world pride and association is an important part of the way that WvW works currently.

Here’s a possible version of shorter matchups that wouldn’t necessarily sacrifice the long term fight of a WvW matchup currently and wouldn’t involve merging everyone into one of three teams.

Matches last 8 hours, there are 21 matches in a week with the same 3 worlds, the winner of the week is the world that wins the most matches over the course of that time.

This solves some of the problems we see currently, namely the issues that can arise as matches get out of hand towards the end of the week. However, it would still give worlds with better coverage a leg up on their opponents. It also loses the feeling that you’ve had a long term battle for victory.

I’m curious what you all think of that? Does it retain the feeling of victory in WvW right now and solve problems or does it just introduce more issues without solving any core concerns?

I think the 8hr format would exacerbate player frustrations with off hour coverage, as well as giving unearned wins to certain servers.

Here’s an example: Server A has a large nightime population, but weak coverage during North American primetime. Server B has decent coverage all day long. In the current system, Server B is most likely to win because they would be scoring all day long and would be able to limit Server A’s score during that server’s strongest time.

In the proposed 8 hr system, Server A gains automatic wins.

Also, there would be a lot of controversy on where the 8 hour blocks would be implemented.

Lastly, it would remove the contribution of those in a dominant block towards the final outcome. If (hypothetically) a server pulls out all the stops during NA to tick +600, it means something in the current system. With this proposed change, it would make those heroic efforts meaningless.

Lastly, it would exacerbate the existing concerns about coverage. It would turn off hours from an advantage to the only deciding factor in a victory.

There are disadvantages in the current system (the match "Over by Monday Syndrome) but that’s something that can be better addressed by transfer costs being scaled to server WvW ranking and adjusting map population caps.

TL;DR: 8 hr matches would give people less incentive to give it their all, exacerbate coverage gaps between servers, and would not fix any existing issue other than Monday blues

DevonCarver.5370:

I’d say there is a pretty strong sentiment against the idea of collapsing all of WvW into 3 colors, rather than the current world set up. Which I agree with. I think world pride and association is an important part of the way that WvW works currently.

Here’s a possible version of shorter matchups that wouldn’t necessarily sacrifice the long term fight of a WvW matchup currently and wouldn’t involve merging everyone into one of three teams.

Matches last 8 hours, there are 21 matches in a week with the same 3 worlds, the winner of the week is the world that wins the most matches over the course of that time.

This solves some of the problems we see currently, namely the issues that can arise as matches get out of hand towards the end of the week. However, it would still give worlds with better coverage a leg up on their opponents. It also loses the feeling that you’ve had a long term battle for victory.

I’m curious what you all think of that? Does it retain the feeling of victory in WvW right now and solve problems or does it just introduce more issues without solving any core concerns?

I honestly think this would be AWESOME, mainly because it would make people not even care about the score anymore and just go play. Kinda like EoTM.

What I like:
- All servers on one map
- Different power ups depending on which side you are on
- Immediate upgrades to captured points
- 7 different ways to get to any one spot, up or down
- Enhanced use of “fear tactics” to knock people off
- Great areas for open field fighting
- Great areas for small group (I’m sure thieves are loving all the nooks and crannies)
- Super Cannons
- Chests after every major capture
- The list goes on and on… easier to say what needs work.

What I don’t like/Needs work
- Bridge destructions need work. You have to take the time to build a cata, then you have to fire about 10 times and then “wait” on the final hit. 99.9% of the time, everyone can see the bridge’s health and doesn’t take it. If by chance you get lucky, you might be able to get 1 or 2 people dumb enough to be on it after watching you try to take it down for the last few minutes. Its a great concept, just needs a little work to actually make it viable in combat. Maybe make them player destructible instead of having to use siege?
- Open field cannons. Super annoying, super overpowered. I would recommend increasing the recharge time so that having two cannons on you doesn’t turn into an insta-kill for half your people.
- Spawn camping. Holy Jeebus, the bags! I love spawn camping on EotM, but it doesn’t seem fair to the other team who is trying to get out of the choke point and out of the area.
- Choosing an instance. We figured out how to all start in Obsidian Sanctum as a guild and then say “3…2…1… PORT!” in order to try and get the whole guild into an instance. It works about half the time. It would be nice to be able to pick the instance or overflow you want to go to. (Like the old GW1 system of picking which LA overflow you wanted to go to). “Hey, what instance are you in?” “We are in instance 3, come join us!” “OMW!”

DevonCarver.5370:

I’d say there is a pretty strong sentiment against the idea of collapsing all of WvW into 3 colors, rather than the current world set up. Which I agree with. I think world pride and association is an important part of the way that WvW works currently.

I fully agree

DevonCarver.5370:

I’m curious what you all think of that? Does it retain the feeling of victory in WvW right now and solve problems or does it just introduce more issues without solving any core concerns?

While I think it is a minor improvement over the current situation it still does not do anything to stop victory to be based on a servers coverage outside of primetime.
I would prefer a mix between my suggestion on page 1 and yours.
The part of your suggestion that i would keep is that you fight the same 3 servers every day for a week, this allows for planing (of gvgs etc.)
However i would make servers have seperate rating per starttime of the match and have them fight different servers depending on the time. so a server that is strong during the morning, weak during the day and average during the evening gets matched against strong servers in the morning, weak servers during the day and average servers during the evening, which alows for fairer fights all around.

The desire for shorter matches, comes from the problem that once a dominant server has momentum out of the weekend; you rarely see a reversal.

So the answer isn’t necessarily to shorten the week, but to change the momentum.

Proposal: “Against All Odds!” a buff that increases in intensity as the score gap increases

Functionality: At 25,000, 50,000, 75,000, and 100,000 points behind the matchup leader; a server gets a progressive buff that will slow down the leading server.
+3%/6%/9%/12% to siege power and structure HP (for the server(s) behind in score).

Consequences: This gives the server(s) that are behind a lot of incentive to keep pushing, knowing that their structures will be more defensible while giving them greater ability to capture enemy structures. This will cause winning servers to see the consequences of running up the score; and will actually make the upcoming Tournament A LOT more interesting.

@Devon,

My suggestion is to do this incrementally. Going from 1 match a week to 21 is too big of a change. I really don’t want to lose the feeling of a reset night. It is a very fun time and it brings everyone in the guild together. It is my favorite day of WvW of the week. We’d lose that with 21 matches.

I think it would be great to have 2 resets a week (Friday and Monday) and then reevaluate. Does it keep the same reset feeling? Does it keep up the excitement level? Does it minimize the number of uneven matchups?

Also keep in mind that reset night is typically the highest population in WvW which is a good thing.

DevonCarver.5370:

I’d say there is a pretty strong sentiment against the idea of collapsing all of WvW into 3 colors, rather than the current world set up. Which I agree with. I think world pride and association is an important part of the way that WvW works currently.

Here’s a possible version of shorter matchups that wouldn’t necessarily sacrifice the long term fight of a WvW matchup currently and wouldn’t involve merging everyone into one of three teams.

Matches last 8 hours, there are 21 matches in a week with the same 3 worlds, the winner of the week is the world that wins the most matches over the course of that time.

This solves some of the problems we see currently, namely the issues that can arise as matches get out of hand towards the end of the week. However, it would still give worlds with better coverage a leg up on their opponents. It also loses the feeling that you’ve had a long term battle for victory.

I’m curious what you all think of that? Does it retain the feeling of victory in WvW right now and solve problems or does it just introduce more issues without solving any core concerns?

This would cause even more issues than already because you wouldn’t be removing it you would just make coverage even more important and those 8 hour resets would cause issues no matter where you put them they would mess with a timezones primetime and make them unhappy.

DevonCarver.5370:

I’d say there is a pretty strong sentiment against the idea of collapsing all of WvW into 3 colors, rather than the current world set up. Which I agree with. I think world pride and association is an important part of the way that WvW works currently.

+1

DevonCarver.5370:

Here’s a possible version of shorter matchups that wouldn’t necessarily sacrifice the long term fight of a WvW matchup currently and wouldn’t involve merging everyone into one of three teams.

Matches last 8 hours, there are 21 matches in a week with the same 3 worlds, […]

IF the 3 matches have different weights based on active population (or like 10-6-3 for “primetime”, 5-3-1 for “night”, 7-4-2 for “day”), that could be an interesting idea. Reset should be really quick, like no more than a few minutes, possibly with all people ported to starting waypoint in respective map with closed gates, like start of a pvp match, so while waiting for new match they can discuss strategy.

Coverage will still be an issue, but maybe underdog server can try to gather people for a night to say “at least we win one on primetime”

DevonCarver.5370:

I’d say there is a pretty strong sentiment against the idea of collapsing all of WvW into 3 colors, rather than the current world set up. Which I agree with. I think world pride and association is an important part of the way that WvW works currently.

DevonCarver.5370:

I’m curious what you all think of that? Does it retain the feeling of victory in WvW right now and solve problems or does it just introduce more issues without solving any core concerns?

I agree with the first part, and it’s an obvious and reasonable feeling.

But I don’t see how just shortening up the matches does anything to address the toxic, community-wrecking stacking + coverage meta that people have been asking for a solution to for so long.

My response is: What do you think about the idea of implementing global factions to replace servers as the anchors for that sense of identity and “home,” so that we could have those great communities, but build them around an association that isn’t subject to the intractable meta problems we have as a result of server-based match ups?

That would allow you guys to pull in the one greatest feature of EOTM — dynamic map balancing — without losing the core features of old school WvW (long term strategic game play and a sense of a fixed, familiar community and loyalty).

DevonCarver.5370:

Matches last 8 hours, there are 21 matches in a week with the same 3 worlds, the winner of the week is the world that wins the most matches over the course of that time.

I really like this idea.

As mentioned, one issue it would really impact is the cost and speed of upgrading towers and keeps. The gold costs would need to be lowered somewhat, but the big one is the time it takes to get the supply in. Even under ideal situations with steady dolyaks coming in and no opposition sniping them, it still takes hours to get all those upgrades in. However, instead of lowering supply costs, I’d rather see far more dolyaks enroute – possibly even 2 or 3 from the same camp going the same route on the map at once instead of the current 1-and-then-long-wait we’ve got now.

Chris.3290:

Lastly, it would remove the contribution of those in a dominant block towards the final outcome. If (hypothetically) a server pulls out all the stops during NA to tick +600, it means something in the current system. With this proposed change, it would make those heroic efforts meaningless.

I disagree that this would remove their contribution, it would simply limit their contribution to the 8-hour segment that they’re on for.

what the current system allows is for one group of players to push PPT to +600, so that later players can accumulate points that they didn’t actually work themselves to achieve. let’s suppose that your server has a big NA presence, and only a fair night presence, and you’re playing a server that has little NA presence, but equal night presence. the current system allows your NA to build a big lead while they’re on, then hand that lead off to your night crew. despite your opponent having equal numbers at night, they start at a disadvantage because maintaining a lead is much easier to gaining it to begin with.

this has been a problem on NA servers for a long time — whatever server has SEA or EMEA coverage does better because when everyone in NA logs on, the servers without SEA/EMEA coverage need to spend hours retaking and re-upgrading everything, which is doubly hard because the SEA/EMEA players had lots of time to upgrade things making them extra hard to retake.

timezone disparity puts players in equal time zones on unequal footing. the time zones that inherit a better position from players to the east have the advantage.

but I do agree that 8 hours seems very short, considering the effort required to upgrade something. there have been times I spent 4-6 hours getting a waypoint built in garrison. why on earth would I go to all that effort only to have it vanish 2-4 hours later? upgrades either need to build a lot faster, or matches need to run longer (say, 7 matches of 24 hours each).

-ken

GvG Section in EOTM

Proposal Overview
A section of EOTM similar to that of obsidian sanctum where there are no annoying NPCs / buffs which allows for different guilds to enter and have GvG matches outside of their match ups
Goal of Proposal
This would solve the inability of certain guilds to have fair fights against one another in an isolated environment.
Proposal Functionality
Create an “add-on” section of EOTM similar to obsidian sanctum
Associated Risks
Griefing by non participants

DevonCarver.5370:

Matches last 8 hours, there are 21 matches in a week with the same 3 worlds, the winner of the week is the world that wins the most matches over the course of that time.

Sorry, I don’t agree with you, this change would make keep/tower’s upgrades pointless.

DevonCarver.5370:

I’d say there is a pretty strong sentiment against the idea of collapsing all of WvW into 3 colors, rather than the current world set up. Which I agree with. I think world pride and association is an important part of the way that WvW works currently.

Here’s a possible version of shorter matchups that wouldn’t necessarily sacrifice the long term fight of a WvW matchup currently and wouldn’t involve merging everyone into one of three teams.

Matches last 8 hours, there are 21 matches in a week with the same 3 worlds, the winner of the week is the world that wins the most matches over the course of that time.

This solves some of the problems we see currently, namely the issues that can arise as matches get out of hand towards the end of the week. However, it would still give worlds with better coverage a leg up on their opponents. It also loses the feeling that you’ve had a long term battle for victory.

I’m curious what you all think of that? Does it retain the feeling of victory in WvW right now and solve problems or does it just introduce more issues without solving any core concerns?

Yes please. Total map domination in this case will never last longer than 8 hours. Upgrading keeps and towers would require another system or decrease of cost tough.

DevonCarver.5370:

I’d say there is a pretty strong sentiment against the idea of collapsing all of WvW into 3 colors, rather than the current world set up. Which I agree with. I think world pride and association is an important part of the way that WvW works currently.

Here’s a possible version of shorter matchups that wouldn’t necessarily sacrifice the long term fight of a WvW matchup currently and wouldn’t involve merging everyone into one of three teams.

Matches last 8 hours, there are 21 matches in a week with the same 3 worlds, the winner of the week is the world that wins the most matches over the course of that time.

This solves some of the problems we see currently, namely the issues that can arise as matches get out of hand towards the end of the week. However, it would still give worlds with better coverage a leg up on their opponents. It also loses the feeling that you’ve had a long term battle for victory.

I’m curious what you all think of that? Does it retain the feeling of victory in WvW right now and solve problems or does it just introduce more issues without solving any core concerns?

I would still prefer the time-slices version ( proposal 4 in https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/Nerf-the-domination-of-Coverage/3462970 and https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/wuv/wuv/Night-protection-1/3281118 and some following).

I think it has 2 advantages:

1) Matches are longer 7 times 8 hours = 56h so it matters to keep things, build them up, defend them.

2) If night/day/evening match are counting to the same match-win you still get the “average”-performance of the server, even if the server profiles are very different in their time-distribution. Average-performance means you, e.g. as a server with good night, mediocre day and bad evening may match on average with a server that has bad night mediocre day and good evening, making evening and night very boring and one sided.

I would prefer three-rankings instead of this averaging, such that you face different servers in the different time-slices and each is in that time-slice as good as you are. E.g. as good nigh-server you face good night-servers in the night, as bad evening server you face bad evening servers in the evening and as mediocre day server you face mediocre day servers.

Afterwards you can combine the time-sliced ratings into a (4th) total glicko if you like. But do use the time-sliced ratings for matchmaking.

Devon, the point is that coverage should not ever determine the win. Nobody should have a ‘leg up’ over the competition based on numbers. This is what we’re trying to get away from, for the benefit of everyone. Trust me, I understand what the coverage war feels like first hand, up here at the top. It sucks.

It’s not the game I want to play, and it’s not what this should be about. Sure, my proposal wasn’t perfect, but it at least aimed to even out the matches

I too think that fast travel locations are an interesting aspect of EotM that would be a nice addition to regular WvW.

I like Devon’s idea so long as it doesn’t reset the upgrades every 8 hours. But that wouldn’t be so bad as long as they lower the cost of upgrades. Having everything paper all the time might make things more interesting.

titanlectro.5029:

DevonCarver.5370:

Matches last 8 hours, there are 21 matches in a week with the same 3 worlds, the winner of the week is the world that wins the most matches over the course of that time.

Could you weight the matches, based on how “lopsided” they are?

Hypothetical Scenario:
Green team has a large “morning crew” and brings three times more players than Blue or Red team. Obviously, Green team will always win the “morning” match. The “evening crew” for each team is equal.

Could the “value” of winning any 8 hour match depend on the ratio of participation between the teams? In this way, Green will always win the “morning” match, but it would not be as significant as the “evening” match where the teams are balanced.

That’s a very bad idea. Servers that know they will be undermanned in a particular session could simply boycott that session to minimize the points gained by the opposition.

DevonCarver.5370:

I’d say there is a pretty strong sentiment against the idea of collapsing all of WvW into 3 colors, rather than the current world set up. Which I agree with. I think world pride and association is an important part of the way that WvW works currently.

world pride is all well and good on servers where “WvW works currently”. but there are servers where it’s not working, and if you’re on one of those servers your choices are to limit yourself to EotM or transfer to another server. neither of these options is compatible with “world pride”.

further, while EotM is a fun way to pass the time, it’s not particularly fulfilling if the gameplay you’re after is the gameplay represented by the WvW scoreboard. again, if you’re on one of those servers where WvW isn’t working, your options are to stay on a sinking ship (giving up any kind of fun gameplay for the sake of world pride), or transferring to another server. the latter option is the only reasonable one to expect (it’s not reasonable to ask a player to put up with a bad WvW experience simply due to pride) and to add insult to injury, such players are doubly penalized: to escape a situation not of their own making, they must give up their world pride, and they must pay you, Arenanet, to relocate to another server.

while I don’t have a problem with discouraging server-hopping by charging gems to transfer, I do not see any reason why I should have to pay $22 to fix a gameplay problem I didn’t create.

and yes, I know I can use gold instead. at current exchange rates that’s about 107gold, which is an enormous sum considering that I’ve been playing pretty consistently (20+ hours per week) since early access and in that time I’ve managed to accumulate 258 gold.

anyway, I’m getting off track. my point is, “WvW works currently” does not apply on every server. I know that the servers that have the most WvW players and the most competition are the logical place to focus your attention in terms of bang for the buck, but I’d argue that the servers where WvW isn’t working are the ones that need your attention the most, because if you can’t do that you will never escape the stacking problem and all that comes with it.

-ken

DevonCarver.5370:

I’d say there is a pretty strong sentiment against the idea of collapsing all of WvW into 3 colors, rather than the current world set up. Which I agree with. I think world pride and association is an important part of the way that WvW works currently.

Here’s a possible version of shorter matchups that wouldn’t necessarily sacrifice the long term fight of a WvW matchup currently and wouldn’t involve merging everyone into one of three teams.

Matches last 8 hours, there are 21 matches in a week with the same 3 worlds, the winner of the week is the world that wins the most matches over the course of that time.

This solves some of the problems we see currently, namely the issues that can arise as matches get out of hand towards the end of the week. However, it would still give worlds with better coverage a leg up on their opponents. It also loses the feeling that you’ve had a long term battle for victory.

I’m curious what you all think of that? Does it retain the feeling of victory in WvW right now and solve problems or does it just introduce more issues without solving any core concerns?

Devon, I applaud you for offering an open minded approach, but I’m not sure I agree with your conclusions. First of all, there are LOTS of people who are less concerned about the pride and association with any particular server than you might gather from the comments in this thread. Just about every player who jumped servers to get into better matches (more activity, different skill levels, better coverage, etc) implicitly decided that server pride was a secondary consideration … and we all know how many players that includes. What happened to using in-game polls to get more statistically accurate assessments of such issues? I thought that was one of the assurances we got from an earlier CDI Process thread with Chris.

Secondly, although I really like the idea of shorter matches (and 8 hours seems fine to me), it doesn’t change the fact that the server with the greatest average population and and greatest coverage will still always win. In essence, all you’re proposing is making 8 hour ticks in addition to the 15 minute ones. We still need to come up with some way to balance population and broaden coverage … or remove their leverage.

EotM doesn’t have much in my regard. It has a dodgy map which favours aoe and zerging. Most people just karmatrain there. Not the place to go if you want strategic fights. But then, there isn’t any place to go if you want strategic fights at the moment.

Really what you guys should do is open transfers to lower tier servers and get some variety… after all, getting some variety in the match ups and some new faces would really keep people interested in the short term …it would allow some servers to get a bit of a boost and keep things interesting

it’s a good idea for a short term bandaid