Guild Wars 2

DevonCarver.5370:

There have been far too many proposals here for me to directly comment on each of them, so I’m going to try and take a broader stab at things.

snip

we get that or something (well, i guess i can only speak for myself), your comments are precisely what i want to see regarding your thoughts. do it more! as a spokesman for the wvw team, its important to us to know that youre listening, you get what were driving at or kittened at or what we like, and that youre pondering these things yourself.

im really glad to hear youre pondering the idea of adding tactical/positional advantages to holding objectives. it isnt my idea, but i think itd add a lot to the game in the way of defense. i think a rework of current maps is slightly more feasible. you can use all the assets that are already developed, theres no need to totally reconstruct terrain or flavor elements.

Kraag,

First of all let me just say that the amount of thought you’ve given this is quite impressive. In fact, with your veritable wall of text I’m pretty sure your suggestion would easily deserve a thread of its own. In any case, if you’re up for continuing, here’s a somewhat more interesting can of worms for you to consider:

Q9: An epic battle occurs in supply camp X between zergs from server A and server B. After a minute or two, but still within the time frame of the same “defend the X” event, only a few players from server A and server B are still standing. A small havoc group from server C then sweeps in, pushes the remaining players out, and steals camp X. Which rewards are given, and do those rewards accurately reflect the events that transpired?

Q10: Transferring this problem onto open field battles, can a group of stealthy thieves from server C engage in a battle between zergs from servers A and B and earn an inordinate amount of points from any stomps they pull off (perhaps even if they’re not responsible for downing the targets they stomp)? If yes, do you consider this an acceptable drawback?

Q11: How do you determine what exactly is the right radius for measuring the numbers involved in a battle with respect to determining the value of a stomp? Isn’t it the case that the size of the area in which any given conflict occurs will inevitably vary – sometimes a great deal – based on variables such as relative group size and make-up, the tactics employed, siege used, terrain features, and so on? How do you reach an acceptable compromise? Playtesting will deliver no definitive answer here, and you have to draw the line somewhere.

Q12: Is it a problem that some classes have skills that allow them to move around while they are downed (i.e. moving away from the battle to diminish the score earned from their death)?

Q13: How does the system deal with the potential for players trolling/sabotaging their own server by tagging enemy objectives, thereby triggering “defend the X” events that the opposition will profit from? Can this tactic be employed by servers who wish to put themselves in a “kingmaker” position by freely donating points to another server? Since you pay a price for merely tagging an enemy objective, does the system to a certain degree invalidate diversionary tactics (i.e. tagging an important target with a small squad while the main force attacks something else)?

Q14: The zerg from server A arrives at supply camp X to resupply. While they are there, a thief from server B drops out of stealth and attacks a camp NPC, triggering the “defend the X” event and flagging all players from the zerg as defenders. Are the players from server A now effectively “slaves to the event”? That is, if they leave, and the camp is then flipped while the “defend the X” event is active, will server B receive an inordinately large reward due to the amount of defenders that the system thinks are present (but actually aren’t)? Must the players from server A wait until the first “defend the X” event is nearly expired, then quickly jump out before the next event begins in order to be “liberated”? Do we end up with a system where servers are disproportionately awarded for enlisting a handful of thieves whose only purpose is to follow the enemy around and engage in opportunistic tagging of objectives?

Q15: An example to illustrate the shortcomings of the model (as you recognized, but never dealt with, in A8c) goes as follows: server A attacks keep X held by server B with 30 players. Server B has but a single scout present, and decides not to defend. The keep quickly flips. As per A8, server A is awarded 30 points for capturing the keep, while server B is awarded (30-1)/1 + 3 = 32 points for their supposed “defense”. Do we end up with a system that rewards servers for hiding single players within objectives in order to “minimally defend” their structures? And how can this be addressed?

Q16: More fundamentally, isn’t it true that basing rewards earned on the amount of players present creates “right” and “wrong” amounts of players to attack/defend with, and that that opens up the potential for “excess” players to effectively become persona non grata? That is, if a group wishes to attack/defend with as few players as possible to minimize risk and maximize reward, additional players could and should be actively discouraged from participating because their presence will negatively affect your potential score?

Q17: Out of curiosity, what (if any) scores/penalties are awarded if an attack on an undefended structure – for whatever reason – fails?

That should do it for now. Your ball.

style.6173:

The other big question to the community is how to reward defense. You don’t want to reward the person who just afk in a tower.

One small thing to reward defensive play would be a reward for destroyed supply via traps and other weapons. You could grant let’s say 2 WXP per destroyed supply. And you could add a bigger reward (WXP, badges…) for destroying a certain amount of supply like 100, 200, 300 and so on. People who are AFK would not benefit from this.

Another issue is the event for defending a structure. It grants you the same amount regardless you repaired a wall attacked by a catapult or you killed all invaders in the lord room. You could introduce several tier for the reward depending on the level of defensive investment that was neccessary. Sometimes the event even triggers despite the outer yard of your keep is crowded with attackers.

You could introduce an event for repairing all walls/doors after an attcks has failed. The event colud start 5 minutes after an attack has ended and need a certain threshhold of overall damage to be triggered. Another events could be introduced for unlocked siege weapons (cannons, mortars, oil) in objects.

Thanks for the insight Devon.

DevonCarver.5370:

Firstly, something that I’ve seen in more than one proposal and something that we just can’t do in our game, is the idea of consolidating maps or making larger maps. It is a problem on multiple fronts, but the most obvious issue is that we simply can’t fit more players onto a map than we already have, so even if we were to make a larger map, we couldn’t have a corresponding increase in the number of players on that map. Proposals that rely on that idea are simply untenable.

I think there’s something to be said for increasing map size without having a corresponding increase in player population. Greater distance between objectives and less options to traverse that distance quickly (WPs) puts more emphasis on larger groups being aware of where they are, and where the enemy is… Since it will take more time to reach an objective to defend or assault it. Of course you do run the risk of making the map “feel” empty, but there could be some merit to the idea from a gameplay and tactical sense.

In any case, I agree with the idea that more specific changes to the maps are a better place to start. Unique terrain, like that tower before a narrow canyon, can influence fights in such drastic ways. It really makes everything so much more interesting.

DevonCarver.5370:

That somewhat feeds into a larger issue that is outside the bounds of this particular topic which is defending objectives. It is absolutely the case that we have a hard time correctly tracking defense and rewarding players for it. It is something that we’d like to address on a system level and something that we hope to have a solution for across the board before we do any piecemeal changes. It ultimately comes down to a similar issue to that with the dolyaks, which is that the game isn’t able to track who is escorting a dolyak unless they do something like kill another player which doesn’t usually happen. Until we fix that gap in the game’s knowledge of what is going on, we can’t accurately reward players.

About rewarding defense, wouldn’t just getting in combat mode in a defense event area allow to track the player defense or activity in the defense event?

It would be more precise than just being there (AFK players in combat mode are usually dead players – they usually go AFK in a safe spot),
but less hard to achieve than kill a player and less bad for the team than putting supply in a wall?

Khalic.3561:

Thanks for the insight Devon.

DevonCarver.5370:

Firstly, something that I’ve seen in more than one proposal and something that we just can’t do in our game, is the idea of consolidating maps or making larger maps. It is a problem on multiple fronts, but the most obvious issue is that we simply can’t fit more players onto a map than we already have, so even if we were to make a larger map, we couldn’t have a corresponding increase in the number of players on that map. Proposals that rely on that idea are simply untenable.

I think there’s something to be said for increasing map size without having a corresponding increase in player population. Greater distance between objectives and less options to traverse that distance quickly (WPs) puts more emphasis on larger groups being aware of where they are, and where the enemy is… Since it will take more time to reach an objective to defend or assault it. Of course you do run the risk of making the map “feel” empty, but there could be some merit to the idea from a gameplay and tactical sense.

In any case, I agree with the idea that more specific changes to the maps are a better place to start. Unique terrain, like that tower before a narrow canyon, can influence fights in such drastic ways. It really makes everything so much more interesting.

It needs choke points guarded by towers, like in EOTM, instead of flat huge surfaces like the BL maps. What makes EOTM so much better is that it also is vertical. Changing the BL terrain (removing the flatness of it) and adding forts would be a good starts.

Xillllix.3485:

Khalic.3561:

Thanks for the insight Devon.

DevonCarver.5370:

Firstly, something that I’ve seen in more than one proposal and something that we just can’t do in our game, is the idea of consolidating maps or making larger maps. It is a problem on multiple fronts, but the most obvious issue is that we simply can’t fit more players onto a map than we already have, so even if we were to make a larger map, we couldn’t have a corresponding increase in the number of players on that map. Proposals that rely on that idea are simply untenable.

I think there’s something to be said for increasing map size without having a corresponding increase in player population. Greater distance between objectives and less options to traverse that distance quickly (WPs) puts more emphasis on larger groups being aware of where they are, and where the enemy is… Since it will take more time to reach an objective to defend or assault it. Of course you do run the risk of making the map “feel” empty, but there could be some merit to the idea from a gameplay and tactical sense.

In any case, I agree with the idea that more specific changes to the maps are a better place to start. Unique terrain, like that tower before a narrow canyon, can influence fights in such drastic ways. It really makes everything so much more interesting.

It needs choke points guarded by towers, like in EOTM, instead of flat huge surfaces like the BL maps. What makes EOTM so much better is that it also is vertical. Changing the BL terrain (removing the flatness of it) and adding forts would be a good starts.

Definitely agree. In fact more verticality is a good way to get more “distance” without simply having miles of terrain between points of interest.

mcarswell.3768:

Making the maps larger does not imply that we would want correspondingly more players on the maps. Just increasing the distances between objectives would give more opportunity for open field clashes, and more value to waypointed keeps.

This.

I think WvW needs some balance and mechanics tweaks more than anything else.

for instance dolyaks are extremely important since the supplies they deliver make a huge difference but there’s almost no mechanical support for defending them; a single player with a decent build can easily ignore defenders and kill the dolyak to counter this you need enough players to stop the attacker before they kill the dolyak which is difficult without immediate quantifiable incentives for defending them and is thrown out the window if a couple more enemies show up.

my proposal in this particular instance is having buff for the dolyaks that scales with allies near it (NPCs too) maybe 25% damage reduction per ally which would force the enemy to engage the defenders instead of simple hit and run although it should be turned of within a certain area around its destination for clutch plays and to reward dedicated raiders.

another example is SMC outer walls being almost useless given the amount of trebs hitting it around the clock meaning the attacking team only has to get through a single door to attack the lords room which is less mechanical defense than a keep.

my proposal for this is worker NPCs who run back and forth to repair the walls not fast enough to ignore treb damage but enough to require coordination with someone to get in through the hole in the wall and kill the workers this means the effectiveness of trebs isn’t diminished but the walls have some actual use besides anti-flip which the lord gets as a buff anyway.

also SMC should have another door it’s a castle not some flimsy keep!

other things that could use tweaks are effectiveness of defenders vs. attackers(travel time, scoring, running through enemy zerg to defend), targeting in regards to walls, mercenary camps, NPC functionality, and outpost upgrade versatility but as all i have for these is wild ideas with no real knowledge of how things would react with what’s in place or general game balance and in the pursuit of brevity i won’t go into detail.

I just want there to be a point to WvW and EotM beyond something we do just because…

While fun and enjoyment is certainly a nice reward, it can’t be the only reward if you plan to keep long time players interested.

There needs to be WvW/EotM unique skins.
WXP rank should unlock unique finishers (or just use the PvP ones…).
Ranking 1st/2nd/3rd should have a real impact on your play the following week (like in DAoC where you unlocked a unique dungeon or something).

I know this isn’t strictly related to EotM and all, but it’s a problem I’ve been having with this game for a very long time. I can’t play the class I want and I’m not rewarded in any fashion for playing the game at all.

At some point competetion will come out and this game will need something to win people back or to keep players from leaving.

Herr der Friedhoefe.2490:

DevonCarver.5370:

One final note about the CDI generally, I’ve said it before and will say it again, the purpose of these threads is to discuss design not to create a work order.

This is exactly why I have refrained from participating in this CDI, and will refrain from any future discussion. I’m sure I’m not alone in expecting some of our suggestions to be a part of a “work order”.

Really? This should have been done long ago. We’ve been asking for some of these things since day one. Instead we get handed material that we never asked for, and specifically don’t want.

You misinterpreted that statement. It’s a warning for those that believe their perspective = automatically added into the game. They don’t spend any time taking into consideration variables, and instead believe their opinion is right and HAS to be added into the game.

I see a lot of people say things like “this should have been in the game, that should be added, come on Anet add this”. Instead of wasting time demanding things (as you’ve just did), discuss issues and their potential solutions. Much better use of your opinion.

Remove the restrictions from supply traps (purchase with coins, not badges + karma; allow a single player to place more than one at a time).

DevonCarver.5370:

Firstly, something that I’ve seen in more than one proposal and something that we just can’t do in our game, is the idea of consolidating maps or making larger maps. It is a problem on multiple fronts, but the most obvious issue is that we simply can’t fit more players onto a map than we already have, so even if we were to make a larger map, we couldn’t have a corresponding increase in the number of players on that map. Proposals that rely on that idea are simply untenable.

The discussion point, proposal, whatever you want to call it, that I think is the most useful in terms of designing WvW maps and gameplay is the talk about how to build objectives that feel like they make tactical sense. I think that it is something that could definitely be improved in a new map or with a major rework to the current maps. Having logical and tactical objectives, like a tower guarding a canyon, is something that I think would greatly improve WvW in terms of moment to moment gameplay and longer term tactical gameplay.

Oh I agree, I can see why that is a problem.
Personally what I’d like to see is just better usage of the map space you have, so that it has more layers, nooks and crannies, terrain features. Uncrossable rivers and swamps that give you a debuff if your try to cross it at the wrong time, or caves the function like dark rooms, foggy forests and frozen wastelands.

So that every run between two points it’s always a straight line over flat featureless terrain. That you would have to navigate the terrain, esp if effects changes based on time. Sometimes you can cross that river and come up behind that tower, sometimes it’s raining to heavily and anyone who tries (without stability) will get swept away.

Such dynamic features would breed tactics and strategy. Something the game currently lacks. (esp since zerging is the first order optimal strategy against everything)
As you asked once about choke points, yes I think they should be more utilized, thou one can debate their usefulness, however these should be limited more toward short and direct paths.

Like for example having the north and south parts of the map split by and mountain range across the middle, and the direct path to the north stands a Garrison, that is guarded by three towers, and without these towers the garry is too well entrenched to take by just force of numbers.
However, there are also alternate paths, like a dark room cave labyrinth with traps and monsters, that can be activated by people in the garry. Or via a mini jumping puzzle you can go up and over the mountains, that periodically have blizzards that damage and chill players, like Jormag’s breath. It is also dotted with scout towers and small caves to take shelter from the storm. (sort of like that one fractal)

Situations like these where yes you can take the direct path, but it often includes having to take well positioned structures like towers or keeps, but offer other routes where the terrain itself is likely to kill you and it takes longer to go around.

DevonCarver.5370:

Firstly, I’d like to apologize for being out of this thread for so long, I’ve been reading your posts and think there are a lot of good points in here and just a lot of thoughtfulness in general. I do feel like the thread has kind of wound down, so I’d like to ask one more question and see if that brings up any more ideas.

Edge of the Mists has a whole host of differences from the WvW maps that we built before launch. One of those differences is the number of waypoints. Not only does each side only have 1 waypoint, but they can’t even capture and use the waypoints at enemy keeps. Do you think that the amount of travel that you have to put in makes the maps feel better? Does it feel like there is a consequence for dying and that you can whittle down an opposing force?

I’m curious what your thoughts are and if you think it would make the fighting better or worse in the borderlands and EB.

I am generally in favor of having fewer WP’s. But as others have rightly pointed out, hard rezzing is the true enemy here. It just obliterates balance.
So I have a simple suggestion.

If you get stomped, you get a debuff called ‘Defeated in Battle’, which makes you impossible to rez, period. In addition you have 30 seconds before you are auto rezzed at the original WP. The time is to allow you to choose somewhere else.
This would also go a step in stopping dead scouts.

Perhaps you could also include siege in apply the debuff.
The reason it shouldn’t always be applied is sometimes you just follow the wrong commander off a cliff, and people need rezzing sometimes.

But if your killed in battle, you should not have the opportunity to get back up.

lunatuna.6823:

Remove the restrictions from supply traps (purchase with coins, not badges + karma; allow a single player to place more than one at a time).

I think a trap mastery would work fine. I my opinion the tiers should include lower costs in supply, lower casting time, two taps are placeable and higher efficiency (hitting more players or lasting longer).

Traps for gold or gold + karma would be nice.

cleaderwoo.3914:

You misinterpreted that statement.

I understood the statement before the current CDI started, which is why I did not participate. When player comments and suggestions are not going to become a part of a “work order”, there is no reason to continue with comments or suggestions.

DevonCarver.5370:

Firstly, something that I’ve seen in more than one proposal and something that we just can’t do in our game, is the idea of consolidating maps or making larger maps. It is a problem on multiple fronts, but the most obvious issue is that we simply can’t fit more players onto a map than we already have, so even if we were to make a larger map, we couldn’t have a corresponding increase in the number of players on that map. Proposals that rely on that idea are simply untenable.

Like others have mentioned I’d be curious to know if this means that you can in fact make maps larger than the current ones, but simply can’t increase the player count.

On a more general note I’d also like to say that I think it’s a really good idea (and even necessary to a large degree) for you to comment more on the ideas of players, especially when we’re talking about the technical aspects of what the game can and cannot do. If we’re going to have a fruitful discussion about the nature and future of WvW, we need to be aware of the possibilities of the system – and you (a.net), being the developer, are the gatekeepers when it comes to that information. You hold all the cards, we hold but a few. I understand that parts of that information probably has to be kept under wraps, and that’s fine – I’m not asking you to hand us the entire source code or anything. But the quality of the debate does to an extent depend on how well players are informed about the game and its limitations. We can theorycraft for weeks on end, but it won’t do anyone any good if the ideas we discuss are stillborn from day one.

This, by the way, is true regardless of whether our ideas are technically impossible, or unrealistic in terms of resources required, or if they just make tradeoffs you are unwilling to accept. Telling players that their ideas won’t fly without making it seem like you’re arbitrarily shooting them down can be an exercise in tightrope walking at times, but I’ll bet the people who are genuinely interested in having a debate with you will understand. And that debate will be all the better for it.

Thank you for your time!

Herr der Friedhoefe.2490:

cleaderwoo.3914:

You misinterpreted that statement.

I understood the statement before the current CDI started, which is why I did not participate. When player comments and suggestions are not going to become a part of a “work order”, there is no reason to continue with comments or suggestions.

There’s a difference between demanding your comments become work orders, and adding your opinion to a discussion in which the devs can use (or build off of) to implement within the game. Surely you’re not understanding that, as you still hold your belief that there is no reason to contribute.

In response to ManaCraft’s questions

Q9: An epic battle occurs in supply camp X between zergs from server A and server B. After a minute or two, but still within the time frame of the same “defend the X” event, only a few players from server A and server B are still standing. A small havoc group from server C then sweeps in, pushes the remaining players out, and steals camp X. Which rewards are given, and do those rewards accurately reflect the events that transpired?

A9: I’ll break it down by each server’s actions (which is ultimately the spirit of my suggestion; rewarding the actions players take in the game rather than earning points over time by sitting on empty fortifications).

I’ll assume Server A is the owner/defender of the supply camp.

Server A

Server A attempts to defend the camp from server B. However, it is lost to server C, instead, before the end of the first “Defend the X” event. Though server B initiated hostilities, server C is responsible for the cap. Therefore, it’s against server C that server A is compared for the purposes of determining scores.

Server A failed to defend through the end of the first “Defend the X” event. There will be no points awarded for defending and no bonus points for multiple consecutive defense events. They lost the camp and lost it quickly. The fact that it was due to server C coming along to “steal” the cap is irrelevant.

Alternately, we could revise the scoring mechanic to reward the per-defense event award even when the defending server loses the objective. This recognizes the fact that server A at least made the effort to defend the camp. In which case, they would earn 1/10th of the cap value of a supply camp (whatever that turns out to be).

Then, additionally, they would be eligible for a bonus if their peak numbers were less than server C’s peak numbers (present at the camp) using the formulas given previously.

Server B

Server B initiated hostilities but failed to make the cap. They will earn nothing except undying hatred for server C.

Server C

Server C will be rewarded World Score points for capturing the supply camp. If their peak numbers are less than server A’s peak numbers during the single “Defend the X” event that was in effect, then server C earns bonus World Score points in addition to the base reward for capturing the camp.

If, on the other hand, their peak numbers were greater than server A’s peak numbers, they will receive a penalty to be deducted from the base reward for capturing the camp using the formulas given previously.

Server C is rewarded for being cunning enough or lucky enough to have captured the camp out from under servers A and B. Servers A and B have no recourse to complain because they enter WvW knowing this is a 3-way battle. To fail to take that into account, to always be looking over their shoulder, and plan accordingly is on them; not on server C.

All three servers

Servers A, B, and C will still be eligible for scoring World Score points from successful “Finish Them” moves performed during the course of the fight.

Q10: Transferring this problem onto open field battles, can a group of stealthy thieves from server C engage in a battle between zergs from servers A and B and earn an inordinate amount of points from any stomps they pull off (perhaps even if they’re not responsible for downing the targets they stomp)? If yes, do you consider this an acceptable drawback?

A10: I don’t know that I would classify this as a drawback. As stated in my response to Q9, WvW is a 3-way battle. Players should always have in the back of their mind the possibility they will have to fight both enemy servers simultaneously.

Understand, I don’t play a thief and I’m not stating the above in defense of thieves. Rather, I’m in support of the idea that players need to maintain situational awareness at all times while in WvW. If a group of thieves can safely navigate the clusterkitten of AoE that server A’s and server B’s zergs are pumping out to score a few stomps, then they deserve to be rewarded for their effort.

As to the points they would score for these stomps, I’ve revised my scoring suggestions in a couple previous posts and further down in this response through the introduction of hard caps of 5 for bonuses or penalties; regardless of what the calculations give as a result if in excess of 5. This was originally intended to cap the penalty that an outnumbered defender would apply to the score of an attacker; I’m leaning towards applying it across the board now.

(continued)

(continued)

Q11: How do you determine what exactly is the right radius for measuring the numbers involved in a battle with respect to determining the value of a stomp? Isn’t it the case that the size of the area in which any given conflict occurs will inevitably vary – sometimes a great deal – based on variables such as relative group size and make-up, the tactics employed, siege used, terrain features, and so on? How do you reach an acceptable compromise? Playtesting will deliver no definitive answer here, and you have to draw the line somewhere.

A11: Agreed on the need to draw the line somewhere. The line I choose would be either 1200 radius or 2400 radius. I start with 1200 because that is the max range of most player long-range skills. Thus the max range at which you can engage an opponent is the range at which enemy players will be tallied for the purpose of calculating stomp bonuses.

I would then lean towards 2400 radius to encompass the other variables that you mention. Players may stand outside the max range of their opponents’ skills, but for all practical intents and purposes are still engaged in combat. Thus it would make sense to have a larger radius to account for this.

Q12: Is it a problem that some classes have skills that allow them to move around while they are downed (i.e. moving away from the battle to diminish the score earned from their death)?

A12: I think a player using their downed skills to move to a location where there are fewer allies present in an effort to diminish the potential stomp bonus of their enemy is an example of smart play. Their “reward” isn’t points for themself or their server, but rather denying their opponent some points.

Furthermore, this is balanced. Moving away from allies in an attempt to deny an enemy bonus stomp points means assuming a greater risk of being stomped in the first place; there will be fewer allies in close proximity to either interrupt the stomp or resurrect the downed player. What’s more, if the tally radius is 2,400 units, it’s unlikely a downed player can move far enough to make an appreciable difference in the potential stomp bonus (ele, perhaps, being the sole exception).

Q13: How does the system deal with the potential for players trolling/sabotaging their own server by tagging enemy objectives, thereby triggering “defend the X” events that the opposition will profit from? Can this tactic be employed by servers who wish to put themselves in a “kingmaker” position by freely donating points to another server? Since you pay a price for merely tagging an enemy objective, does the system to a certain degree invalidate diversionary tactics (i.e. tagging an important target with a small squad while the main force attacks something else)?

A13: Yes, this is a potential drawback of my proposed scoring mechanic. How to deal with it?

If an empty objective is tagged and none of the owning server’s players come to its defense, then it’s a non-issue. The event would tick down its 3 minutes and – if no defenders show up at all – we can revise the scoring mechanic so no points are awarded to the owning server. The attackers get no points, either, because no capture was made.

If, however, this is done intentionally to troll/sabotage, it could be the case that objectives are tagged while defenders are present but with no intention of actually capturing the objective. In which case, the defending server would earn 1/10th of the capture value of the objective for that single uncontested “Defend the X” event.

This is one unintended consequence to which I don’t have a ready answer. Though I will give thought to how to resolve it, I would point out that there are no perfect solutions. For example, in the current WvW match, the server I’m on is dealing with trolls/saboteurs who are falsely reporting zergs attacking objectives, failing to report when zergs are actually attacking, and burning supply by ordering upgrades at inopportune times (like right in the middle of an attack by an enemy server).

This isn’t to excuse my lack of anticipating this issue; just an acknowledgment that there may be no ideal system to counter all potential abuses. I certainly don’t want to see diversionary tactics invalidated as I feel they play an important part in the game and provide smaller groups an active role in their server’s larger strategic goals. Let me think about it or suggest some solution of your own.

(continued)

(continued)

Q14: The zerg from server A arrives at supply camp X to resupply. While they are there, a thief from server B drops out of stealth and attacks a camp NPC, triggering the “defend the X” event and flagging all players from the zerg as defenders. Are the players from server A now effectively “slaves to the event”? That is, if they leave, and the camp is then flipped while the “defend the X” event is active, will server B receive an inordinately large reward due to the amount of defenders that the system thinks are present (but actually aren’t)? Must the players from server A wait until the first “defend the X” event is nearly expired, then quickly jump out before the next event begins in order to be “liberated”? Do we end up with a system where servers are disproportionately awarded for enlisting a handful of thieves whose only purpose is to follow the enemy around and engage in opportunistic tagging of objectives?

A14: A few potential outcomes can result from this scenario:

Outcome 1

Server A ignores the obvious contesting of their supply camp, moving on to their next objective. If the thief who contested the camp succeeds in capturing it, then server B’s “disproportionate” reward is the price server A pays for complacency.

However, we can amend the scoring system to reflect the open-field combat system as I suggested here to prevent blow-out scoring. Assuming server A’s zerg numbers 30, the thief would earn 5 bonus World Score points instead of 30 bonus points if they cap the camp.

Under the previous scoring system I had proposed, we would have divided server B’s numbers into server A’s number to arrive at a bonus for server B. Server A’s 30 / server B’s lone thief = 30 bonus points.

With the revised scoring system referenced in the post above, I placed a hard cap of 5 on the bonus points that a defending server can earn; even when the math would allow for an even greater bonus. The same limiter could be applied to attackers who are outnumbered; their bonus will not scale beyond 5 points regardless of the calculation of defenders / attackers resulting in a larger number.

Outcome 2

Server A ignores the obvious contesting of their supply camp, moving on to their next objective. The thief fails to capture the supply camp. Server B earns no points. Server A earns one World Score point for a successful “defense” of the supply camp.

Even though the rewards for a successful “Defend the X” event are 1/10th of the capture value, it’s unlikely this will equal a number greater than 1 since server A’s zerg so grossly outnumbered the lone thief from server B. Therefore, server A’s rewards are scaled down as a result.

However, as rewards will never drop below 1 point, server A still gets that 1 point. The thief, then, better be pretty confident in their ability to solo the camp; otherwise, they just gave server A a free World Score point.

Outcome 3

Server A has a few of their number split off from the zerg to remain behind and deal with the thief. Regardless of the outcome of the fight, this represents a more-or-less balanced engagement with the scoring mechanics calculated as per “normal” (normal being the new scoring system I’m proposing).

Outcome 4

The entire server A zerg remains at the camp for the full duration of the “Defend the X” event, allowing themselves to be tied down by a single thief. They will – in all likelihood – succeed in defending the camp and earning that 1 World Score point (while the thief stealths in the shadows, laughing at them).

Yes, they will become “slaves to the event” as you describe; not because the mechanics force them to, but because they made a poor choice of how to deal with it when better options were available.

Q15: An example to illustrate the shortcomings of the model (as you recognized, but never dealt with, in A8c) goes as follows: server A attacks keep X held by server B with 30 players. Server B has but a single scout present, and decides not to defend. The keep quickly flips. As per A8, server A is awarded 30 points for capturing the keep, while server B is awarded (30-1)/1 + 3 = 32 points for their supposed “defense”. Do we end up with a system that rewards servers for hiding single players within objectives in order to “minimally defend” their structures? And how can this be addressed?

(continued)

(continued)

A15: I posted two amendments to the scoring system here and here

With the revised system, here’s how the scoring would be calculated now:

• Server A has 30 players.

• Server B has 1 player.

• We’ll assume the keep falls before the expiration of the first “Defend the X” event.

• The keep awards 30 points on capture (keep in mind all such numbers are hypothetical and loosely based on the objectives’ current values in WvW; it’s very likely these value would increase dramatically to compensate for the concomitant elimination of PPT under my proposed system).

• Server A outnumbers server B; server A will receive a penalty to their score for outnumbering their opponent. This is calculated by dividing server A’s numbers by server B’s number then subtracting the arrived at value from the base award value of the keep. 30/1 = 30 point penalty.

• However, to address the potential for score manipulation by the defending side, I introduced a hard cap of 5 points maximum for the penalty. Therefore, server A will take a 5 point hit to their point reward. 30 points for the keep – 5 point penalty = 25 points for capturing the keep.

• Server B gets no points for the defense of the keep because it fell before the expiration of the first “Defend the X” event. Alternately, they are rewarded for this one defense event. In which case, their reward under the old system would be as you stated: (30 – 1) / 1 = 29 bonus points for fighting outnumbered + 3 points for a defend event = 32 points.

• With an amended scoring system in which we place a hard cap of 5 on any such bonuses, server B earns 8 points, instead: (30 – 1) / 1 = 29 bonus points (scaled down to 5 due to the hard cap) + 3 base points for the “Defend the X” event = 8 World Score points for the defense.

• Alternately, alternately…server B earns no points for a failed “Defend the X” event but is awarded their outnumbered bonus. In which case, server B earns 5 World Score points.

With the amended scoring, the points being awarded are commensurate with the level of effort (more or less) that a server commits to attack or defense and relative to the numbers they face.

Q16: More fundamentally, isn’t it true that basing rewards earned on the amount of players present creates “right” and “wrong” amounts of players to attack/defend with, and that that opens up the potential for “excess” players to effectively become persona non grata? That is, if a group wishes to attack/defend with as few players as possible to minimize risk and maximize reward, additional players could and should be actively discouraged from participating because their presence will negatively affect your potential score?

A16: Yes, this could become an issue. In an effort to address one “evil” (disproportionate rewarding of the shallow, single-tactic zerg meta), I may have introduced a new “evil” (“ideal” numbers, elitism, disenfranchising players). It may then become a case of which is the lesser of two evils; carrying on with the current blob-wins-all scenario or moving towards a situation where players are actively encouraged to split up and spread out across the map in smaller groups.

I’m open to other suggestions that resolve the numbers-greater-than-skill situation we’re currently facing. As WvW isn’t a dueling arena where players can pair off and battle one another in a vacuum without interference by other players, I find it problematic, though, to measure skill and reward merit in the absence of taking the numbers into consideration.

In a duel, there is no concern over outside forces interrupting a fight. In WvW, however, facing greater numbers and prevailing IS a measurement of a player’s skill (or should be, IMHO; it isn’t currently); in diametric opposition to the skills employed in a duel. My argument is any scoring system that doesn’t factor player numbers into its calculations invalidates – to a degree – the skill and effort of a player in WvW.

Duels are about 1-vs-1 fights, while WvW is about fighting against increasingly overwhelming odds. However, there’s currently no in-game scoring system which rewards players for beating those odds. Consequently, this leads to those with the overwhelming odds being rewarded, instead; resulting in the clusterkitten we have now.

The argument that “…additional players could and should be actively discouraged from participating because their presence will negatively affect your potential score?” would be valid if there were only a single objective to battle over. As there are multiple objectives, though, there’s ample room for players to split up into multiple groups of “ideal” numbers and go about the map capping simultaneously.

(continued)

(continued)

There’s also the consideration that though an “ideal” number may exist for maximizing one’s score at a particular objective, there’s more to the fight than just the score. An attack force may want additional players among their ranks as a buffer against a push by the defenders, they may want the additional supply capacity that a larger force allows, they may want to cap more quickly to prevent a prolonged siege in which the defenders earn increasing World Score points and bonuses from a string of consecutive successful “Defend the X” events, etc. I see the “ideal” evolving to become the optimal number needed to maximize one’s score + X (as a buffer, extra supply, speed of capping, etc.).

It may certainly be the case that an inexperienced commander who’s unable to see beyond min/maxing will rail against extra players above the “ideal” who follow his or her tag. That’s not actually all that different than what happens today, though, with these same commanders complaining about “noobs” and “pugs”. The experienced commander who has a deeper understanding of the scoring mechanic will see the value of having a few extra players tagging along above the “ideal” number.

Q17: Out of curiosity, what (if any) scores/penalties are awarded if an attack on an undefended structure – for whatever reason – fails?

A17: I hadn’t considered any direct penalty for the attacking side. I think the fact that they’ve wasted time and – potentially – siege blueprints failing to capture an undefended objective from which they were not going to earn any points anyway – when they could have attempted to earn points from a defended structure or open-field combat – penalty enough.

The defenders get nothing, either, as they didn’t rally to the defense of their structure. Their “reward” – if you want to call it that – is that the enemy failed to cap the objective, sparing them a loss of points equal to half the capture value (if that portion of my suggested scoring system were implemented, too).

Herr der Friedhoefe.2490:

cleaderwoo.3914:

You misinterpreted that statement.

I understood the statement before the current CDI started, which is why I did not participate. When player comments and suggestions are not going to become a part of a “work order”, there is no reason to continue with comments or suggestions.

where do you think the transfer payment structure for s2 came from? player comments. mistforged weapons? player comments, theyd just have another mini and limited use finishers.

you need to figure out how to lobby devon if you wanna get kitten done. convince everyone with logic and make sure you think through your arguments. anet listens, but it takes 6+ months to implement. i can see some of my own influence on matchmaking and now transfers, but its not just 1 comment or a single person or thread.

Well, I for one find Kraag’s scoring system fascinating.
Score should be used as a incentive system to encourage particular kinds of play.
Currently the objective and scoring system only favors mindless zerg tactics, force in numbers and little else.

Tactics and strategy just don’t enter into the current incentive structure.

From page 9:

something that I’ve seen in more than one proposal and something that we just can’t do in our game, is the idea of consolidating maps or making larger maps. It is a problem on multiple fronts, but the most obvious issue is that we simply can’t fit more players onto a map than we already have, so even if we were to make a larger map, we couldn’t have a corresponding increase in the number of players on that map. Proposals that rely on that idea are simply untenable.

I can certainly understand that. Heck, I play WvW and EOTM a lot and the maps are huge enough as it is already – my only problem is that when I enter EOTM, sometimes (well…ok, A LOT of the time), I enter an overflow, and there is absolutely NO ONE on the map. What’s worse, is there is no option of ever going to a more populated EOTM instance/overflow. Players in under populated EOTM overflows are then taken advantage of with enemies literally taking EVERYTHING they have because they know that you are low on numbers and can’t do jack about it. It just isn’t fair at all.

What I propose in these situations is that there be an option to join a more populated EOTM instance/overflow if someone leaves them – similar to how queues work for WvW. That way, players stuck in under populated EOTM servers that are getting trampled on, at least get the opportunity (eventually) to move to a more higher populated instance/overflow where, chances are, it’s a more even playing field.

This wouldn’t require more players in the map either, OR larger maps, but it WOULD alleviate the unfairness of unbalanced EOTM overflows.

cleaderwoo.3914:

Herr der Friedhoefe.2490:

I understood the statement before the current CDI started, which is why I did not participate. When player comments and suggestions are not going to become a part of a “work order”, there is no reason to continue with comments or suggestions

There’s a difference between demanding your comments become work orders, and adding your opinion to a discussion in which the devs can use…

I did that, and nothing happened. Many others had the same comments, and nothing happened. I’m done commenting. I’m sure I’m not the only one.

In terms of the whole ‘running’ thing in EOTM:

I REALLY like the fact that our keeps automatically have waypoints. Don’t change that. It cuts down on tedious running across the whole map. I think it would be handy to have more rope bridges to places though. For example, when playing on the blue team of EOTM, I find it frustrating that, if I want to go from the ‘Workshop’ to I think it’s the ‘Arid Fortress Reactor’? (The supply generator directly below the middle bridge of the 3 bridges that fork from the keep) I have to go ALL the way around, across the main bridge, and jump off, just to get there. There needs to be more shortcuts.

In terms of professions and their running… I find it extremely frustrating on my Mesmer how her only running skill is the focus #4 skill, and I shouldn’t have to constantly use it just to keep up with the zerg – in fact I often find myself falling behind.

My only other option here is to buy 6 superior runes of speed for a constant 25% increase in movement – why should I have to do this? They cost at least 2g each, so that’s me forking out 12 gold just to keep up with the zerg. It’s unfair, and I don’t want to have to fork out 12g to find out later on that the superior rune of speed was changed/nerfed.

I think ALL professions should have at least 1 signet skill that gives a passive 25% increase in movement. One of the reasons people don’t like playing Mesmer is the lack of movement – I’ve heard it many times from friends and people in general.

Proposal Overview

Manual upgrading and other busywork. These are meant to be done by one or two players that are otherwise just sitting in that tower doing nothing but refreshing the siege every now and then.

Goal of Proposal

Making defense a little more ‘active’ and more easy to reward.

Functionality

Manual upgrading

Instead of leaving all the upgrading to the worker, we can now use supply to speed up some of the upgrades ourselves. The upgrade event would now have some pointers as to where they are currently working. We can then use the ‘repair’ animation to upgrade that wall or door.

Associated risks

Upgrades go a bit quicker, this could make it harder to keep the enemy from building a waypoint.

Keep-traps

In the upgrades menu of a tower or keep there is now the option to purchase several traps. These could be spikes, supply traps or alarms (in that order) These upgrades could be set simultaneously with other upgrades, but can only be build by players. (Like the burning oil for example, but these would cost less supply to make)

They would be set outside the tower or keep in specific spots. An enemy would have no way of knowing of the trap, until it triggers. (Unless they have spotted the player building it)

Associated risks

This would make it a bit harder to capture a tower or keep and easier to defend. Which may not be a bad thing?

Training the Recruits

Through talking with NPC’s we can select a training option where we just duel with the NPC. An NPC will gain a level after the fight. (Any level-ups through upgrades are added to this) This could be done in the form of an event.

Associated risks

This would make it a bit harder for small groups to take a tower or keep. (Which may not be a bad thing?)

DevonCarver.5370:

It is absolutely the case that we have a hard time correctly tracking defense and rewarding players for it. It is something that we’d like to address on a system level and something that we hope to have a solution for across the board before we do any piecemeal changes. It ultimately comes down to a similar issue to that with the dolyaks, which is that the game isn’t able to track who is escorting a dolyak unless they do something like kill another player which doesn’t usually happen. Until we fix that gap in the game’s knowledge of what is going on, we can’t accurately reward players.

This made the Living Story escort quests very frustrating, too. I was quite often the only one (or one of two people) escorting NPCs. I used a healing build, cc, invis to keep NPCs up through mobs, aoe, etc. They arrived at their destination (sometimes, like with the Lighthouse quests, I saved just one) but I never received event credit, because I wasn’t able to DPS enough to kill anything along the way.

I fulfilled the objectives, but it would have been much more rewarding to go bag farm and leave the NPCs to die.

I understand that ANet doesn’t want to make healing disproportionately important, but I’m glad that you guys acknowledge the problem. This is where I wish you guys had learned from AION (also published by NCSoft) which also did not count healing as a contribution to events (fort seiges penalised an alliance’s healers because it only counted damage dealt and especially number of kills, but you couldn’t siege without healers) until they noticed that support classes had just stopped showing up. They fixed that, so it can be done.

Kraag,

First of all, apologies for missing your revisions to the system in subsequent posts (unfortunately I posted my last reply without double checking). Anyway, I feel we’ve come far enough at this stage that we’ve begun to discover the root problems which the discussion will ultimately reduce to. For the record, it’s not inherently a bad thing that a solution has problems – as I’ve mentioned previously in this thread, all of them do. It’s just a question of which drawbacks you’re willing to accept.

That being said, I think the problem with your solution (and similar ideas) mainly reduces to the fact that it relies on setting arbitrary limits to enforce its mechanics, and that those limits, no matter what they are, will from time to time for one reason or another fail to accurately reflect events on the ground, thereby leading to players feeling that they are being unfairly treated. Examples of this include the 2400 unit range stomp distance, or the five point limit on the outmanned bonus. While I certainly agree that some values for these variables are better than others, it is impossible to find values that always (or even almost always) lead to acceptable outcomes. This is what I was referring to in my earlier post when I mentioned that some of the problems you will run into have no sufficiently satisfactory answers. A certain amount of outlier scenarios will always be beyond your ability to compensate for, and if you attempt to do so, other scenarios pop up in their place. It’s a never ending game of whack-a-mole.

Furthermore, if players begin to realize what those outlier scenarios are, and how to reliably trigger and avoid them, the incentives promoted by the system begin to distort the gameplay instead of aiding it. Not that I feel abuse of the system (especially conscious abuse) is a terribly compelling argument in and of itself – it’s just more relevant for your type of system than other types, and I threw Q13 at you mainly just to hear your thoughts on it. The strongest objection, incidentally, I feel is Q16. If you’ve read previous posts by a.net on the issue, you’ll know that players being able to have an objectively negative impact on the game is something they strive very much to avoid, a sentiment that I happen to agree with. You would have to offer some very compelling reasons indeed for me to even begin thinking about accepting that particular handicap.

Finally, allow me to thank you for an extremely thorough defense of your ideas. You’re also brutally honest at times about the drawbacks of your system, which is admirable (even though there are certain things I consider drawbacks that you don’t, but that’s to be expected). I definitely agree with you that 1) incentive structures need improvement and that 2) differences in numbers (i.e. coverage) have an undue impact on WvW gameplay – but for the reasons outlined above, I think you’re unlikely to see your solution implemented (although parts of it might be). Personally I believe the closest we’ll ever get to WvW becoming an accurate reflection of player skill is ensuring that it is as likely as possible that all three sides are able to muster an equal amount of players to throw around the map as they please. That’s the item I feel should be at the top of the agenda.

Well EotM is good testing ground for defending rewards, because now nobody defend there. I like to place and play there a lot, but makes me sick when players don’t even try to fight in PvP map. Maybe killing enemies while defending should give much much better loot. Of course then players would just keep doors open and kill enemies inside keep. Other problem is attacking rewards. Taking empty tower gives same reward than tower that if full of defenders.

ManaCraft.5630:

[snip]

Thank you very much for the debate.

All posts I make here on this forum I take with a grain of salt, realizing they have only slightly better than a snowball’s chance in Hell of ever seeing implementation.

It’s less about whether my suggestions are adopted verbatim and more about being the thorn in the side, the fly in the ointment, the…you get the point. If by posting I can call attention to aspects and mechanics of the game that are falling short of reaching their full potential, then I’m content in the knowledge that I’ve helped improve the game; if only by the tiniest fraction of a percent.

I do firmly believe the scoring mechanics and incentives in WvW are 100% completely out of whack in favor of zerg, blob, zerg, blob, invalidate the efforts and skill of players who refuse to – on principle or circumstance – to engage in that cluster-F, and which are NOT what the developers originally envisioned WvW to be. I also accept that my revised scoring system is almost (not quite) equally out of whack. But if my suggestions serve to call attention to the imbalances and inequities of the current WvW format, then I’ll call that a win.

I do hope the developers will take a very long, hard look at how to reward the efforts of WvW players across the full spectrum of activities that one can contribute to in that game mode as well as come up with a scoring system that corrects the absolutely, unequivocally, and grossly imbalanced favoritism shown to those who use overwhelming numbers rather than skill to accomplish their goals.

If my posts in any way, shape, or form contribute to that outcome – no matter how minuscule – then I consider that a victory.

I just want to jump in and mention that we really need a Borderland change up. In the past, they were designed with keeps that had the primary purpose of holding Orbs of Power. But with that mechanic changed, we have the issue with the Borderlands not making much logical sense. So next we’d need to decide what’s the main and important point of the Borderlands.

If it’s the keeps and the points they represent, then towers should be placed in such a way to help defend major paths to the keeps. They can then work as proper outposts and watch for zergs/militia/whathaveyou.

If it’s the middle area and getting the new version of the Orb of Power buff, then that entire area needs to have more ways of interacting with the rest of the map, even if it’s just better routes into each of them from the outside. Just like towers used to be necessary as they made great staging points for sieging a keep, a keep would then become more necessary as areas to deploy troops into the Borderland center by using their waypoints.

Personally, I’d prefer if keeps were the primary reason. But there’s merit to having something else be the major focus so that you can get a balance excuse to keep waypoints in keeps and cut down on travel time to parts of the battlefield. But then I’d also like better routes to keeps from spawn (for when they’re taken) ala Eternal Battlegrounds.

I’m suddenly having deja vu… maybe I did post in this thread before?

Proposal Overview:
Combine alternate scoring methologies with short timespans.

Goal of Proposal:
A problem with current WvW is that the scoring system is static and consequently the playstyle is static and currently hyper-optimized. This is a case where introduction of a little variation might help.
The short time scales on EotM limit the scope of an individual match’s effect so it’s difficult to have a snowball situation wherein the match is decided in hours but the final disposition drags on for the remainder of the week. However, even these short time scales are insufficient to change to overall outcome.
Therefore it should be considered alternate scoring systems which weight different things, which will hopefully result in different behaviors and highlight different aspects of play. (I’ll neglect to be specific on scoring systems and leave that detail for general discussion)
Combined with a short time frame for these scoring cycles you avoid drastically impacting overall outcome, but still hopefully keep the game play fresh, or at least give outnumbered players something productive to do.

I would further suggest rotating these scoring systems across the maps to move populations across maps as their preferred playstyle moves. Simultaneously, this would hopefully provide all players a place to play the way they prefer. This breaks down somewhat on servers which can queue all maps.

Yoh.8469:

I am generally in favor of having fewer WP’s. But as others have rightly pointed out, hard rezzing is the true enemy here. It just obliterates balance.
So I have a simple suggestion.

If you get stomped, you get a debuff called ‘Defeated in Battle’, which makes you impossible to rez, period. In addition you have 30 seconds before you are auto rezzed at the original WP. The time is to allow you to choose somewhere else.
This would also go a step in stopping dead scouts.

I think stopping ppl from rezzing is not a good solution.
I’ll counter propose with a corpse interaction “Dispose of Corpse” or “Bury”. This removes the corpse from the immediate battlefield. Final destination is negociable, I’d suggest a graveyard or something, potentially close to the home spawn.

Functionally I’d suggest just reusing the rezzing routines, but have different effects. Third party teleportation may not be a feasible solution however.

Also this counter proposal does not address battlefield rezzing where your foe controls the battlefield.

So we are stuck with small rectangular maps with low populations for the rest of GW2’s lifespan? In the year 2014 the best Anet could do was was this? DX9, terrible optimization, a map full of zones (WoW has an open world with tons of players in single areas, DX11, etc and is way older) and no hope for anything more?

This may sound like a troll post, but it isn’t. The future for GW2 is not very bright. The inherent limitations make this game a permanent last gen game forever. Guess I’ll be spending my 25-60 bucks a month on another game here soon. Don’t worry I won’t tell your investors though I doubt they would be happy to hear this.

Thanks for the ride Anet, but I’m not going to support such a narrow minded company. It is 2014, get it together please.

DevonCarver.5370:

Both of the above things are ways to substantially change the necessity of tactics in the game and to make WvW more about well-organized groups. That’s something we still aim for when we make changes to the game.

I think that there is a big misconception about what needs to be done to WvW. To specify, there is no need to invest large amounts of resources to help well-organized groups. Why? Because well-organized groups are in advantage by default. The difference between well organized group and blob is the difference between character with consumables and 25 might + protection permanent upkeep and blank character. There is no need to incentivise play in organized groups more. (if you don’t agree, clarify why internally it was decided to focus on well-organized groups).
More than that, focus on well-organized groups promotes solo players to join these well-organized groups as a zerg tail just because you can’t achieve anything by yourself.

What needs to be done, is to invest resources to promote small groups in WvW. 1-5 players that can contribute to war in the mist and also get rewards.(i personally don’t care about rewards untill gameplay is fun, but others do, so…)
Don’t misinterprete me, large well-organized groups of players will still be powerful, just because they are well-organized. But if you don’t provide stuff to do to small groups, then all there is in the game are well-organized groups and zerg tails of these groups.

wickedkae.4980:

So we are stuck with small rectangular maps with low populations for the rest of GW2’s lifespan? In the year 2014 the best Anet could do was was this? DX9, terrible optimization, a map full of zones (WoW has an open world with tons of players in single areas, DX11, etc and is way older) and no hope for anything more?

This may sound like a troll post, but it isn’t. The future for GW2 is not very bright. The inherent limitations make this game a permanent last gen game forever. Guess I’ll be spending my 25-60 bucks a month on another game here soon. Don’t worry I won’t tell your investors though I doubt they would be happy to hear this.

Thanks for the ride Anet, but I’m not going to support such a narrow minded company. It is 2014, get it together please.

It is true. As long as there isn’t a concerted effort set in motion coming down from the very top of the company to address the core issues with the game’s engine and gameplay design, there is no future to the large scale PvP/RvR in this game.
But ANet has very clearly signalled where it sees the future of GW2.

And like yours this post might sound trollish too, but over the past two years I have spent so many, many hours writing long elaborate analyses and proposals to remedy WvW, all gone ignored and uncommented (not to mention unimplented). Which would be fine, if I at least saw some development effort put into WvW to begin with.

Proposal Overview
Changing the way we score in WvW, following the scoring method in EOTM

Goal of Proposal
Lack of scoring diversity, and not much incentive on defending a point

Proposal Functionality
In EOTM we get an amount of points for flipping an objective, and there’s no objective upgrades like WVW.

Here’s what I propose:
Objectives will automatically upgrade the longer you have them (you can make it as a cap point, the size of the objective, so that people needs to be inside to make the progress go up). Objectives keep their current upgrade system, and the upgrades are automatically done in a way that most player upgrade said objectives.

The more upgraded an objective is, the more ppt it generates. Also, the more points it gives to the enemy who flips it.

Associated Risks
Camping the objective for “event” farming

Baels.3469:

The response to this CDI seems underwhelming compared to not only previous WvW CDI’s, but also other currently active CDI’s.

I’m not being snarky, but to an extent, I think this is reflective of the lack of attention we have received as World versus World players.

Sorry but could you explain what happened to the previous CDI threads???

• Server Balance: “Oh hey guys, it’s actually working as intended”
• Commander: “What about we make this icon super awesome big and visible for the player himself”

Sure… that was exactly what we needed…

DevonCarver.5370:

I think if you examine more closely what you just said, you can see the problem. The progress was being given to anyone standing around near the dolyak when it ended its path. That is hardly accurately tracking who helped it out. Without a good way to know who actually helped, we can’t provide adequate rewards.

Well the issue is that the “Event” is still in the game, you still get bronze, silver or gold “award” for escorting a dolyak, but you get no reward for it.

One would think that this is because devs were “working” on a fix….still waiting I’m afraid. Along with so many other fixes which are required. :/

DevonCarver.5370:

Kraag Deadsoul.2789:

DevonCarver.5370:

It ultimately comes down to a similar issue to that with the dolyaks, which is that the game isn’t able to track who is escorting a dolyak unless they do something like kill another player which doesn’t usually happen. Until we fix that gap in the game’s knowledge of what is going on, we can’t accurately reward players.

This statement is confusing. At launch, an “Escort the Dolyak” event existed which rewarded karma on successful completion. That reward/event was removed from the game because bots were scripted to farm the event by following the yaks. The bots received the reward without having to engage in combat.

It was great fun while it lasted because real players could farm the farmers who either didn’t fight back or fought poorly. Was hilarious to watch 12 bots slowly walking along beside a yak only to be mowed down by real players.

Of course, this had to be removed from the game. However, historically, it appears the game is capable of tracking who is escorting a dolyak.

I think if you examine more closely what you just said, you can see the problem. The progress was being given to anyone standing around near the dolyak when it ended its path. That is hardly accurately tracking who helped it out. Without a good way to know who actually helped, we can’t provide adequate rewards.

We’d be less hungry for rewards if things weren’t so expensive. You can help defensive players by cutting their costs, not just increasing their rewards. Defensive play is the most expensive, it includes the most siege placed (attackers place less siege per location, I’d say) and it includes upgrades.

I right now don’t at all see what use upgrade gold costs are. Maybe you can explain to me why they’re in the game ‘cause I don’t see it? It’s not a sink for almost everyone but it’s just a drag on a very few people. The very few people are the defensive players who need more rewards in WvW. If we can’t give them rewards for walking a dolyak, just make sure they aren’t punished when the dolyak successfully gets to its location.

DevonCarver.5370:

Kraag Deadsoul.2789:

DevonCarver.5370:

It ultimately comes down to a similar issue to that with the dolyaks, which is that the game isn’t able to track who is escorting a dolyak unless they do something like kill another player which doesn’t usually happen. Until we fix that gap in the game’s knowledge of what is going on, we can’t accurately reward players.

This statement is confusing. At launch, an “Escort the Dolyak” event existed which rewarded karma on successful completion. That reward/event was removed from the game because bots were scripted to farm the event by following the yaks. The bots received the reward without having to engage in combat.

It was great fun while it lasted because real players could farm the farmers who either didn’t fight back or fought poorly. Was hilarious to watch 12 bots slowly walking along beside a yak only to be mowed down by real players.

Of course, this had to be removed from the game. However, historically, it appears the game is capable of tracking who is escorting a dolyak.

I think if you examine more closely what you just said, you can see the problem. The progress was being given to anyone standing around near the dolyak when it ended its path. That is hardly accurately tracking who helped it out. Without a good way to know who actually helped, we can’t provide adequate rewards.

Wouldn’t be more effective to include a check on the events like the PvE version of a similar event. So let’s say you are escorting a dolyak, why not spawn a couple of guards or why not make is so that ever minute or so the dolyak can needs to be helped in a way. This will give more importance to protecting them while at the same time rewarding participation.

DevonCarver.5370:

I think if you examine more closely what you just said, you can see the problem. The progress was being given to anyone standing around near the dolyak when it ended its path. That is hardly accurately tracking who helped it out. Without a good way to know who actually helped, we can’t provide adequate rewards.

In theory this seems like a simple problem to “solve”. You just need to check who’s near the dolyak at a number of points along its path and not just the end. If someone is there at a certain number of points then they get credited for participation (gold/silver/bronze as applicable).

This could be done by placing a number of checkpoints along the dolyak’s route and having the game check to see who was near the dolyak when it reached those checkpoints. Or you could just check to see who’s near the dolyak every 30s or every 100m it walks or whatever.

How about this as a solution:

Introduce PvE mobs that hinder the escort of the Dolyak?

So for the whole route that the Dolyak takes, spawn several mobs along the route that put a condition on the Dolyak. The mobs shouldn’t kill the dolyak, but impede progress so that not escorting them will make resupply longer. You can do this by introducing immobilizes and cripples.

In the background, GW2 will check contribution to the escorrt by # of kills/dmg done by players. It would also take into consideration non-PvE activity.

edit: Just realized someone else also mentioned this idea a few posts above!

hum…
not sure how to put it…
but…

Most Dolyak are already attacked by PvE mobs that appear on its passage…

The issue with the above is that it will becomes a thief’s buffet.

A backstab can take up to 5000 hp from you, so imagine the thieves just hiding round the corner waiting for you to save your dolly from those pve mobs designed to slow down your dolly, you have half your health left after killing the mob and then, you’re dead, the thief jumped out and took you down in 1 hit.

If WvW even got a quarter, a tenth or even a twentieth, of the attention PvE has received it’d be more well balanced.

DevonCarver.5370:

Kraag Deadsoul.2789:

DevonCarver.5370:

It ultimately comes down to a similar issue to that with the dolyaks, which is that the game isn’t able to track who is escorting a dolyak unless they do something like kill another player which doesn’t usually happen. Until we fix that gap in the game’s knowledge of what is going on, we can’t accurately reward players.

This statement is confusing. At launch, an “Escort the Dolyak” event existed which rewarded karma on successful completion. That reward/event was removed from the game because bots were scripted to farm the event by following the yaks. The bots received the reward without having to engage in combat.

It was great fun while it lasted because real players could farm the farmers who either didn’t fight back or fought poorly. Was hilarious to watch 12 bots slowly walking along beside a yak only to be mowed down by real players.

Of course, this had to be removed from the game. However, historically, it appears the game is capable of tracking who is escorting a dolyak.

I think if you examine more closely what you just said, you can see the problem. The progress was being given to anyone standing around near the dolyak when it ended its path. That is hardly accurately tracking who helped it out. Without a good way to know who actually helped, we can’t provide adequate rewards.

The “we don’t have a good way to track this” problem has been referenced for months and months.

Is this a “game engine” problem, where the game engine people need to build the functionality into the game so that the WvW devs have the tools they need?

If yes, then what is the status on this? It’s obviously a major weakpoint for WvW, but the game engine programmers have to serve every mode of gameplay. Is this functionally high on their “queue?”

If no, then what is the roadblock?

I realize you have limits on what you can tell us, but please share whatever you can!

DevonCarver.5370:

Kraag Deadsoul.2789:

DevonCarver.5370:

It ultimately comes down to a similar issue to that with the dolyaks, which is that the game isn’t able to track who is escorting a dolyak unless they do something like kill another player which doesn’t usually happen. Until we fix that gap in the game’s knowledge of what is going on, we can’t accurately reward players.

This statement is confusing. At launch, an “Escort the Dolyak” event existed which rewarded karma on successful completion. That reward/event was removed from the game because bots were scripted to farm the event by following the yaks. The bots received the reward without having to engage in combat.

It was great fun while it lasted because real players could farm the farmers who either didn’t fight back or fought poorly. Was hilarious to watch 12 bots slowly walking along beside a yak only to be mowed down by real players.

Of course, this had to be removed from the game. However, historically, it appears the game is capable of tracking who is escorting a dolyak.

I think if you examine more closely what you just said, you can see the problem. The progress was being given to anyone standing around near the dolyak when it ended its path. That is hardly accurately tracking who helped it out. Without a good way to know who actually helped, we can’t provide adequate rewards.

I think I might have an answer for you.
Early in the game, in the Norn starter area there is this one heart quest for the Wolf Spirit, where among other things you escort wolfs as they go hunting.
Every couple of seconds while you stand in it’s AOE, you gain just a little bit towards your heart.

What if the Dolyak or whatever you want to escort sort of worked the same.
Hidden from view (or not) is a heart like event, that gradually fills up as you escort it. So activities such as killing other players or NPC mobs that attack add to this gauge.
However, you only get the reward on a full gauge if the dolyak reaches it’s destination.

So if you escort it from beginning to end, you will get a reward even if no one attacks.
If somebody does attack and you kill them, then you will get the reward even if you left after that point. (so long as the dolyak makes it)

-

This kind of approach could be used for all sorts activities where your expected to hang around something a lot.
Say for defending a keep, instead of rewarding players on a fixed time basis, you have a filling gauge that passively increases, but can increase in chucks when taking certain actions, like damaging or killing players, destroying siege, repairing, etc.
Once it fills, your rewarded, and the gauge resets.
Perhaps even increasing in rewards each cycle so the longer you’ve been participating the more your rewards.

At the end, you could be rewarded again as part of a meta event, as long as you actively did something during this time.

For example, if you showed up only at the last minute but killed somebody, it’s not enough to fill the gauge by itself, but it is enough to be rewarded by the meta event, if only a bronze or silver.