Guild Wars 2

So, after reading a large amount of posts on the forums, I wanted to iterate over the current mechanisms in place in PvP and why all of the problems are closely related. Please consider the following:

Players who are complaining about afk/idle players:

I have noticed the majority of these players try in the beginning, yet eventually stop playing. Why do they stop? Unfortunately, because this game only rewards wins and not your personal score or effort. Basically if you are stuck in a bad match, it doesn’t matter how well you play.

There needs to be a reward to players for effort….things such at captures, kills, anything on the map that is objective-based…and I don’t just mean personal score, but more than that. The lead contributor of the losing team can have a higher score than the last place players on the winning team if you make it effort-based….which leads us to…

Rank players up according to their contribution, not their lucky lottery draw of a team.

This will keep more players coming back…even if they lose a match…because the loss will not matter as much and only how well they personally did will. No one wants their success to depend on variables (other people) which they have ZERO control over.

Eliminate “leeching” …

Players who leech from seasoned players are perpetuating a bad cycle. They advance when they shouldn’t and thus the league system is not a true reflection of talent or perseverance. The above scenario will ensure that these players are in their proper rank and must step it up in order to advance.

I thought about making this a lot longer, but realistically the reason people stop playing PvP isn’t necessarily because they don’t WIN every match, but rather because they aren’t rewarded properly when they lose. People should be rewarded for effort, as it takes some people longer than others to advance….but discouragement will simply encourage a lack of players which is not good for subscriptions/revenue.

So, to summarize positive changes to the PvP system:

PLAYERS SHOULD BE REWARDED FOR THEIR PERSONAL CONTRIBUTION, NOT AS A RESULT OF RANDOM TEAM ASSIGNMENT

ELIMINATE IDLE PLAYERS BY REWARDING ACTIVE PLAYERS AND PUNISHING IDLE PLAYERS

ALLOW SEPARATE SOLO QUEUE AND TEAM QUEUE OPTIONS.

(solo players could still be allowed to queue in team queues, however they would receive a warning message that they will be fighting teams. Solo queue instances however would prevent other players from using premade strategies and TeamSpeak coordination to gain the advantage over other players, thus ensuring randomness rather than stacked matches.)

ALLOW PLAYERS TO LEAVE MATCH AT THE END, OR JOIN PARTY, BUT NOT FORCING THEM TO REMAIN IN GAME AFTER THE FINAL SCORE…MAKE THIS AN OPTION…NOT FORCED

They had separate queues before and team even though you could queue solo was 100% dead.

A personal MMR based on performance is hard to achieve in a game like GW2 since score rarely indicate how well you done. A druid who bunkers up a point a literally never lets it go even in a 2v1 but never kills the attackers would end up getting probably lowest score on the team even though he probably was the biggest contributing factor.

Having an MMR based on points would promote the worst thing in the game and that is point capture, you don’t gain anything by all standing on a point yet people do it for the points you get. If there’s no incoming threats you should literally go find something else better to do than all sit on one point to get the score from it.

A personal MMR system would have to look at the damage dealt, healing done, solo kills and etc that you can see at the end of a game.

I was not suggesting it be based on one factor, in fact I was suggesting that even more factors be considered. Since you don’t like the suggestion, i guess there is little reason to try once you realize youre outmatched. Making it seem like it is impossible to achieve? I have played at least 2 other games with something like this. It basically rewards ACTIVE players and penalizes INACTIVE players. If someone is against this, it has to make me wonder which one of those types they are…

What would you consider an inactive player then. If a bunker is sitting on a point and never moves from it but the point is never contested because the enemy is too scared to fight the bunker for some reason, do you count that as inactive even though he’s doing his job?

It’s not as simple as Black and White.

Nyhmz.3672:

What would you consider an inactive player then. If a bunker is sitting on a point and never moves from it but the point is never contested because the enemy is too scared to fight the bunker for some reason, do you count that as inactive even though he’s doing his job?

It’s not as simple as Black and White.

That’s bad play though, makes it 4v5 for the rest of your team. For all intents and purposes he’s inactive.

fishball.7204:

Nyhmz.3672:

What would you consider an inactive player then. If a bunker is sitting on a point and never moves from it but the point is never contested because the enemy is too scared to fight the bunker for some reason, do you count that as inactive even though he’s doing his job?

It’s not as simple as Black and White.

That’s bad play though, makes it 4v5 for the rest of your team. For all intents and purposes he’s inactive.

It’s not a bad play since it effectively shuts down whatever roamer they have, if the enemy team starts balling up 5 people on a single point then they’re gonna be in trouble because they can then easily get roamed on.

No if you have one guy sitting on a point afk all game even if you hold it you’re gonna be in trouble on the other 2 points since it’s effectively 4v5. You are helping no one by sitting on a point you own perpetually.

Even if they do a 2/3 split onto the other 2 points, you will have maybe 2 on each point so the 2v3 side will probably lose and they can snowball it and watch respawns and outnumber your team all game.

It is totally bad play and it amazes me you can’t see this.

fishball.7204:

No if you have one guy sitting on a point afk all game even if you hold it you’re gonna be in trouble on the other 2 points since it’s effectively 4v5. You are helping no one by sitting on a point you own perpetually.

Even if they do a 2/3 split onto the other 2 points, you will have maybe 2 on each point so the 2v3 side will probably lose and they can snowball it and watch respawns and outnumber your team all game.

It is totally bad play and it amazes me you can’t see this.

It actually depends on how effective his enemy is at killing him. In theory if he holds the point 100% all game (is immortal) then it is effective. Even if he contests it 2+vs 1 (him) it is effective. But if he loses the point and sits on it then it is ineffective. There are really too many situation where different strategies are effective this could work with the right rotation by his team but… that’s not afk cause he still uses skills…

However, if the OP wants what he suggests then I can forget winning and simply kill as many players as possible to rank up which could mean I’m a legendary loser?

If you’re constantly holding in place 2 players or even 1 while you own the point then yes you’re doin good. If you’re just afking on the point while you own it then that is bad play which is what he wrote in his first scenario.

You’re basically not helping your team at all if nobody’s coming to fight you for the point and making your own team outnumbered elsewhere. This isn’t some super secret strategy, it’s just simple math if you AFK all game you’re going to lose the other 2 points assuming same skills.

This is just one of many screenshots I have that have the opposing team with 10x the amount of points. Also, note that it isnt only one player with the low score, but rather the entire team which has been matched. This is because it will put groups of amateur players against veterans, basically already a guaranteed win for the vet team. If it were otherwise, the team scores would be much closer to each other.

If that’s not enough, notice the fact that we are camped at the base because our efforts to get points were denied. All of these things are related to one factor….how they decide to assign teams to individual players.

So, is it really fair to put NBA players against Elementary School kids? You decide….
#AfkWontGoAwayUntilMatchesAreFair

Reveille.8397:

This is just one of many screenshots I have that have the opposing team with 10x the amount of points. Also, note that it isnt only one player with the low score, but rather the entire team which has been matched. This is because it will put groups of amateur players against veterans, basically already a guaranteed win for the vet team. If it were otherwise, the team scores would be much closer to each other.

If that’s not enough, notice the fact that we are camped at the base because our efforts to get points were denied. All of these things are related to one factor….how they decide to assign teams to individual players.

So, is it really fair to put NBA players against Elementary School kids? You decide….
#AfkWontGoAwayUntilMatchesAreFair

I wonder how you got those 49 points when im looking at your build. What did you expect? That anet looks for the most crappiest builds in queue to match them against you? You cant expect to win a formula 1 race if youre driving a bicycle.

Reveille.8397:

This is just one of many screenshots I have that have the opposing team with 10x the amount of points. Also, note that it isnt only one player with the low score, but rather the entire team which has been matched. This is because it will put groups of amateur players against veterans, basically already a guaranteed win for the vet team. If it were otherwise, the team scores would be much closer to each other.

If that’s not enough, notice the fact that we are camped at the base because our efforts to get points were denied. All of these things are related to one factor….how they decide to assign teams to individual players.

So, is it really fair to put NBA players against Elementary School kids? You decide….
#AfkWontGoAwayUntilMatchesAreFair

A-are you running zerker engie or something? What’s with your heal?

Like, you guys don’t have a single guy who can hold a node. Maybe if you ran a legit scrapper build you could’ve done something better…

Reveille.8397:

This is just one of many screenshots I have that have the opposing team with 10x the amount of points. Also, note that it isnt only one player with the low score, but rather the entire team which has been matched. This is because it will put groups of amateur players against veterans, basically already a guaranteed win for the vet team. If it were otherwise, the team scores would be much closer to each other.

If that’s not enough, notice the fact that we are camped at the base because our efforts to get points were denied. All of these things are related to one factor….how they decide to assign teams to individual players.

So, is it really fair to put NBA players against Elementary School kids? You decide….
#AfkWontGoAwayUntilMatchesAreFair

who uses turrets? and net/flame at that? no turrets have been of any use outside of stronghold in pvp in forever, and even then they’re only useful defending the first gate, after that they revert to their usual useless state

So far, last 3 posts are only proving that the developers make “unviable” builds, forcing people into “cookie cutter” specs, and that only strengthens the fact that players are compensating for low damage output by only using certain skills and builds. The question you should be asking is why the developers included skills that are weak….That is a separate issue though….I am only one player, and my entire team was amateur. Having one new player on your team is ok….Having 5 vets on one and all noobs on the other is different…

I’m just going to withdraw my OP…

Let more players go afk on teams..

Force us to use only 1 or 2 builds to viably PvP

Allow teams to consist of all skilled vs all amateur

This is probably what it will take for them to realize why their active users population has been steadily decreasing, and I assure you it isn’t because of PvE. Only after they follow in the footsteps of games like “Age of Conan” will they realize that PvP is team-centric and if you are new or amateur and get stuck with other amateurs… your entire match is dictated from the beginning. This isn’t a “git gud” situation because you are dealing with an entire team, not just one singular player.

The people who talk badly on here run premade groups or just take their chances with luck and hope to get a good random matchup, but these are the same people on my team raging and spamming whispers at every player on their team because they lost and telling them how bad of a player they are. Im pretty sure if both teams had an even amount of “bad players” then the scores would be relatively even. You players know d*** well you have been on the receiving end of this before and yet a discussion about PvP team selection somehow turned into an attack on a certain player’s BUILD. I would love to know how people can 3v5 and win a game, and yet one player’s build automatically makes other players bad? Where is the logic here?

Reveille.8397:

So far, last 3 posts are only proving that the developers make “unviable” builds, forcing people into “cookie cutter” specs, and that only strengthens the fact that players are compensating for low damage output by only using certain skills and builds. The question you should be asking is why the developers included skills that are weak….That is a separate issue though….I am only one player, and my entire team was amateur. Having one new player on your team is ok….Having 5 vets on one and all noobs on the other is different…

the reason why Turrets are not viable in pvp is because when they once were the comunity kittened and moaned about them so much that anet nerfed them into oblivion. the skills weren’t always weak, but unfortunately when enough people complain for long enough they are forced to do something about L2P issues due to the overwhelming number of people that are unwilling to change their own builds/playstyles to compensate

Reveille.8397:

. This isn’t a “git gud” situation because you are dealing with an entire team, not just one singular player.

actually it is, because if you are a bad player, and you are also using a build that is no where near viable, then you are going to consistenly lose & have your MMR drop further and further into the pits of hell, where you will be teamed up against many people of the same caliber. though if they have been smart enough to figure out (or look online for) a build that is currently viable then you will lose badly every single time.

with your build you are automatically making it a 4v5 (or at best a 4.5v5)

If that were the case, then I would have all losses (assuming I am a bad player, as I believe is being indicated here).

Further, isn’t every match going to have a combination of seasoned vs non-seasoned players?

Also, being that I just started playing that class, again….why are the devs forcing a single build in PvP that somehow we are supposed to magically figure out without playing?

Lastly, I don’t know how MMR is determined or what my ranking is but l don’t think being teamed up against other low caliber players would be a negative thing (to me). I realize everyone has different end-goals however….and we all take different lengths of time to reach those goals, but to assume that someone is always going to remain at exactly the same place and never advancing seems a bit extreme. Everything in life is learned through experience, trial and error, and implementing methods to improve. I would love to see someone who played guitar like Jimi Hendrix on his first time playing that instrument….