Guild Wars 2

Hey everyone, Xushin here.

I am currently talking around with other commanders (retired and still active) of my server and others to push for Battlegroups. If the idea is sound and we can get enough people of the community to back the idea, I can write up a formal proposal to outline the elements needed to prep WvW for post-expansion. What I need right now are commanders to chip in to improve and polish the idea for this submission. As such, I will go over the proposed fix and personal improvements I would make to WvW.

Proposed Battlegroup UI for WvW:

https://puu.sh/vpzR8/31aec0c63f.png
(Picture submitted by Synco of the Terror [TG] Guild)

Proposed Idea among the commanders I talked to:

The proposed idea will focus on redoing the WvW UI to keep coding as simple as possible for Anet. It will removing our current matchup UI and instead replace it with a fixed number of wvw instances (battlegrounds + ebg per battlegroup). The number of battlegroups available could be any amount determined by Anet to address population participation. Each person will be allowed to pick the color they wish to be throughout the week (THIS needs huge discussion, this is Synco’s idea lol). Each person will still retain their server without their server population severely impacting the matchup. Each battlegroup will have a gauge that indicates a low/medium/high activity level in the current matchup.

My response to the Idea:

The current system as it stands will lead to some detrimental effects to WvW participation rate in the upcoming expansion. Ignoring the supply/siege imbalance and class/ability imbalance, we are currently witnessing guilds hopping servers with the sole intention to retain and recruit as much players as possible in order to stabilize their ability to conduct a raid. This has some long term consequences because this impacts server performance and it can burn guilds out much faster than before. Because of this, I am increasingly convinced that Battlegroups is the way to go in order to help stabilize the routine for most guilds AND help militia commanders get back into the game. Being able to choose between a fight oriented, PPT style and Ktrain battlegroup will have huge impact to the participation rates of most existing guilds.

My thoughts how to Improve this system:

To go even further, I propose we turn the 24/7 matchmaking system into a 4-block 6 hour matchmaking system for the EU, NA, OCX, Sea timezones. Each block will have 3 skirmishes (1 for every 2 hours). Essentially, we turn the Battlegroups into some quasi EOTM system. Obviously, Siege/supply/upgrades will need to be rebalanced. After the timezone block is over, everything resets for the next match. Doing it this way will do 3 things. First, it raises participation at the start of the timezone that will play out throughout the block just like in EOTM, making the matchup predictable to join/leave at each stage throughout the block. Secondly, this will allow commanders/players to be able to play on their terms (allows roamers to roam, ktrainers to pick a map suitable for them, and fight guilds to pick highly active maps to battle). Finally, this solves the timezone “nightcapping” issue, as this allows off hour guilds to congregate to maps that are more active instead of being divided in the current matchmaking system.

Obviously, this is just a thought right now, but personally I think this is the winning move to reform WvW and get it back on track. I know this sounds like a coding nightmare for Anet, but this is why we must give input to this. I would definitely play WvW fulltime if something like this gets put into place as the third leg for this game.

So if I’m understanding this right, if a player is on a green server that matchup, they can play in any tier on the green side, but they’re locked to that tier for the duration (6 hours) of the matchup.

Could be fun? I’m a bit curious how “fight guilds” and “ppt guilds” will find each other on the right matchup.

I definitley think shorter matchups are the way to go though.

Isnt this callet edge the mist?

No thanks. Again no thanks.

I think timeslices is the way to go for WvW, but a 6 hour block would mean that there’s a handoff between guilds mid-block. There’s no way most players would be able to play for 6 hour blocks.

You can divide NA into a three hour EST raid and a three hour PST raid, so the second skirmish would see a transfer between timezones. Is there something similar for OCX, SEA and EU?

The mockup of this is basically what elder scrolls online does with their wvw system (ava alliances as they put it). You are able to pick a map as your home map which gives you bonuses, but you can visit other maps during that time. Right now you are allowed to switch your home map for free, but they might start putting in a fee to do so later (they don’t have a lot of map instances available so it’s kinda pointless right now).

There’s 3 sides, you’re allowed to join a map of a game type, they have a few which are:
1. Level 50 champion points disabled.
2. Level 50 champion points enabled.
3. Below level 50.
4. Resource race.

The same could be implemented for wvw with:
1. Regular wvw as it is right now, PPTick PPKill PPCapture.
2. PPK and PPC. Optional.
3. PPT only from camps, PPC. Optional.
I would go with 1 and 2 for now.

In eso they only have one huge map to deal with, but with wvw in each of those game types you could present multiple map sets, so (ablx3 ebg), or (dblx3 ebg). How many map sets available will depend on the total population we have for wvw.

So here’s how it finally could set up:
A) You choose a side/color to represent.
(In eso this is already chosen for you as it’s sides by race, but you can enable playing on whatever side with an account upgrade). You may change this color/side for a fee (the regular 1800 gems once per week).

I would suggest they go with actual names and themes for sides and not just a color like eotm. Like for example Durmand Priory Mist Champions (Green), Order of Whispers Mist Champions (Blue), Vigil Mist Champions (Red).

B) Then you choose the map set that will be your Home.
The home campaign should provide additional bonuses for playing in it, for example 50% bonus participation points for your reward track. There should be a fee for changing homes after a grace period to allow players to settle into servers, but at the same time try to prevent bandwagons, I would suggest it be one of the wvw currencies not gems.

You can visit other map sets as your chosen color/side, you will not get the home bonuses. It should also be restricted to visit other maps at least once per 12 hours, like the old guesting feature they had for pve. You basically use this as an overflow when your home is queued and it allows you to play with friends on other maps. If both are queued then there’s eotm.

Group 1 – Regular WvW of PPT PPK PPC.
Zhaitan – (ABL/EBG) HOME (example).
Kekai Kotaki – (ABL/EBG) – OCX/SEA Encouraged.
Primordus – (DBL/EBG)
Mordremoth – (ABL/EBG) optional.
Jormag – (ABL/EBG) optional.
Kralkatorrik – (DBL/EBG) optional.

Group 2 – PPKill and PPCapture.
Grenth – (ABL/EBG)
Balthazar – (DBL/EBG)
Melandru – (ABL/EBG) optional.
Kormir – (ABL/EBG) optional.
Lyssa – (ABL/EBG) optional
Dwayna – (DBL/EBG) optional

EOTM will function as normal.

As for scoring you can already do the weekly scoring for the different zones, since we have the skirmish time blocks already you just need to add up the victory score of 3 blocks of 6 hours separately. So:
NA 8pm-2am est (this of course will be shortchanged in the beginning of the match since reset happens at 10pm est. but made up at the end of the match.)
OCX 2am-8am
SEA 8am-2pm
EU 2pm-8pm
That part wouldn’t need much to implement, the hard part with skirmish scoring and victory points are already done. I wouldn’t really worry about the rest like supply upgrades and siege, if a zone wants to help out their neighbor zone with those I think that’s fine in promoting teamwork for that side.

gatsu.2813:

To go even further, I propose we turn the 24/7 matchmaking system into a 4-block 6 hour matchmaking system for the EU, NA, OCX, Sea timezones. Each block will have 3 skirmishes (1 for every 2 hours). Essentially, we turn the Battlegroups into some quasi EOTM system. Obviously, Siege/supply/upgrades will need to be rebalanced. After the timezone block is over, everything resets for the next match. Doing it this way will do 3 things. First, it raises participation at the start of the timezone that will play out throughout the block just like in EOTM, making the matchup predictable to join/leave at each stage throughout the block. Secondly, this will allow commanders/players to be able to play on their terms (allows roamers to roam, ktrainers to pick a map suitable for them, and fight guilds to pick highly active maps to battle). Finally, this solves the timezone “nightcapping” issue, as this allows off hour guilds to congregate to maps that are more active instead of being divided in the current matchmaking system.

Is this a suggestion for a single region?

Because if it is I dont care what the system does, single region will ruin WvW. If you think the lag is bad now it will be unplayable. It’s one of the core reasons ESO flopped hard – Zenimax promptly killed EU AvA at launch by their own kittenty server design.

Hey I just want to say that EOTM style system I’m suggesting is a secondary idea but the battlegroup suggestion is entirely its own thing. And to Dawdler, yes this will still be regional (NA and EU is separate) since, if I remember right, there is a technical limitation to do that on Anet’s side.

But here is an underlying problem I think people need to be aware of: it its hard to be excited for the current WvW system as it is. For militia commanders (I fall into this category), it is becoming really difficult to maintain momentum and focus in this system because it is simply too stale right now. Battlegroups will simply put you where the action is OR go to where the action is cooled off if there are too many groups hunting you down. Commanders must have options to maintain their runs as they see fit in order to rally more people or continue on with their existing players following them. My issue with guild groups is that they are too dependent to their drivers and are highly susceptible to participation shocks if the driver is using antiquated strategy or simply doesn’t show up. If WvW are to succeed in the future post expansion and for new players to take root into the game mode, we must focus on militia commanders as they are one of the many core players that carries this game mode forward.

I agree that the idea of battlegroups is the way to go to improve WvW. The current server/tier system is contributing hugely to guilds and players quitting or playing WvW less.

But, the proposed outline in the OP would make me and my guild play less. An EotM style system in normal WvW? Pass. The devil is in the details.

For battlegroups to work and improve WvW it has to make people care about the result of match-ups, it has to add some competition. It has to make people want to log into WvW and feel that their contribution matters to the outcome. And a big part of this is investing people in their “team” or community.

Since the reddit leaks last year talking about battlegroups there has been a fair amount of discussion that battlegroups would destroy server communities. But the truth is(and I say this having been involved in a number of different NA servers in a leadership position) server communities are already dead, or at least a shadow of what they were two or three years ago.

Properly implemented battlegroups could and would have to revitalize the community aspect of WvW, if constructed carefully.

I don’t see how this would stop things like the tournament server stacking or old T1 match manipulating. Players have shown repeatedly that they will screw over anyone to get what they want. Showing populations would just make all this easier..

You also have to keep in mind the powerful motivation rewards can be. Something would have to be put in place so that new players just don’t see “more numbers=more rewards”. Why work your butt off doing small scale/more skill based stuff on a low population map when you can LOLstaff1 in a huge zerg for the same results? Past pvp seasons showed how this works out.

zedapoc.1493:

I don’t see how this would stop things like the tournament server stacking or old T1 match manipulating. Players have shown repeatedly that they will screw over anyone to get what they want. Showing populations would just make all this easier..

You also have to keep in mind the powerful motivation rewards can be. Something would have to be put in place so that new players just don’t see “more numbers=more rewards”. Why work your butt off doing small scale/more skill based stuff on a low population map when you can LOLstaff1 in a huge zerg for the same results? Past pvp seasons showed how this works out.

Frankly stacking is never really going to be fully fixed, there’s only so much they can do to prevent players themselves from doing that damage. The only other thing that hasn’t been hammered on is lowering map caps, get those stacking players in queues, and force them to spread out. The reward system needs to be mostly personal rewards rather than server rewards, most of the rewards you earn should be for your personal contribution to the match.

Tournaments are never going to happen again, players in here say they don’t want it, they don’t even want to look at other optional ideas for them, so it’s done don’t even worry about it.

Perhaps I’m just missing it in the proposal, but it seems like this would encourage and steer players towards group stacking and map-blobbing type play over any others?

anet just needs to call up zenimax and ask to borrow their PVP set up for ESO. minus the sneaking bit.

I dont mind them to end the servers, but if they do that we need more maps with less structures, and structures need to offer something decent for guilds.

tresasure rooms
new siege (i always wanted to drive a huge charr panza) ._. and not the dumb transmogriffers…
and other stuff that would not creat power creep, just diferent tactics….

Caliburn.1845:

For battlegroups to work and improve WvW it has to make people care about the result of match-ups, it has to add some competition. It has to make people want to log into WvW and feel that their contribution matters to the outcome. And a big part of this is investing people in their “team” or community.

I couldn’t agree more. I wasn’t around for seasons, but from what a lot of people are saying, they want it back regularly.

I wasn’t around prior to links either, but from what I hearing, they were (mostly) implemented because people were angry about night capping and being outnumbered. And from what I understand, this is typical of every tier, regardless. Making WvW similar to EotM will not resolve this. EotM is often lopsided as well.

So I also vote with others on no thanks on the OP’s proposal without some major tweaking.

Micah.2108:

So I also vote with others on no thanks on the OP’s proposal without some major tweaking.

Well now you all know why Anet scrapped the battlegroups idea for links instead, links were the easiest change for players to stomach, devs also thought. Now they’re probably just sitting on links until the day players dwindle to the point they give up and finally all scream for hard merges or battlegroups. By the looks of this thread we’re not there yet.

XenesisII.1540:

Micah.2108:

So I also vote with others on no thanks on the OP’s proposal without some major tweaking.

Well now you all know why Anet scrapped the battlegroups idea for links instead, links were the easiest change for players to stomach, devs also thought. Now they’re probably just sitting on links until the day players dwindle to the point they give up and finally all scream for hard merges or battlegroups. By the looks of this thread we’re not there yet.

The main problem with WvW stems from two design flaws. The first was when Anet said that WvW wasn’t designed to be balanced and the second was when Anet said they thought that the players would balance themselves.

Only doing the easy fixes is what’s prolonging the agony.

The one thing the battlegroup needs is the ability to voluntarily pull players/guilds/squads from one instance into another to balance the sides or even allow players/guilds/squads to move from one side to another to achieve balance. I’d even allow pulling players from EotM.

Because players don’t seem to want the big changes, they are highly resistant to it, so Anet won’t rock the boat, even the small changes they make gets an uproar.

Yes it seems complete balance was never in mind, it would be insane to even attempt to completely balance huge server populations between 24 and 27 servers, even early on they said night capping is part of the game so live with it. They left it to players to balance tiers, and the players screwed it up over and over again.

Links look like they will stay because players are resistant to every other method that has been presented, even a solution to try and make links better. The next step they could do from here is guesting to other servers. They also need to develop some driving force for players to play and win the matches, because doing it for your server or community has basically died off.

They really should run polls on this stuff, even if there some who say polls are useless, we at least should get some actual sense of what the entire community is up for.

There’s another component. Reaction time.

If we could test something for a couple of weeks, provide feedback, and have it rolled back quickly if it was a disaster, that would be very different.

But when it takes ages to change or fix something that is wildly broken, people become more resistant to changes they don’t believe will improve their situation.

Lightsbane.9012:

anet just needs to call up zenimax and ask to borrow their PVP set up for ESO. minus the sneaking bit.

Then why aren’t you playing it?

No to OP. Just no.

This has been proposed over and over, only to be debunked. And the devs step in and confirm its not a workable solution.

Do folks think if a small group keeps pushing this agenda it will finally prevail?

If you like ESO, go play ESO.

I agree with Jayne, take my upvote and enjoy not logging into WvW.

I full endorse Xushins proposal

Jayne.9251:

Lightsbane.9012:

anet just needs to call up zenimax and ask to borrow their PVP set up for ESO. minus the sneaking bit.

Then why aren’t you playing it?

No to OP. Just no.

This has been proposed over and over, only to be debunked. And the devs step in and confirm its not a workable solution.

They have never said it wasn’t workable.

I don’t know if the entire proposal is good or not (and I don’t command), but I do like the guest / mercenary aspect of allowing players to play on other sides temporarily when a match is bleh.

Rift pvp was faction based where you where guards fought defiants. At some point you could become a mercenary for the other side. The original idea was to balance out the sides, but the side effect was fighting guildies at times. Lots of fun.

Can you imagine that concept here where 1/2 your guild remains “home” while the other 1/2 mercenaries? Yes I know there is already pvp to do this, but not on the grander scale….

This is the idea ANet worked on for half a year and then abandoned. What makes anyone think they would go back and try again?

I think the supposed parlous state of WvW is highly overstated in any case. The game is coming up to five years old and deep in the trough between expansions. Under the circumstances WvW is about as busy as you might expect.

It seems highly unlikely ANet would spend any significant time, effort or money altering things in this corner of the game when they have an expansion coming in six months that will (they hope) see a major upturn in logins as many lapsed players return. That tide should lift all boats, WvW included.

Particularly when the inclusion of a major revamp of WvW in the previous expansion (DBL) went so disastrously badly it seems unthinkable that the developers would attempt another risky rewrite at the same stage of the development cycle.

Tiny Doom.4380:

This is the idea ANet worked on for half a year and then abandoned. What makes anyone think they would go back and try again?

Because the state of the mode is so bad that it needs a revamp at a fundamental level.

Tiny Doom.4380:

It seems highly unlikely ANet would spend any significant time, effort or money altering things in this corner of the game when they have an expansion coming in six months that will (they hope) see a major upturn in logins as many lapsed players return. That tide should lift all boats, WvW included.

ANET (and many of us here, myself included) made the same prediction over the summer before HoT dropped and look how that turned out? Desert Borderland actually would have been only a quarter as bad of a mess if WvW had an active population closer to the size of at launch than the languishing one we saw prior to HoT’s release and the fact that the expansion did very little to bump up those numbers even if only for a little while should be a huge red flag to everyone. It would take something entirely new and not just window dressing to get most former players to even want to take quick peek back into WvW. Most of those who quit were burned several times before they broke the cycle and found other hobbies. It would take a whole lot of shiny to win their attention back now.

Also not a commander and hardly even a WvWer anymore but once upon a time community in this game meant something to me. Sadly not anymore so even tho I use to hate the idea of Battlegroups, I now think it is probably the last thing that could keep the game interesting for awhile longer. I just don’t trust ANET to invest the resources or time to get it right. Hope I am wrong for the sake of those of you who have put so much time into this stuff. Best of luck ~cheers