Guild Wars 2

We are seeing it everywhere. In every tier Monday seems to mark the day that if you aren’t competitive then participation falls drastically. I’m seeing it in game & I’m reading about it on the forums. I’m seeing people around me become more and more unhappy with the game. This seems to be pretty common in every match up. Let’s face it, how many times are you going to grind you face against the wall before you stop trying to go in that direction?

The Devs suggestion to let the game mature scares me because we are losing interest by the day. If we let the community do what it does, then it will perhaps it will sort itself out. Eventually the servers will even out and eventually the Guilds will unite on their own and un organized servers without these mega alliances will start to make progress. But none of that is guaranteed and based on the current MMO market it’s only a matter of time before another game is attempting to offer the same large scale pvp experience.

What can we do?

What kind of come back mechanic do you think would actually keep people in the game? Here are a few examples in hopes of getting some suggestions or evolution of the ideas presented that might lead to some design changes.

1. Buffs – Swapping the orb buff with the out manned buff has been suggested. Changing the out manned buff to something more beneficial strategically is also an option. Perhaps even a buff based on huge score deficits and not based on participation.

2. Slaughter Rule – In many levels of sports you will find this in effect. Once the score becomes so overwhelming the match ends to save the loser any further humiliation. I don’t think this would ever be a viable solution, but it has been mentioned. Canceling matches early probably couldn’t be done easily and how would you decide something like that.

3. NPCs – Perhaps the NPC’s could play a role in turning the tide. I would imagine this would be hard to put in at this point, but it’s not completely out of the realm of possibility. Perhaps the losing team could meet certain conditions once the score hits a certain point and unleash a squad of NPC’s that would actually work towards evening out the odds.

4. Hard Caps or Diminishing Returns on PPT – Hard cap the scores gains. With a rolling point total the scores continue to snow ball and the insurmountable totals begin to surface relatively fast. Since it’s a piece of the pie type situation perhaps diminishing returns would work.

Ex: Once you hit 500 points per tick there is a set amount of time before that 500 gradually works it way down to 200 points per tick until the scores start to even out. This would still require effort on the end of the teams that are losing to get back into the match, but perhaps it wouldn’t seem so impossible or become mathematically impossible to come back well before the match is over.

5. In-game Diplomacy or Alliance Mechanics –
-Alliances- Let’s face it forming successful out of game alliances is the single biggest factor to winning in wuvwuv. Team Chat & Commanders badges are what we have to attempt to unite our own server in game and let’s face it. It’s just not enough. Perhaps there would be a way to form Alliances in game that would have alliance chat and features that would make coordinating a bit less cumbersome.

-Diplomacy- The point of 3 faction pvp is to allow weaker servers to unit against a greater threat, but I’ve yet to see that really happen. We usually see the exact opposite. An in game mechanic that would allow servers to communicate and form treaties that would help keep things competitive.

So there it is. A few ideas that I’ve had and a few that I’ve read. The aim of this tread is to keep things competitive and keep people playing. Let’s face it, winners and losers all agree that we have more fun when there is actually a fight.

If you are still with me at this point I thank you for reading and ask you what would you do? Do you think any of these ideas will work? Do you have any ideas of your own? Are things fine and no solution is needed?

You raise some good questions about morale but I think we need to look at the root cause: the scoring system and why do players become demoralized over it.

Is it because they are losing? Or, is it because they feel powerless about the score?

While it is true that losing a match can be demoralizing there is always the opportunity for hope to regain the lead – the problem with the current scoring system and “night capping” is that there is -no- way to recapture a lead. This is what is causing a lot of people who would otherwise play WvW out of it.

This, in turn, leads to players burning out and leaving the game when they would have otherwise continued to play if they felt that their playing had an impact on the score. The current problem is that they feel powerless.

We need to feel like our actions have an impact on the results. If I rally a band of four companions and the FIVE of us take on twenty – it means nothing. Even if we manage to take over a tower. That one tower does not off-set the rest of the map being held by the vastly superior numbers of the opposing sides.

We aren’t losing because of us being killed. We are losing because we simply don’t have enough -bodies- in the game. No matter what ArenaNet does there will be times when servers do not have enough people entering WvW to fill their side.

This leads to imbalances of population. The score does not reflect this.

The score -needs- to reflect the imbalances of population.

A team who heavily outnumbers its opponents should not be getting full score for their map control. They aren’t winning due to superior strategy, tactics, or individual ability. They are winning due to population. The opposing teams have no possible counter to this.

Instead, if a vastly outnumbered team takes a single tower they should be richly rewarded for doing so against superior numbers. So, if my crew of 5 who is fighting against 20 takes a tower, we should get 4x the points for that one tower. The team with 20 people should get a quarter of the points per control structure.

This would allow the 5 to at least keep their side in the game for when the sides match up evenly and full points are awarded.

In turn, this will lead to more people trying to help their server against higher numbers. This will lead to greater participation which will lead to more balance in the maps with population.

There needs to be a minimum amount of points per borderland given to the team that controls them even if 0 population exists on the opposing teams to prevent abuse.

I would like to the population ratio be fairly forgiving so “pro Pvpers” don’t start screaming at the “bads” for wasting space and messing with their point generation. But, I really believe that points need to be proportional to population ratios.

Any time one side is outnumbered as a total in their WvW arena then that WvW arena should be producing a point value based on the ratio of the teams. So, if all borderlands are empty and Eternal is near even – then the borderlands should produce a minimum point value per tick (perhaps 50 – two keeps) and Eternal should be at full value.

ArenaNet needs to provide incentives to play when outnumbered. Failure to do so bleeds the losing teams of their interest / morale to play. This, in turn, leads to feelings of frustration by the losing side and during peak times people stop playing.

The reason for this is simple: People do not feel that the scoring system is fair.

I’m on a server that is currently winning its match-up. I don’t like it. What used to be a vibrant and robust three-way battle has become quiet. Less and less opposing server players are showing up for WvW.

Since we’re up against a large oceanic presence they feel just like we do – they “win” when they are playing at their peak time and see their wins lost during out peak time.

If the point values reflected population imbalances then the scores would be much closer. Our population superiority would balance out their population superiority. And people would feel like they are able to fight it out and that the scores would be reflective of what is -actually- happening in the battlegrounds.

As it is, the scores don’t and it sucks.

I think you are right about players feeling like they can’t make an impact on the score. Reflecting population imbalances in the scoring would definitely add a bit of a fail safe, but would it be enough? Coordination and superior tactics would still win matches and that’s what it’s all about.

NPC love!? +1. I love me some NPCs.

What’s a tragedy about this whole thing is that AN has done a fine job with listening to people and implmenting fixes for this game in every sphere..except this one. It’s clearly not working out in any balanced, meaningful way, people are choosing to simply not play WvW on some servers and they refuse to even consider doing anything about it. It’s just sad, and they are going to realize it way too late when instead of having a thriving WvW community they’ll end up with 3 tiers of guild stuffed cheaters pointing fingers while the rest of the tiers sit empty, a missed opportunity.

Honestly, this entire thing smells like someone’s ego at AN involved with WvW is on the line and they just don’t care. It’s like history repeating itself with WAR and the same refusal to do anything about it until it was way, way too late.

1. End the free server transfers, damage has already been done, stop the bleeding.
2. The Orbs, change the orb bonus to increase drop rate, gold find, karma gains, NOT stat bonuses which make the winning team even more powerful and impossible to the point people just give up.

This issue only applies to folks who care about the score more than the fun of doing World-vs-World. I do not know what percentage of the player base that is.

In most games there’s some who want to kill the biggest raid boss, if not be first doing it, and then there’s the masses who don’t even know where the entrance to the dungeon is.

I like to do WvW and don’t really care what the score is. I look at the 4 maps and pick the one where I think I’ll have a good time. If I want to defend something I pick a map where we’re losing. If I want to run around with a zerg I pick one where we’re dominating.

Of course I’m happy as everyone else if we’re winning on the scoreboard, but it doesn’t mean anything to me toward participating in WvW. I do get demoralized if I’m on a map where we can’t do anything but flee from the horde—but that can happen even if we’re in first place by a mile.

The problem is…you need at least some people from your server to roll with. Some of the games are so bad you can’t find enough people to do even this..they’ve simple all quit. This isn’t the WvW a lot of people were counting on…it’s simply not fun at that point.

I’m not sure how AN hasn’t seen this..it’s the anti-fun, they’ve designed a WvW game that is literally the opposite of fun for a large number of people.

They should never have allowed more than 1-2 transfers a month. The fact that they did is why were are currently in this mess. It was by far their biggest ./facepalm decision.

Why can’t developers understand the importance of Server Pride/Realm Pride with open PvP.

Why would you allow people to jump ship to the winning server? How could you think that was a good idea and people wouldn’t milk it for the bonuses?

No one is saying don’t allow them. Just make sure there are CONSEQUENCES and the decision is IMPORTANT and something people would consider if they wanted to play with friends, not because they want better crafting bonuses for that week.

Undestroyable cannons on the wall at the spawn points to take out jerks camping it with siege equipment would be nice.

Orbs alone don’t make the winning team undefeatable, anymore than they help a losing server gain ground. Several times, we had a server in our matchup hack all the orbs. We still crushed them into tiny hacker dust.

your right about it being about Morale but none of that will work

the Alliance thing would be the only thing that could work but it would be open to abuse

check my post about how to balance the game if people know they have a chance and are not going to be compleatly kitten Morale wont drop so fast

https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/pvp/wuvwuv/World-vs-World-Player-limits-are-needed

It’s not just an issue for people who care about score. There’s an underlying issue behind score discrepancy which is generally rooted in a stark difference in server participation, whether this is a 24/7 problem or only during off times. I don’t know about you, but not being able to hold/take anything besides supply camps on 3 out of 4 maps is not fun.

A buff that gives meaningful boosts would go a long way in curbing this, by at least giving an undermanned side a fighting chance. It’s also a much more elegant solution than trying to hard cap one server’s player numbers, which wouldn’t even work since the 2 strongest servers usually seem to prey on the weakest rather than fight each other.

Maybe a good solution would to be give the NPCs of an owned keep the ‘outmanned’ bonus also. Scale them up to be a lot tougher based on the amount of defenders. This would help counter zergs and nightcapping.

Actually, lag has already been formally mentioned as the 4th enemy. Morale is the 5th at best.

1.I said it a dozen times before and I’ll repeat my self again: you people misunderstand the role the outmanned buff has. It is there to create a snowball effect – it encourages players to employ guerrilla tactics in order to gain great rewards, causing them to stick around, while the “snowball” of players grows larger and larger with each passing minute, until both sides are equalized. It’s good as it is.

Giving the losing side direct bonuses would only punish the winner for winning, that isn’t fair.

2.There’s no need to cancel matches early. For one – it’s very easy to swing the points in your favor once again. Maybe not on the last day, but mid-week – it’s possible. I can’t even say how many times I thought we would be the underdogs, only to swing the match in our favor later during the week. Also, ending matches mid-week would kind of kill the whole “weekly” thing.

3.Not a very good idea, works against the whole “Player vs Player” thing. NPCs can be, and currently are support. And they’re pretty kitten useful at that.

4.The mere name “diminishing returns” is plain cursing on these forums, do not suggest such nonsense. Once again – it would punish the winning side, hampering their ability to gain score-based bonuses.

5.Coordinating isn’t all that combersome as it is now. We have a chat for our server’s alliance, it’s called /team. You can use it to chat with everyone in the current map, cross-map chat isn’t implemented and /team doesn’t do anything more then /map, so there could be improvement there – making /team work to get the message across all 3 borderlands and the eternal battlegrounds.

More than anything they need to make the scoring system more flexible. When one team comes out with a 100% lead after the first round of night-capping no wonder people give up.

The scoring system needs to reflect current player acivity, making PvP more valuable than PvD.

Then they also need to find a way that actually gives losers a real chance to catch up. The further behind you are, the more points you current keeps are worth etc.

The reason is that unless you’re the faction facerolling, you’re not going to get any badges, loot, coin or karma. Simple as that.

Defending against overwhelming odds does not reward anything.

The biggest thing I would like to see are in game tools that would allow communication. Most people are generally unsatisfied with the role that team chat and commander’s badges play. If nothing else the idea tossed around for a wvw wide chat and a map wide chat for each server might help. Again though most people don’t pay attention to chat or it ends up being largely dominated by trolls.

I don’t want to see something that is going to completely unbalance the match, but I would like to see something that is going to keep it consistent. Some of the ideas would never work and some might. The point of this thread is to get these ideas rolling.

If the success of your server relies solely on out of game alliances requiring people to run multiple programs such as jabber or multiple voips, isn’t that a tell-tale sign of something missing from the overall design?

Sivorick, I would like to see leadership books / abilities that would allow for a group of 10, a group of 20, a group of 30, a group of 40, or a group of 50.

Then each individual group could be organized as a subset of a larger group. So, a group of 50 could have a group of 40 and a group of 10. Buuuut…

I don’t think that’ll have any impact on morale as such.

The biggest morale sap is the scoring system. The moment one server appears to have a huuuuuuuuuuuuge lead on the other servers in the match, people start the process of not logging in while, on the other hand, the server in the lead sees a surge in people joining in on the fight.

On my server, Tarnished Coast, there used to never be a queue at 3am my time. Last night, there was one. I am pretty sure that the other servers in our matching did not have queues. Which means that we were dominating the enemy through overwhelming numbers and that isn’t fun to me.

Morale is based around momentum. The current scoring system does not reflect the reality of the game environment nor does it reflect the efforts of the players involved.

There is almost no way to change the momentum of how the current scoring system works. People who battle it out for hours against even numbers see no return on their struggle when later other people just take over everything with very little effort. That’s demoralizing and leads to people quitting.

Diminishing returns just provides disincentives. That doesn’t help.

It isn’t “fair” to not reward two people equally for the same effort just because they are in the lead. If they are in the lead then they deserve to still get the same reward (being points) that they would get if they were behind in the same situation. If you penalize people for winning just because they are winning…. that will destroy morale of the winning side.