Guild Wars 2

For this to work WvW rewards should be drastically increase.

-Each Server would be turned into an Alliance.
-Every month, an alliance is required to pay 1k-2k gold upkeep. (Depend on tier)
-Winning Server would be exempted from paying Upkeep. (3 wins in a month)
-Server unable to pay upkeep would be deactivated.
-Players from deactivated servers would get free transfer to lower tiers.
-Guild can start new Alliance by paying 5k gold.
-Deactivated alliance can be reactivated by paying 2.5k gold
-A new tier will be created once there are 3 new pending alliance
-An Alliance wont get deactivated if there are no pending alliance to replace them.
-Loyalty buff would be given to players, bonuses would depend on how long they remain on the server.
-Winning alliance would go up, losing would go down. Or Winning alliance would get (+ 100) temp glicko (+ 200 for 2 straight win, loosing will get (-100)

Edit:
-Bulk of reward should go to Player Kill / Competitive gameplay
-Alliance inactive for 6 months would be deleted
-tier gets deleted if 3 alliance is unable to pay upkeep
-Upkeep scaling, alliance with higher population would need to pay more, to help keep the economy stable, due to higher rewards

Using this approach, only server with existing community would remain, this approach would also help people keep their “identity” as long as they are willing to pay, this also prevent servers for pushing for 2nd place, and instead servers would focus on the winning server, helping create more balance matchup. Upkeep is needed to prevent WvW on inflating the economy due to better rewards

Better rewards are needed to encourage more people to participate on WvW, and adding loyalty bonus would “help” prevent players from constantly hoping servers. (Perhaps + 100 magic find after 3 months / 200 – 6 months, 300 in 1 year? Etc..

i think you should simplify it as
“make WvW be EoTM period”
-GW2 WvW is like countries with different kings(guilds) ruling them they are united in one country and by kings(guilds) that rule there
-On the other hand, the alliance system will be like WW2 its Axis vs Allies its like
White vs Black vs Brown
Whitebois vs Neegas vs Asians
this is not WoW or Camelot Unchained or etc etc etc

if i were God, i would give each county equal amount of resources to be harvested all 24 or 27 of them
then let the resources be divided on each kings on who worked hardest on that country
the more kings and kingdom and people there is the lesser share they get individualy due to more people are claiming their share

I don’t like EOTM, its pure karma train

What makes WvW better is that it involves building server community. It has objectives, to make your server #1…

-added “Bulk of reward should go to Player Kill” to encourage more skill group, and lessen karma train mentality.

At the second point my initial impression was “well this the worst suggestion I have ever seen”.

After reading the rest I would like to update that to “well this is by far the worst suggestion I have ever seen that even make dikus rants seen sensible (not really)”.

Dawdler.8521:

At the second point my initial impression was “well this the worst suggestion I have ever seen”.

After reading the rest I would like to update that to “well this is by far the worst suggestion I have ever seen that even make dikus rants seen sensible (not really)”.

You can get 20-30g per hour on pve, 1k gold is like 50 hrs farming… If you have 50 people in an alliance, thats like 1hr farming for each player… If a server cant pay that small amount, then it’s a dead server…

If ANET increase gold comming from WvW, then there should be a way to drain it, or else the game economy gets bloated.

1 guild can already have 500 members, 1k-2k is a small amount if the whole server participates

rhayan.9580:

Dawdler.8521:

At the second point my initial impression was “well this the worst suggestion I have ever seen”.

After reading the rest I would like to update that to “well this is by far the worst suggestion I have ever seen that even make dikus rants seen sensible (not really)”.

You can get 20-30g per hour on pve, 1k gold is like 50 hrs farming… If you have 50 people in an alliance, thats like 1hr farming for each player… If a server cant pay that small amount, then it’s a dead server…

If ANET increase gold comming from WvW, then there should be a way to drain it, or else the game economy would be bloated.

You seem to implying that seige and guild hall/scribing costs do not exist in WvW as a huge drain , which make me question whether you play WvW.

Also what your idea basicly says is rich people get to play and winners have no taxes. People that dont farm gold or – heaven forbid – loose a matchup are not allowed to play.

Dawdler.8521:

rhayan.9580:

Dawdler.8521:

At the second point my initial impression was “well this the worst suggestion I have ever seen”.

After reading the rest I would like to update that to “well this is by far the worst suggestion I have ever seen that even make dikus rants seen sensible (not really)”.

You can get 20-30g per hour on pve, 1k gold is like 50 hrs farming… If you have 50 people in an alliance, thats like 1hr farming for each player… If a server cant pay that small amount, then it’s a dead server…

If ANET increase gold comming from WvW, then there should be a way to drain it, or else the game economy would be bloated.

You seem to implying that seige and guild hall/scribing costs do not exist in WvW as a huge drain , which make me question whether you play WvW.

Also what your idea basicly says is rich people get to play and winners have no taxes. People that dont farm gold or – heaven forbid – loose a matchup are not allowed to play.

Im saying dead servers should not exist, and an alliance should have several guilds, not one small guild.

Im also pointing out that there is need to increase rewards to entice more people to play wvw, and the upkeep would only try help keeping gold from losing its value.

Dawdler.8521:

At the second point my initial impression was “well this the worst suggestion I have ever seen”.

After reading the rest I would like to update that to “well this is by far the worst suggestion I have ever seen that even make dikus rants seen sensible (not really)”.

i hope you can point out which is the best suggestion for you then…. by far

rhayan.9580:

I don’t like EOTM, its pure karma train

-added “Bulk of reward should go to Player Kill” to encourage more skill group, and lessen karma train mentality.

Except that doesn’t encourage more skilled groups; it encourages more blobing and less spreading out of people(havoc squads/roaming). Then you get to the point where the whole map is in one spot due to skill hit cap limit. It then becomes a safety in numbers game and you end up with the same situation everyone moving to one server.

Um, at least I have not seen this suggested before. Props for making an original suggestion.

But no.

What if all guilds choose to bandwagon rather than pay up for a new alliance? No WvW?

How welcome would those bandwagoners be to my guild’s alliance? I’d insist on some migration control. Which would lead to elitism and exclusion.

Norbe.7630:

Dawdler.8521:

At the second point my initial impression was “well this the worst suggestion I have ever seen”.

After reading the rest I would like to update that to “well this is by far the worst suggestion I have ever seen that even make dikus rants seen sensible (not really)”.

i hope you can point out which is the best suggestion for you then…. by far

My own of course.

Duh.

Dawdler.8521:

My own of course.

Duh.

and that is………….
tada!

none?

now , may i say that is the worst suggestion of all time then

Ancient Ranger.3276:

Except that doesn’t encourage more skilled groups; it encourages more blobing and less spreading out of people(havoc squads/roaming). Then you get to the point where the whole map is in one spot due to skill hit cap limit. It then becomes a safety in numbers game and you end up with the same situation everyone moving to one server.

Perhaps having Area bonus / Squad Size would help?

Currently we have
5 – party
50 – squad

maybe add 15 and 25 squad size would help

Smaller squad fighting larger squad would give larger Area Bonus (rewards)

Korgov.7645:

Um, at least I have not seen this suggested before. Props for making an original suggestion.

But no.

What if all guilds choose to bandwagon rather than pay up for a new alliance? No WvW?

How welcome would those bandwagoners be to my guild’s alliance? I’d insist on some migration control. Which would lead to elitism and exclusion.

Maybe allow Guild that started the alliance to allow free transfer, or close for invitation only?, this “additional” settings would only work for first 3 months. Also their should be a mechanism that would guarantee that their is one alliance available for free transfer before deactivating a “dead” server, so setting option to “Allow Free Transfer” would be open for 1 month at least.

For bandwagon on later stage, i dont think their can be any fix, giving control to 1 guild might have negative effect later on, so the best i can think of for now is having “loyalty bonus” depending on how long you stay on your alliance.

For upkeep concerns, im thinking of setting rewards to allow player to get 10-15g per hour / half of what pve gets, so 1k-2k is nothing, it would only help preventing having too many “alliance/dead server”

For skilled groups, hunting “pug blob” should be awarded better.

im curious rhayan, why gold in your proposal?
and also what is your basis on the current WvW problems that lets you come up with this idea

Norbe.7630:

Dawdler.8521:

My own of course.

Duh.

and that is………….
tada!

none?

now , may i say that is the worst suggestion of all time then

That would mean no suggestion (ie WvW as is) is worse than turning it into a pay to play mode exclusive to either rich people or gold farmers…

Yeah… You dont have to be God to see the glaring flaw.

As a sidenote, my suggestion is usually to remove tiers, assign fixed colors over a month or two or three and then glicko rank servers per faction. After a season is done, give out loot, reset glicko and shuffle colors.

Norbe.7630:

im curious rhayan, why gold in your proposal?
and also what is your basis on the current WvW problems that lets you come up with this idea

Lack of Players
Loosing Competitive Gameplay ( Lack of organize groups running, Enemy/Allies)
Lack of Servers/Communities

At this point, the only way I can think of to get tons of “New Players” on WvW is to have better rewards. I am trying to get PVE guilds/Players to be more involve on WvW.

I think its important to encourage people to be organize and use proper builds when they come to WvW. so giving more “rewards” for competitive players is also important

Also, there is no more variety on every match up, I prefer having 8 tiers or more, so we can have new guild/players to fight every week.

Um, no, Players should not be forced to pay gold to continuing play the game. Just because they don’t pay does not mean their server is dead they may just not want to have to pay the gold they earned.

You can say it’s not much for X amount of players to put it together but that is irrelevant, I for one will not pay gold to play the game.

He is saying that everyone can play without paying and we get free transfers every month. Hurrah!

This is a different idea, but awful.

How about we not not come up with ideas to gouge players of gold unnecessarily or give the devs an even bigger migraine?

[BATTLEGROUPS]

/discussion

Ermm…..

A idea that implement F2p MMORPG designs of having upkeep cost. However, the problem is exactly the upkeep costs which will deter people from wanting to form an alliance, need a alternative way to decide active alliance from inactive ones.

Also, outside of the upkeep cost, this suggestion is similar to that alliance thingy talked about in another thread.

Dawdler.8521:

As a sidenote, my suggestion is usually to remove tiers, assign fixed colors over a month or two or three and then glicko rank servers per faction. After a season is done, give out loot, reset glicko and shuffle colors.

after reading the sidenote, its basically turning it to eotm
would you want me to change the of all time to eternity then?

you see, these people share their ideas to make WvW better, then you tell them it is worse, you didn’t even explained why before judging it

rhayan.9580:

Lack of Players
Loosing Competitive Gameplay ( Lack of organize groups running, Enemy/Allies)
Lack of Servers/Communities

you do know that gold can buy guilds right?
an alliance can easily buy a guild to tilt the balance of the war
i don’t want to turn this into Goldwars 2……..

can Mithril Ores be placed instead?

Norbe.7630:

you see, these people share their ideas to make WvW better, then you tell them it is worse, you didn’t even explained why before judging it

Do I really have to?

Cripes, you said it yourself – Gold Wars 2. Then add the very thought of eliminating the gold tax™ to winners only.

Just imagine if I visited the sPvP forum and said “Here’s an idea! To start queuing to a match, you have to pay 20 gold. If you win, you get 40 gold back. If you loose, you have to pay 20 extra gold instead. Enjoy!”

Tar and feathers would probably be an apt description of what follows.

But apparently WvW is so desperate for anything it’ll take… uh… anything.

Dawdler.8521:

Do I really have to?

as a courtesy, yes

least ive asked for a
“can Mithril Ores be placed instead?”
to make sure its worth
or the outcome would be the Goldwars 2
instead of….
you said it yourself
worse suggestions
without any basis

Edit:
i’ll tell you a secret, i have no courtesy on the cancer forums, i make sure everyone’s blood boils when i post something there

and i have 3 leashes that kept me from being not courteous here,
1st the mods leash
2nd the fellow player, imagine theres a person behind these names with bloods that can be manipulated lets say boiled, they’re only intention is to make WvW great again, Trump ftw
3rd the game itself

rhayan.9580:

For this to work WvW rewards should be drastically increase.

-Each Server would be turned into an Alliance.
-Every month, an alliance is required to pay 1k-2k gold upkeep. (Depend on tier)
-Winning Server would be exempted from paying Upkeep. (3 wins in a month)
-Server unable to pay upkeep would be deactivated.
-Players from deactivated servers would get free transfer to lower tiers.
-Guild can start new Alliance by paying 5k gold.
-Deactivated alliance can be reactivated by paying 2.5k gold
-A new tier will be created once there are 3 new pending alliance
-An Alliance wont get deactivated if there are no pending alliance to replace them.
-Loyalty buff would be given to players, bonuses would depend on how long they remain on the server.
-Winning alliance would go up, losing would go down. Or Winning alliance would get (+ 100) temp glicko (+ 200 for 2 straight win, loosing will get (-100)

Edit:
-Bulk of reward should go to Player Kill / Competitive gameplay
-Alliance inactive for 6 months would be deleted
-tier gets deleted if 3 alliance is unable to pay upkeep
-Upkeep scaling, alliance with higher population would need to pay more, to help keep the economy stable, due to higher rewards

Using this approach, only server with existing community would remain, this approach would also help people keep their “identity” as long as they are willing to pay, this also prevent servers for pushing for 2nd place, and instead servers would focus on the winning server, helping create more balance matchup. Upkeep is needed to prevent WvW on inflating the economy due to better rewards

Better rewards are needed to encourage more people to participate on WvW, and adding loyalty bonus would “help” prevent players from constantly hoping servers. (Perhaps + 100 magic find after 3 months / 200 – 6 months, 300 in 1 year? Etc..

I strongly disagree with several points of this idea and have questions / concerns about others.

1. The gold freebie should not go to the winners, but to the underdogs that decide to stick it out against all odds often through a rather unpleasant and unfun overall experience and most often due to being outnumbered all around or via night capping. Prize should always go to those that put in the most and best effort, not the least.

2. Your gold calculations of per player cost are way off, they may be applicable in T1, and even there sometimes invalid, sometimes applicable in T2, but mostly not. And completely off the scale for anything T3 and lower. Add to that the fact that despite improved rewards WVW is still the least profitable (gold wise) game mode and a ton of WVW players are often flat out dirt broke a lot of times.

3. What about solo pugs and small guilds ? Do they count as a guild and take up a full guild slot in an alliance ? Do the alliance heads (big guilds) just prevent them from joining thus completely excluding them from the game ?

4. What happens to those of us that have multiple guilds in different alliances ?

5. Both PPT and PPK tend to currently favor vastly larger forces, though not always. How does defeating opponents half your group size or smaller fit into the whole “competative gameplay” scenario of yours, do you think that is competative ? The exceptions to these are too few, you have to focus on the averages. You would need to design and impliment some sort of a system which can actually judge “competetiveness”, start taking into account outnumbered conditions etc. and have all its kinks worked out before you start rewarding the so called “competative gameplay”.

Anet is not charging players a gold tax to participate in wvw… Please come up with more rational suggestions to discuss.

Tongku.5326:

stuff..

1. At the moment, there is no “Real” reward on winning WvW, so my aim was to get servers to focus on first place, not pushing for 2nd. As for rewards on the underdog, i did mention on another post that their should be some sort of “reward/Area buff” etc for fighting/defending against larger groups. I also posted loyalty buff.. so chaining magic find bonus / outnumber / area buff / loyalty buff should be enough for outnumber plays..

2. I know my calculation is way off… its a suggestion.. it can change.. i dont have the figures.. It is based on assumption that the “New” rewards on wvw would pull people back to WvW, so i did mention . “For this to work WvW rewards should be drastically increase.”, and i also mentioned on another post that “Scaling” upkeep depending on the population of an alliance.

3. What i have in mind is the same as the currents setup.. limit depend on the population… the alliance thingy.. is only to allow players to “Create” their own server, give them the option to give name to their server. On my other post, i suggested that the guild who started the alliance be given control to allow random people to join or not.. but for 3 months only.

4. Same thing.. you’ll only be able to play where your currently residing.

5. its a draft.. what i have in mind when i said competitive gameplay is to do something thats not easy to accomplish.. you can suggest new things..

again as for the upkeep, its only to make sure that we wont have too many servers, having an alliance should be something that needs participation of large number of players, upkeep should be something that wont hurt anyone’s pocket.

Also for my suggestion to work there should be a large number of new players on WvW, so im hoping that increasing the rewards on WvW by a large amount should encourage more player to participate..

if you don’t like the idea just let the thread die…