Guild Wars 2

Mistress Collisto.1546:

lil devils x.6071:

lil devils x.6071:

What needs to be on the poll is :

• Make scoring based on PPK over objectives rather than rewarding PvE game play in a PvP game mode, and I do not see that option there.

As long as the fighting over the objectives is rewarded more than the objective themselves it will improve the way players are rewarded for their efforts, both offense and defense. PvD Should have never been part of the score in a game mode where you want to encourage players to fight one another instead of NPC’s.

The problem when you allow for " avoiding fights" to be rewarded is it will encourage players to do exactly that in a PvP game mode. What is the point of playing a PvP game mode if the players who do not do so are the ones who win?

THAT is why so many stopped caring about the score. If you want them to care you have to make it value their PvP efforts in a PvP game mode.

I don’t want to call this player out for his/her view, it is all good, however I disagree when you say PPK should be scored even more then it is currently. If you have been around since the start of GW2 and for that matter games such as DaoC… WvW has never been about PvP… In fact, Anet themselves have called WvW PvE… Your PvP or like we have in WvW Zerg vs Zerg, is usually a desired side effect. WvW is about world domination, how much of your enemies turf can you take and hold. We have a great example here in this game of what happens when you make either one of these two systems more rewarding then the other… EotM, I think we can all agree is way to rewarding to Capture then it is to hold (PPT) to work, while WvW is way to rewarding for PPK. I have been in T1 all the way through T8(I am currently on SoR who is teamed up with Dragon brand). T1 all they are concerned with is mobbing stuff or Zerg vs Zerg fighting which again usually, but not always comes down to who has the largest Zerg, while in T8, Its not about zerg size, its about who has any numbers on at any given time of the day to cap when no one is on.

I know many in higher tiers want to see large scale fights, bash there heads against each other 10 hours a day 7/days a week… Those in the lower tiers want to have a challenge once in a while taking something. You have to balance PPT and PPK or you will in effect see larger zergs, or EotM repeated. While I like seeing that in theory a 60 against 60+ fight is possible, in reality, it happens way to much. 20 vs 20’s should be the norm. Break up the zerg and you can reward all you want on PPK, Don’t break them up, then they should have to hold as much as possible (PPT) I would propose you go back to 8 tiers and drop the player cap per map to say 40 instead of 80… Those that want to play and can’t do to queue, give them the option to transfer… For free if needed.

I have been around since in GW1 and filled out the surveys they used to create this game where I wrote in my answer along with thousands of others asking for a large scale PvP game mode. We were told were were getting it and are still waiting. Large scale PVP game mode IS what the players asked for on the GW1 surveys they used to create this game. ANet acknowledged that told us they were bringing it, then did not deliver.

Once they actually solve the population issues ( which I do not think was done at all with the mergers as discussed previously in other threads) there will only be maps open to match the population, so no more imbalance if done properly.

Many GW 1 players who filled out the surveys purchased this game due to the promise of large scale PvP, exactly for that reason so yes, they expect to get what they paid for. Empty maps do not make $$ and the maps need to adjust to the population, not the other way around. They are trying to do it backwards.

Every map open in the end when everything is properly repaired will have population on it and players will have people to play with and against no matter what time they come on without the need for massive queues or too much map to cover during off hours.

How has no one yet brought up lag. Now that we have 6 servers battling it out on NA and some of EU side, the lag has come back. It’s by far one of the worst problems with WvW for the longest time. Every season we have had lag. Somehow everyone has forgotten about it up until now because every server has been dead outside EBG.

Now that we finally have half the server groups battling it out, they need to invest in better WvW servers to accommodate this problem. If you want people to have big battles, to queue up every map, to really enjoy WvW to its fullest, then server lag needs to be a higher priority or servers will go back to the way they were and population will drop again because people will not want to fight with the servers responding this way. I don’t want to play Spam 1 Wars 2, I want to be able to actually fight in these blob fights effectively.

I voted QoL solely for the chance at build templates. They said they’d take suggestions from the community.

lil devils x.6071:

briggah.7910:

lil devils x.6071:

The problem with this is the suggestions for scoring improvement do not necessarily reflect what the WvW community want to see happen to scoring. SCoring improvements need to happen, just not the changes ANet is suggesting. If you focus scoring on PPK instead of PPT and stop rewarding PvE, PvD kill NPC get rewarded system and instead make it so the score is more based on PPK while fighting over objectives you solve numerous problems at once rather than make more. People who play outside of " prime time" timeszones should not have their efforts devalued, instead the scoring should be based on PPK while fighting over objectives without the use of siege and it will balance itself instead since there are obviously less players to PPK during the off hours and still the same number of PvE objectives.

It is the PvE objectives that are throwing off the score, remove that from the score to solve the primary issue. Make is so the better fighters win instead of reward lazy game play.

The current system rewards dying as fast as you can so you can run back and PvD something undefended or get a whole zerg to sit in a keep and siege hump instead of fighting over objectives with a fun fight IS the problem with scoring. Make it so the teams that do that will lose and the players actually using their characters to fight over objectives win instead. That is what it will take to make players see the system as fair and worth keeping score on. Players do not care about the score due to it being based on such lame game play. If you make it right and base it on PvP game play in a PvP game mode and people will start to care again.

What needs to be on the poll is :

• Make scoring based on PPK over objectives rather than rewarding PvE game play in a PvP game mode, and I do not see that option there.

The thing is players WANT these things fixed, they just may not want them the way you think they need fixed. In fact some of the proposed ideas may make most the players who do not play prime time leave the game all together, and if that is the case, you are doing it wrong again. It very well may be the opposite of what you think should happen. What players have asked for from the beginning is for the score to be able PvP and rewarding the better fighters rather than reward the lazy people instead.

No thank you for a PPK focused score.. That will make the zergs even bigger than the ones we have running around right now.. Players need to split up more if you ask me and this is one way to not make players split up.

Not rewarding players for their kills is why so many have left WvW from Day 1. Players can accept losing to the better fighters, but not to the guys who die as fast as they can so they can run around and PvD because that should not be able to happen in a PvP game mode.

If you solve the actual population issues, every server will have a blob, so you will no longer have just a bob vs a few, instead you will have blob vs blob and that is not imbalanced. You have to keep in mind this IS a large scale PvP game mode and that the game already has a small scale PvP game mode, so yes they should not be concerned about catering to small scale PvP in the large scale PvP game mode. Instead, you can play small scale PvP in the game mode designed for Large scale PvP and if you get steam rolled, it just comes with the territory.

If you want fights restricted to lower numbers, you play the small scale PvP instead, as this is the only place in the game you can get large scale PvP. I prefer to be outnumbered in fights as that increases the challenge and fun for me personally, and do not want the numbers restricted so that if you win it felt like you earned it and if you do lose, at least it was a fun fight.

Everyone has there own reasons for leaving wvw but there was a time where many of us used to say we do not wvw for rewards. Those are the days I miss.

PvP doesn’t help my server out so please stop trying to tell me if I want small scale fights I should go to pvp. I want SMALLER scaled fights happening in several spots. Not look at map for battle swords and go join every single person from all 3 servers in one spot..

There was a time where you blobbed it up to take a big objective and that was it. You actually had to ask the other groups and guilds to gather up so you can make a big push on a keep. Now its blob it up to take paper towers.

Sorry but the players have changed and if they continue to just blob any change we get isn’t going to make a difference. IMO your suggestions will just push for more blobbing..

Voted for scoring stuff, but please sneak in the nameplate options too.

briggah.7910:

lil devils x.6071:

briggah.7910:

lil devils x.6071:

The problem with this is the suggestions for scoring improvement do not necessarily reflect what the WvW community want to see happen to scoring. SCoring improvements need to happen, just not the changes ANet is suggesting. If you focus scoring on PPK instead of PPT and stop rewarding PvE, PvD kill NPC get rewarded system and instead make it so the score is more based on PPK while fighting over objectives you solve numerous problems at once rather than make more. People who play outside of " prime time" timeszones should not have their efforts devalued, instead the scoring should be based on PPK while fighting over objectives without the use of siege and it will balance itself instead since there are obviously less players to PPK during the off hours and still the same number of PvE objectives.

It is the PvE objectives that are throwing off the score, remove that from the score to solve the primary issue. Make is so the better fighters win instead of reward lazy game play.

The current system rewards dying as fast as you can so you can run back and PvD something undefended or get a whole zerg to sit in a keep and siege hump instead of fighting over objectives with a fun fight IS the problem with scoring. Make it so the teams that do that will lose and the players actually using their characters to fight over objectives win instead. That is what it will take to make players see the system as fair and worth keeping score on. Players do not care about the score due to it being based on such lame game play. If you make it right and base it on PvP game play in a PvP game mode and people will start to care again.

What needs to be on the poll is :

• Make scoring based on PPK over objectives rather than rewarding PvE game play in a PvP game mode, and I do not see that option there.

The thing is players WANT these things fixed, they just may not want them the way you think they need fixed. In fact some of the proposed ideas may make most the players who do not play prime time leave the game all together, and if that is the case, you are doing it wrong again. It very well may be the opposite of what you think should happen. What players have asked for from the beginning is for the score to be able PvP and rewarding the better fighters rather than reward the lazy people instead.

No thank you for a PPK focused score.. That will make the zergs even bigger than the ones we have running around right now.. Players need to split up more if you ask me and this is one way to not make players split up.

Not rewarding players for their kills is why so many have left WvW from Day 1. Players can accept losing to the better fighters, but not to the guys who die as fast as they can so they can run around and PvD because that should not be able to happen in a PvP game mode.

If you solve the actual population issues, every server will have a blob, so you will no longer have just a bob vs a few, instead you will have blob vs blob and that is not imbalanced. You have to keep in mind this IS a large scale PvP game mode and that the game already has a small scale PvP game mode, so yes they should not be concerned about catering to small scale PvP in the large scale PvP game mode. Instead, you can play small scale PvP in the game mode designed for Large scale PvP and if you get steam rolled, it just comes with the territory.

If you want fights restricted to lower numbers, you play the small scale PvP instead, as this is the only place in the game you can get large scale PvP. I prefer to be outnumbered in fights as that increases the challenge and fun for me personally, and do not want the numbers restricted so that if you win it felt like you earned it and if you do lose, at least it was a fun fight.

Everyone has there own reasons for leaving wvw but there was a time where many of us used to say we do not wvw for rewards. Those are the days I miss.

PvP doesn’t help my server out so please stop trying to tell me if I want small scale fights I should go to pvp. I want SMALLER scaled fights happening in several spots. Not look at map for battle swords and go join every single person from all 3 servers in one spot..

There was a time where you blobbed it up to take a big objective and that was it. You actually had to ask the other groups and guilds to gather up so you can make a big push on a keep. Now its blob it up to take paper towers.

Sorry but the players have changed and if they continue to just blob any change we get isn’t going to make a difference. IMO your suggestions will just push for more blobbing..

The goal of WvW is not to have less people in it, it is to have more and to actually grow and get more new players coming to the game due to it. I am sorry you want to play the game with less people, but it is not a large scale PvP game mode with less people nor doe sit make sense to make a large scale PvP game mode then try to keep the majority of players out of it. Small scale PvP game mode is made for small scale PvP, large scale PvP is made for Large scale PvP.

The end goal of a large scale PvP game mode is to create the best large scale PvP on the market, where all your maps and servers open are filled with players and they are enjoying the game enough they tell their family and friends to play it with them. You want a game mode where they can actually play together against other servers who are doing the same. Think of the " blob" in WvW like the ghosts in Pacman that you have to avoid.. it adds a strategic element to the game that you have to know where it is at all times if you wish to accomplish anything. You can still work in coordination with your own blob , for example, if your blob is hitting one side of a keep, you can hit the other while their blob is tied up and fight the players on the other side.. Of course there will always be more risks of choosing to have less people with you while you do so, but that just increases the challenge and you should not expect them to scale it down just to do so, instead that is one of the obstacles that increase the difficulty level of choosing to do so.

I see the interest of the scoring project being worked on as a whole but I think QoL changes could be spread.

My preferences would be
1/ Add an option for reduced nameplate clutter.
2/ Add cross-map team chat.
3/ Scoring project
4/ Other QoL changes (keeping in mind that the visual noise has to be reduced, not increased, so no sparkling or floating whatever unless it is really important)

Regarding QoL changes, I would advise to specifically create a suggestion topic

QoL and Scoring are not the reasons i stopped playing WvW.

I know the Alpine maps are on the way, but everything at Anet should be dropped until they get put back into live servers. The Desert Borderlands destroyed WvW for virtually the entire population. These maps are simply not fun for me.

1. Alpine

2. Make WvW as rewarding as the other game modes and you will have a healthy player base of people who prefer fighting other players with a slight taste for completing events.

Thats why I played so much WvW before… and I miss it.

Oh wow a poll! I’m so happy to see this!

Is this being mailed out to everyone in game so they know about it?

briggah.7910:

Everyone has there own reasons for leaving wvw but there was a time where many of us used to say we do not wvw for rewards. Those are the days I miss.

PvP doesn’t help my server out so please stop trying to tell me if I want small scale fights I should go to pvp. I want SMALLER scaled fights happening in several spots. Not look at map for battle swords and go join every single person from all 3 servers in one spot..

There was a time where you blobbed it up to take a big objective and that was it. You actually had to ask the other groups and guilds to gather up so you can make a big push on a keep. Now its blob it up to take paper towers.

Sorry but the players have changed and if they continue to just blob any change we get isn’t going to make a difference. IMO your suggestions will just push for more blobbing..

Exactly! Sorry guys, a 60 vs 60 blob fest 24/7… No thanks, you will loose me and the other half of the community that is still in WvW. I used to like to go out there to see what my influence on the match up was. Blob Wars is not a new thing, I want to see less focus on it. What difference does the PvE aspect have on WvW currently? None, it just gets blobbed. Very few commanders actually make a difference in a large fight anymore, many are just rally points for the blob. Take the Blob Wars to EotM where it would actually be funny to watch the Farmers handle. You want to see skill you need to stop the Blobbing. Drop the loot for kills, increase reward for defense, drop the maximum cap size on map. Make it where you have to do more with less people.

Hey, could we get an option to use the experience of lvl-up tomes towards our masteries. At some point all alts are leveled and there’s no more use for the tomes. As I am mainly wvw’ing it would be greatly appreciated and make pvp’ers happy too.

I’m really not sure what to think about the QoL options. They’re not really necessary, are they? Right now? I’d rather see how Alpine turns out. I’d rather know that enemy players can’t glitch into keeps and towers anymore. I’d rather see skill balancing, separate from PvE. There are TONS of other things that should be at the top of the list right now. Just a glance through the first three pages of threads’ titles show a lot of topics that haven’t even been addressed.

I’m so SO glad that WvW is getting some attention now, I truly am. But let’s get it back on track to the absolute greatness that it was at the beginning, instead of switching it up with a bunch of new bells and whistles right now.

The “Scoring Improvements.” Just pass out participation trophies and be done with it, because seriously, that’s what it’s starting to look like. Or just give an underdog server a 100k score advantage right off the bat. I mean, that’s what it’s coming to, pretty much.

I guess I’m just questioning priorities at the moment. WvW is “competitive.” Can we not turn it into a carebear fest?

I get that people in stale matchups are sick of losing. But it has been said again and again and again, there is an option to transfer. It’s not cool to penalize the rest of us that have built good strategic communities and guilds on successful servers by adjusting the scoring system to accommodate other servers, and people clinging to dead servers in the hope that you’ll magically drop some new people into their servers with a sprinkling of fairy dust.

The best way to adjust things (and it’s been said before) is to let the servers balance themselves out in their natural state. Guilds move, servers rise, servers fall. That’s the unpredictability that has made WvW great, so far.

Please please please be careful with adjusting “nightcapping”. Many servers have active non-prime hour communities. Making them feel like their importance is diminished would be a very bad thing to do.

While I applaud ANET for being more forward about the future of WvW, I don’t like the fact we’re only given two choices. Even more so that the controversial topic of nightcapping is one of the items on the list. As someone who cares about the WvW score I can’t vote on this option because I don’t believe in reducing the rewards of nightcapping. The other option also has many items such as WvW gain graphics that are unnecessary to me.

Please give us a list of options and let us check what we want and not want rather than choosing one group than annother.

Mistress Collisto.1546:

briggah.7910:

Everyone has there own reasons for leaving wvw but there was a time where many of us used to say we do not wvw for rewards. Those are the days I miss.

PvP doesn’t help my server out so please stop trying to tell me if I want small scale fights I should go to pvp. I want SMALLER scaled fights happening in several spots. Not look at map for battle swords and go join every single person from all 3 servers in one spot..

There was a time where you blobbed it up to take a big objective and that was it. You actually had to ask the other groups and guilds to gather up so you can make a big push on a keep. Now its blob it up to take paper towers.

Sorry but the players have changed and if they continue to just blob any change we get isn’t going to make a difference. IMO your suggestions will just push for more blobbing..

Exactly! Sorry guys, a 60 vs 60 blob fest 24/7… No thanks, you will loose me and the other half of the community that is still in WvW. I used to like to go out there to see what my influence on the match up was. Blob Wars is not a new thing, I want to see less focus on it. What difference does the PvE aspect have on WvW currently? None, it just gets blobbed. Very few commanders actually make a difference in a large fight anymore, many are just rally points for the blob. Take the Blob Wars to EotM where it would actually be funny to watch the Farmers handle. You want to see skill you need to stop the Blobbing. Drop the loot for kills, increase reward for defense, drop the maximum cap size on map. Make it where you have to do more with less people.

If they make the objectives actually valuable personally to the Players by increasing their LOOT and PPK for fighting over them, you will not just have 60 vs 60 vs 60 blobs, those blobs will be forced to disperse and make hard choices when multiple targets are hit at once to be able to defend multiple objectives.

Players NOT caring about the score is due to flaws in the game mode that gave them little reason to care. That should be corrected to make the objectives and score actually matter again. All that the score proves now is that you PvD and siege hump REAL good. Not exactly something to be proud of.

zerorogue.9410:

While I applaud ANET for being more forward about the future of WvW, I don’t like the fact we’re only given two choices. Even more so that the controversial topic of nightcapping is one of the items on the list. As someone who cares about the WvW score I can’t vote on this option because I don’t believe in reducing the rewards of nightcapping. The other option also has many items such as WvW gain graphics that are unnecessary to me.

Please give us a list of options and let us check what we want and not want rather than choosing one group than annother.

Yes, and smashing unrelated items together like this makes players choose between things they may not agree with being included with things they do, then being able to say " the Players asked for this" when they really didn’t, they just were not given a proper poll.

zerorogue.9410:

While I applaud ANET for being more forward about the future of WvW, I don’t like the fact we’re only given two choices. Even more so that the controversial topic of nightcapping is one of the items on the list. As someone who cares about the WvW score I can’t vote on this option because I don’t believe in reducing the rewards of nightcapping. The other option also has many items such as WvW gain graphics that are unnecessary to me.

Please give us a list of options and let us check what we want and not want rather than choosing one group than annother.

Yep. This poll is an either/or, and really the only lesser of two evils is the QoL option, which I can’t in all good conscience vote for, since I and others have said, there are other things that can and should be done.

noseminer.7034:

Finally, make a reward at the end of the week for 1st, 2nd, and 3rd that gets scaled by your participation over the week so that people want to win!

We want this!

Since I see that scoring is winning the poll, I will just post it: please work on cross-map chat! That would be such a helpful feature to have!

lil devils x.6071:

If they make the objectives actually valuable personally to the Players by increasing their LOOT and PPK for fighting over them, you will not just have 60 vs 60 vs 60 blobs, those blobs will be forced to disperse and make hard choices when multiple targets are hit at once to be able to defend multiple objectives.

Players NOT caring about the score is due to flaws in the game mode that gave them little reason to care. That should be corrected to make the objectives and score actually matter again. All that the score proves now is that you PvD and siege hump REAL good. Not exactly something to be proud of.

Or it shows how well you defend… Defense is not scored other then through passive means, its not that your server is not getting points for defense, you are saying points should mainly be rewarded from offense(kills). As far as players not caring, then why is it so important currently for TC to crush its opponents even if it means countless guilds going there from T1? You wouldn’t have the siege humping if you didn’t show up at a paper tower with 60 people and 10 defenders. Players will not care about score if the reward doesn’t justify it. What is being asked, to weight the matches even more on PPK is essentially asking Anet to reward you more for what you are already doing. Seems a little entitled to me(I’m not calling you that, it just seems as a whole for the community to want to be rewarded more for something they are already doing, is like getting my company to pay me for just getting out of bed). Maybe I am just to old school, but I go out there to actually have an effect on the outcome, not to just mash buttons and swarm people to death. Only point I will give to those who want something changed, is peak hours vs empty hours, but at the same time, that is something we as servers should be working out, or taking advantage of. Maybe all the points need to be given for PPT, then prove you can hold it all. Its inevitable you will get a lots of fights over objectives if they where the only places that rewarded points and loot.

I don’t know the answer to this, but I do know the community wouldn’t be in this situation if the population balance was better controlled from the start. Keep the ideas coming in, but for each person wanting more PPK to be factored you will have the same amount wanting more PPT counted. What is a system that doesn’t use either of those two and still keeps things balanced and active?

Mistress Collisto.1546:

lil devils x.6071:

If they make the objectives actually valuable personally to the Players by increasing their LOOT and PPK for fighting over them, you will not just have 60 vs 60 vs 60 blobs, those blobs will be forced to disperse and make hard choices when multiple targets are hit at once to be able to defend multiple objectives.

Players NOT caring about the score is due to flaws in the game mode that gave them little reason to care. That should be corrected to make the objectives and score actually matter again. All that the score proves now is that you PvD and siege hump REAL good. Not exactly something to be proud of.

Or it shows how well you defend… Defense is not scored other then through passive means, its not that your server is not getting points for defense, you are saying points should mainly be rewarded from offense(kills). As far as players not caring, then why is it so important currently for TC to crush its opponents even if it means countless guilds going there from T1? You wouldn’t have the siege humping if you didn’t show up at a paper tower with 60 people and 10 defenders. Players will not care about score if the reward doesn’t justify it. What is being asked, to weight the matches even more on PPK is essentially asking Anet to reward you more for what you are already doing. Seems a little entitled to me(I’m not calling you that, it just seems as a whole for the community to want to be rewarded more for something they are already doing, is like getting my company to pay me for just getting out of bed). Maybe I am just to old school, but I go out there to actually have an effect on the outcome, not to just mash buttons and swarm people to death. Only point I will give to those who want something changed, is peak hours vs empty hours, but at the same time, that is something we as servers should be working out, or taking advantage of. Maybe all the points need to be given for PPT, then prove you can hold it all. Its inevitable you will get a lots of fights over objectives if they where the only places that rewarded points and loot.

I don’t know the answer to this, but I do know the community wouldn’t be in this situation if the population balance was better controlled from the start. Keep the ideas coming in, but for each person wanting more PPK to be factored you will have the same amount wanting more PPT counted. What is a system that doesn’t use either of those two and still keeps things balanced and active?

Currently defense is only scored passive, that is part of the problem that would change with increased PPK given to the defending team and using the PPK to determine the score while fighting over yaks, camps, towers and keeps rather than just the object itself. Removing the passive is part of what needs to happen.

TC isn’t trying to " win" for the sake of winning.. LMAO.. You are not looking at the actual plan here.

They are trying to push TC into Tier one to have different people to fight. The original reason “the Mad Court” alliance went to YB and moved them to Tier one was to hopefully start a rotation, but since it was artificially inflated to go to Tier one , that did not happen. AGAIN, the Mad Court went to TC to push TC to Tier one to change who fights who, not about actually winning the game, it is about changing who fights who to keep it from being so stale. When you have fought the exact same players for the past 3 years, it gets old and you need it to not be so stale. That was the objective here not actually caring about the score. They care about changing who fights who instead to change up the fights, not for the sake of winning.

This is Still artificially inflating the server though so it will not " spice it up" long term due to them STILL fighting the same people.. just those same players are on different servers, just as they are. When you have the same Tier one guilds on different servers, it really doesn’t change who you are fighting, so it is still terribly flawed and will not work as intended. They are just bored as hell and are willing to try anything at this point to change that really.

What I, and others have asked them ( Anet) to do is actually reward PvP in a PvP game mode since 99.9 % of the game rewards PvE in A PvE game mode. PvP should be the focus of this game mode since this is the only place in the game large scale PvP exists. Players have the entire rest of the game to be rewarded for PvE, it will not kill PvE’rs to let PvP be rewarded in a PvP game mode.

On the topic of suggestions: How about adding HoT stats to the Badges of Honor vendor? If the argument against it is that HoT stats are an incentive to buy expac, then just look at the scribing vendor in the guild halls. If you don’t have expac, it tells you that you can’t access this content without purchasing HoT.

Either add the stats to a new HoT-only tab on the existing vendor, or just add a new vendor if the code is too difficult/time-consuming for HoT-specific vendor tabs.

I have guildies that would love to use and experiment with the new stat sets but aren’t willing to grind out the map currencies/gold to get the gear (and they’re sitting on tons of badges).

Thank you for opening up discussion to the community. I have a lot of things to say, so I’ll try to lay them out as cleanly and clearly as possible (and tastefully edit them to be forum-appropriate). I feel some areas of improvement exist that aren’t really listed there under the poll choices, that are nonetheless very important to be addressed – I’ve posted these items in what I believe to be order of highest-to-lowest importance, though I consider them all important.

Firstly, I feel very strongly that the #1 PRIORITY must be moving back to the alpine maps as QUICKLY as possible. The desert borderlands, while they may appear neat from a PvE perspective, are NOT conducive to proper, enjoyable WvW play and have massively reduced the interest of career-WvW players in the game, in some cases driving them off entirely. A return to the alpine maps would bolster interest of those who prefer to spend most or all of their time in WvW and are uninterested or even disdainful of PvE play.

Secondly, something to consider for revising of EBG and the bringing back of the alpine maps – the PvE-like mechanics brought into WvW with the expansion HURT WvW. The tactivators, the surprise-boulders that close off passages in the desert BL, and the Cloaking Waters all introduce unwanted PvE mechanics that interfere with healthy WvW play. I urge you to NOT introduce tactivators to the alpine maps when you bring them back.

Furthermore, I urge you to reconsider your “will-not-remove” stance on the newly-introduced mechanics in EBG, and consider HEAVILY reducing the impact of many or all of them, and even remove the worst offenders (airship, cloaking waters, chilling fog). I know it looks and feels bad to remove things that you worked on, and I can emphathize with that, but these mechanics have made WvW worse, not better. I know you’ve said these mechanics have been intertwined with the scribing system, and again I can emphathize with that, but it really rings hollow when you say that you can’t remove these things you’ve added, because the end result is that it becomes the players’ problem that the developers made this mistake. I also know you plan to nerf these in the near future – I REALLY hope this nerf is a stopgap so that you have time to more strongly change these mechanics or ultimately remove them, and that you aren’t assuming it will be a permanent solution.

Thirdly, I couldn’t help but notice that the “Scoring Improvements” subsections did NOT include increasing the value of winning fights (fights against other players, not mobs/NPCs) and decreasing the value of Point-Per-Tick and “Player-Versus-Door”. Large battles are the heart of WvW, what draws hardened WvW players to the game, and placing more scoring emphasis on fighting (especially if its weighted for respective army sizes) would go a long way towards rewarding the play that WvW players come for.

Fourthly, I want to note that there are still issues of balance that differ from balance issues in sPvP and PvE – You cannot balance for all three using the exact same numbers, and WvW has had some issues due to certain things being A-OK in the other modes but troublesome in WvW. I highly encourage returning to having split-skills between WvW and other modes, and using this option more frequently, to address certain troublesome player mechanics (the greatest offender being, in my opinion, the long-standing issue of lone thieves abusing stealth to harass groups, then immediately cower back into stealth for extended periods, posing an un-ignorable threat which the group has no reasonable recourse to address properly).

Finally, I want to note that there are still many problems with rewards and item availability for those players who only play WvW. Many players want to spend as little time outside of WvW as possible (as stated above, many such players despise PvE). Most of the items in the game that actually affect your stats and build are available either through WvW, or on the Trading Post (for gold you can get playing WvW). This being possible should be a design goal – it fits with the original play-how-you-want philosophy, and it’s important that anything that directly impacts your play in WvW should be attainable in WvW. However, certain build-affecting items are still unobtainable through pure WvW play.

The longest-standing example is the Ascended Back Item – These provide stat boosts over exotic that are useful in WvW, but only some stat combos are available without PvE. While many of the original quivers and tomes can be crafted now using bloodstone dust, the select-your-stats versions (Thousand arrows and there-with-yakkington) still require a random drop from playing fractals (meaning many stat combinations are unavailable). The spinal blades required participation in a PvE event (current methods of acquisition require endless farming of PvE mobs for blade shards). Mawdrey, the so-and-so’s pack, Sabetha’s Crucibles, and the fractal pieces all require PvE. The human god backpieces are all EXCEEDINGLY expensive (because you’re paying for the skin, and the less-expensive-but-still-very-expensive ones require PvE masteries). Making it possible to craft the Thousand Arrows quiver or There With Yakkington using the bloodstone-dust version of the recipe would be a simple solution to this (and frankly I’m not sure why that option wasn’t made available when it was for the other quivers and tomes).

Other examples are more recent, with the expansion – while it makes sense to restrict the new stat combinations to people who bought the expansion, it does NOT make sense to force WvW players who bought the expansion to play through PvE to gain access to those new stat combos. Additionally, HoT exacerbated the existing problem of Rangers needing to play PvE to gain access to certain pets by introducing the Juvenile Electric Wyvern, a neat new pet that makes WvW players sit through the DS event to get – I understand it’s been moved to only require PART of the DS event, but still forces players to sit through some of DS for something they want only for WvW.

I think I’ve laid out all the things I have to say, and I’m pretty sure I’ve successfully edited the whole thing to be forum-appropriate. Thank you again to Anet for opening discussion up to the community; I hope someone gets a chance to read this and all the other thoughtful posts people have made regarding WvW.

i see valid arguments for both ideas suggested.

Its nice to finally see the poll.

WvW is an open PvP mode focussing all aspects of battle not just the fight some of those things are more PVE oriented than PVP, players should not be punished for doing both things.

I still believe edge of the mist should be removed, its plain stupid to have a backdoor that takes away the WvW players and offers them a means to gain WvW ranks by actually not playing the game as its meant to be.

I would like to see the available maps on the borderlands increased to 4.

Alpine borderlands
Desert borderlands
Current EBG reworked for borderland use
Current EOTM map reworked for borderland use

The room made free in the center where EBG is now could be turned into and area where Arena-net could make a Point Per Kill based map, which is also useable for GVG or GVG league, taking the GVG of the borderlands enabling room for players to join maps. You could also make it into an Area for a PPK based 3 fight meta-event rewarding the server that wins it with a decisive victory.

Offer the players more means, more possibilities to enjoy the game, do not change the essence or the size of the maps, the maps shouldn’t look alike or be the same.

Just put em in a random map-selection each week so that the borderlands never turn out to be the same each week removing the drag and adding new challenge for a shorter period. 3 different maps each week / 4 weeks a month.

In the long run you will have happy players.

And yes please keep in touch with the WvW community on a larger scale so we know you are interested in us and give us bether rewards for being loyal daily players.

I’m concerned that the Core Base Map Mechanic flaw that WvW is structured on hasn’t been addressed…imho.

The most Major & Extreme Issues are:

Server stacking – lead to Population In-Balance
Server stacking – lead to Stale Match-Ups
Can’t play with friends & family on Other World Servers
Off-peak capping

These things should be addressed first…through a careful review & fix of the Current Base Map Mechanic…there is a simple & elegant solution…imho.

Band-Aid fixes will address certain things, but long term…we might need to have Band-Aid fixes to address these Band-Aid fixes…imho.

It’s scary how these fixes will be implemented because there is no overall picture on how it will be done. This is just a Poll asking everybody what we want.

Asking the Magic Genie to give you a million bucks…and you end up with a million male reindeer in your backyard.

Yours truly,
Diku

Possible Full Solution – Google Search – Reboot Base Map Mechanic

I just kind of want a Lattice Link system in place. Not like Planetside 2’s but more like Planetside’s. Wuvwuv still feels like two or more big blobs moving around the field trying to avoid each other still.

• Reduce the impact of night capping.
  Feeling discriminated when I read this. Furthermore, doesn’t this affect the glicko calculation which then affect the glicko rating which then affect the ranking which then affect the chance that off hours population get to be placed against server that has similar population? Discrimination is too real.

• Lessen the gap between winning scores and losing scores so losing teams can still recover.
  Wouldn’t this make glicko less accurate since glicko is base on the scoring?

• Adjust objective score relative to upgrade level.
  Sounds good but that also encourage people to siege 24/7 which then make more people complain about sieges

• Adjust score for capturing objectives.
  What does this means? What different is this from the above point?

• Add objective-summary tool tips.
  What does this means?

• Add a territory-control map overlay.
  What does this means?

I voted for the Scoring changes, but I’m a bit concerned about the “Reduce the impact of night capping”. I don’t want it to turn into a situation where if you’re a night player, it means you earn less rewards/WXP or are deemed to be “not as important to the war effort”. Someone’s day is always someone else’s night, and while it’s nice to have a safety net for servers that have a minimal population during off-peak hours, don’t trivialise the efforts of night players as a result of it.

On a personal note, I must admit I don’t get the seemingly widespread dislike for things like Tactivators (although some upgrades, like Cloaking Waters, I do agree needs some tweaking because it’s waaaaay too easy for gankers to kill roamers while under the protection of stealth. Perhaps stealth should fade as soon as you leave the SMC grounds, making it a primarily defensive upgrade) or the Desert Borderlands map, but I’m not a primary WvW player so I shall defer to the experience of those who have played a lot longer than I have.

Had to vote for scoring improvements but the QoL changes look good as well with the exception of WXP-gain sparkle trail. No one wants that & it’s a waste of resources.

How about a third boarder land map? So we can have Alpine, Desert, & x.

SkyShroud.2865:

• Reduce the impact of night capping.
  Feeling discriminated when I read this. Furthermore, doesn’t this affect the glicko calculation which then affect the glicko rating which then affect the ranking which then affect the chance that off hours population get to be placed against server that has similar population? Discrimination is too real.

• Lessen the gap between winning scores and losing scores so losing teams can still recover.
  Wouldn’t this make glicko less accurate since glicko is base on the scoring?

• Adjust objective score relative to upgrade level.
  Sounds good but that also encourage people to siege 24/7 which then make more people complain about sieges

• Adjust score for capturing objectives.
  What does this means? What different is this from the above point?

• Add objective-summary tool tips.
  What does this means?

• Add a territory-control map overlay.
  What does this means?

I really think they need to understand that if their decision is going to make many players leave the game they really should think about an option that does not do that?

Devaluing anyone’s game time and treating players different due to what time they work/ play ect is just a really kittened up thing to do. There are solutions that will treat all players regardless of time zone equally while ALSO making the number of players on match the weight of their effort but they are not proposing those because that would mean actually treat wvw like PvP game mode and keep score via PvP activity instead.

It is the rewarding PvD and siege humping that causes this, but rather than actually solving those issues, they would choose run off thousands of MORE players from the game by devaluing off hour game play? YIKES.

I wish they would just realize the answer has been in front of them the entire time..
Treat it like a PvP game mode..

Cool! I like the activity from Anet nowadays regarding WvW – I voted for score.

Brown Fang Thump.9482:

What I’d like most in WvW are rewards scaled to opposition faced. For example, if a solo player engages 3 enemies and wins, that player’s loot should be greater than that of one of the 3 enemies if they win.

I think a single player who can capturer a map objective such as a camp or tower should be rewarded more than a player who is simply following a zerg of 30+ players who can’t help but win against undefended objectives. This kind of reward system would encourage players to approach the territory capture aspect of the game with more strategy without completely ruining the zerg experience for those who enjoy that sort of thing.

As an aside, I love that this type of feedback is being used to improve the game. Of course, I think the poll should be in the game (as they were during beta), where the maximum number of players can vote. There is a large population of players who don’t watch the forums; but, are interested in helping improve the game.

I think this is a really cool idea.

Nep Leet.5491:

WvW is not just PvP. Making PPK be a thing in WvW has reallly screwed up the basic intent of WvW: objective capturing and keeping. The current attitude in WvW is really negative and outright hostile when it comes to anything PPT.

I WvW for all aspects of WvW, and I feel there needs to be a stronger focus on ensuring a healthy balance of all aspects of WvW.

I’m not going to pull this thread off topic, but I will say this…

This is why pvp in this game will never grow… I’m not sure where the disconnect happened with gamers, but the core and spirit of pvp zones is players fighting other players… This is a 101 concept. The more pve and pvd and fighting over circle points in spvp stuff that gets dropped into pvp modes, the farther away we get from quality pvp.

Basic intent of wvw? Yeah that’s called massive amounts of player controlled pixels killing other massive amounts of player controlled pixels… PPK has to be an important thing, sorry. Everything else should be secondary.

Let us build placeable barricades as a new type of siege, similar to the vine walls in the guild hall (but made of wood). Perhaps the superior version could also have spikes that do bleeding to enemies. Of course they should be destructible but they could be used strategically in a whole variety of situations to slow down the enemy or provide some form of cover.

Also, please increase the view distance so I can see players (enemies and allies) from further away. If I want to treb cows or mortar fire to where the fighting is, I currently have to rely on where the dots are on the map because if I look there normally it’s just empty terrain (or just spell effects if I’m lucky). Likewise there is no indication via damage numbers appearing that I’ve hit any enemies if I can’t see them.

And when a player does appear as they run towards me, I often have to wait a few seconds before I see the nameplate – is it an ally? is it an enemy? Given how many professions have long-distance gap closers, knowing that in time can mean the difference between life and death.

Enemy targetability distance also needs to be increased – if I can see an enemy I should be able to target them. This problem can be frustrating on a ballista.

Both projects in the survey sound nice. However, I have some doubts that they actually work as planned. E.g. nightcapping leads to the question what a fair distribution between day and night is. I mean, if a world captures a tower at 3 am, is it actually worth less than a tower at 3 pm? What shall we say to the players who work hard at 3 am to capture the tower? “Thank you for your effort. However, what you have done was unimportant”?“You dont have to go to WvW at night. It doesnt matter anyway”?

It is similar with the area control. It sounds really nice on the paper. However, I have some doubts that it works as nice in reality as on the paper… I wish arena-net all the best.

Wanted to chime in re: commander tags and colourblindness. Apologies if this has been mentioned before in this thread. It’s fairly late where I am, and I wanted to get this in before heading off to bed.

My suggestion is a 1px white border around tags on maps, and a 2px border around tags when running around. I’ve attached a picture, which for me makes the tag much more visible. While it doesn’t do anything to really ameliorate my ability to see the difference in colour, I can at least see the tag itself much more clearly.

EDIT: Not sure if I can attach more than one screenshot, so here’s a link that contains the attached screenshot, and one in game.

http://imgur.com/a/vO78P

I voted scoring, however my feedback is if you think population issues are solved you are kidding yourself and it should be at the top of the priority list.

Also with the scoring make sure you give consideration for how those who play in off hours might feel devalued if their score is worth less.

Final point please combine cross map chat with scoring. How hard could it be to make team chat a total server chat across all maps? Map and team chat for a map is not needed.

Basically it’s vote for:

1) a working car.

OR

2) the car color.

Choose wisely…

The current proposals for changes to the scoring system worry me. I hope that there’s no mechanic allowing a lower population server to “fight back” score-wise. It will completely defeat the purpose of rankings and glicko.

Voted for QoL changes

I am more than happy to see that WvW is getting some attention. However; I voted no pref as each set of actions listed in the poll make no difference to me whatsoever.

I would take Alpines back and any lag improvements of any or all of those items, as well as any of the changes that recently went in. I have not logged in since I saw the first Desert border video.

Glad to see a poll, but I hope ANET is able to start accepting suggestions to take future polls on and attempt to get feedback before they implement changes. If not we may all be continuing to just still spinning our wheels here.

Swagger.1459:

PPK has to be an important thing, sorry. Everything else should be secondary.

To reduce whole WvW into PPK would be extremely silly. PPK is based on population, you could as well give up any scoring and simply reward most populated server with first place. It would be, in 1 word, boring.

PPK also assumes there is always enemy to fight. Have you considered situation where there is not? What will players do when they show up and they have nothing to do? They quit.

Whole PvE aspect of WvW is what makes possible to fight back when you have less players. It is what keeps the WvW interesting and unpredictable because winning or losing is not just about bringing more people and running over the enemy.

I voted QoL entirely because of the cross-map chat feature. I think that’s something we really need and I hope it can pave the way for a server-wide chat down the road.

I hope they don’t consider population “fixed” yet, though. The linking system has flaws, especially in regards to non-NA timezones, which are still sparsely populated because the number of matchups is dictated by the much larger NA population.

This poll shows once again what a thankless task it is to deliver WvW by "listening to the community "! We have always had polar opposite opinions of what WvW is and what it should be!

Personally I think the changes to scoring can be kept simple, maybe leaving time for some of the other stuff, sparkle trails aside.

Increasing the points per kill to where it has rough equivalence to ppt at the end of the week (as suggested in the “leaked”/“fake” draft release notes/ideas) should meet the most important need. No need to mess around with complex out of hours reduced point scores. Then those working outside of ‘normal’ hours, for EU or NA, still get the same credit for capping a tower or keep, but if they don’t actually have to fight anyone to do so, that counts too, much more than the token amount it does at the moment.

I don’t say this for the benefit of particular servers now, that are winning @ ppk, but because changes in scoring should lead to other servers improving at that and giving better fights all round.

As others have said, more points for taking upgraded structures seems interesting (and again sounds easy), but could also lead to serious bunkering. Maybe trying this for a few weeks makes sense.

I’m not convinced the other suggested scoring changes are needed or would be beneficial.

noseminer.7034:

Change the wvw icon at the top of the screen when your team has an outnumbered matchup so people know to get in there! Finally, make a reward at the end of the week for 1st, 2nd, and 3rd that gets scaled by your participation over the week so that people want to win!

Wow, these 2 changes could really really help WvW massively. I like them very much! Those with some tweakings to WvW scoring could save this game mode (that I like very much) from its current state!

This may be contentious for social and technological reasons! The only real solution to nightcapping would be to move to a global league.

With the right peering/routing latencies from Euope to NY are comparable to NY to California (http://ipnetwork.bgtmo.ip.att.net/pws/network_delay.html). Clearly, the raw transit time from Europe to California is going to be about double. But, has anyone done the work to find out how the game would play with a well funded server farm either on the east coast or in Ireland with entry points in Europe and the USA supported by top-notch peering arrangements? How much of the latency currently experienced by Americans playing on EU servers and visa-versa (which while not ideal is already mostly playable) are due to the speed of light and how much due to the vagaries of poor routing?

Could Anet-supported routing from key locations to the server farm make things better to the point a global game would be possible? Are we really saying the laws of the universe dictate that the world can never support truly global games?

Just wanted to say that this poll idea is absolutely amazing and I really appreciate you directly asking for people’s opinion. The interaction with the playerbase has been at an all time high lately and I really hope it keeps going that way.

As much as I’m afraid of big scoring changes that could do more harm than good, I still heavily prefer refining core mechanics of the game mode over very handy but somewhat superficial QoL changes. Voted for the Scoring Improvements.

Bring Alphine back #1, then Scoring #2.

Cross-map chat is cool (only reason people vote QoL option) but the most servers already have community guild + ts to communicate between maps. There is no need to put priority on things that players already do with other tools. No sugar, please. Focus on core issues.

I agree with many here that population imbalance is the real problem behind scoring. If pop imbalance is fixed, the scoring is by and large fixed. However, short of drastically changing the game (WvW 2.0, what we have now is like WvW 1.5), or making some unpopular design decisions, fixing it is going to be really hard.

So, I voted for scoring. However, i noted some suggestions about build templates. I think this should be a very high priority for Anet. It would be one of the best (if not the best) QoL addition to WvW, if not the entire game.

In WvW it could be attained via spending points. In PvE its part of a mastery. In PvP its automatically enabled.

In WvW players could only swap templates within an uncontested (no swords) tower/keep/castle. In fractals/dungeons/raids, only at start/checkpoints etc.

+1 for build templates! The biggest QoL change the game needs. Not just one alternate WvW build, but the option to switch between multiple builds in each game-mode.

OriOri.8724:

Brown Fang Thump.9482:

What I’d like most in WvW are rewards scaled to opposition faced. For example, if a solo player engages 3 enemies and wins, that player’s loot should be greater than that of one of the 3 enemies if they win.

I think a single player who can capturer a map objective such as a camp or tower should be rewarded more than a player who is simply following a zerg of 30+ players who can’t help but win against undefended objectives. This kind of reward system would encourage players to approach the territory capture aspect of the game with more strategy without completely ruining the zerg experience for those who enjoy that sort of thing.

As an aside, I love that this type of feedback is being used to improve the game. Of course, I think the poll should be in the game (as they were during beta), where the maximum number of players can vote. There is a large population of players who don’t watch the forums; but, are interested in helping improve the game.

I think this is a really cool idea.

Obvious potential for abuse and conflict though..

“Hey you, stop following us, our loot sucks because of you”.