Guild Wars 2

Fixing forum bug – see previous.

I liked their ideas of the victory points being adjusted depending on daytime and a Last Stand event.
What happened to them?
Rewards are a great thing though. I just don’t think they accomplished their prior goals with skirmishes alone.

I think people are right to point out that many of the ideas from previous polls haven’t been implemented or implemented in a manner that would really change the game dramatically. I wonder if they were abandoned and for what reason.

Reminder. http://dulfy.net/2016/05/09/gw2-plans-for-wvw-scoring-overhaul/

DeceiverX.8361:

All 1U1D does is increase the rate at which servers trade tiers. It doesn’t actually affect volatility unless players make those changes by transferring and stacking, which is what you genuinely don’t want when looking into the future,

Which of course is exactly what will happen. I know it, you know it, everybody knows it. When people know a matchup winning server will go up in tier, they gonna transfer there. 1u1d as a standalone change will IMO be way too volatile for WvW.

Also, I want teh lootz.

I don’t see anything wrong with the matchup system as it is, on any of my accounts. We have a bit of movement between the tiers, lopsided matches aren’t lasting that long anymore, and most matches are nowhere near as lopsided as they were a few months ago.

I do see plenty wrong with 1U1D, in that it’s going to force too much movement between the tiers and cause lopsided matches because they’re inherent to the 1U1D system.

So, for me this solves two problems at once – voting against a bad idea, and in favour of a more reasonable one.

Swamurabi.7890:

1U1D will start out as a 1v1v1, then the next week it will start as a 1v1v1, which will become a 1v1v0 before the weekend is over, and finally end up as a 1v0v0.

1U1D will be the death of WvW

How does that make sense? We need 3 teams per tier. There are always gonna be 3 per tier, and its gonna be a mix and match of the teams we have existing.
We won’t have multiple people dominating each tier now. The ones who dominate tier 4/3/2 in the first week…will be the undergods in week 2…..they might go back to dominating their old tier in week 3 etc. The current system though they would just stay dominating for over 2 months straight or stay the loser for 2 months straight.
We will always have a dominate server in T1 unless the pairings are done extremely well to prevent it.

At worst this means that T1 will be 1v1v0 every other week. But in exchange every other tier is gonna be much better.
Oh okay I see what you are saying….you are assuming that for each tier the servers will score the same place (1st/2nd/3rd) at the end of each week. And that the differential between each tier is too much for any good movement to take place. Thus any server entering a tier higher or lower will create a 1v1v0 situation every other week, since you are assuming they will be dead last if they go up and dead first if they go down. Then I guess the worst case scenario would be the creation of the 1v0v0 predominately in the middle tier……since eventually 1 might go up and another go down making a tier where the top and bottom are too weak/strong and belonging in different tiers than the middle server’s that they just entered.

This is faulty logic though. Its not the 1up1down system itself that causes this, its the balancing of the teams/pairings overall that does this. You should never dismiss a solution based on a problem it isn’t responsible for producing. That’s like saying we can’t sign a peace treaty to end a war we want to end, because too many people have already died because of the war. Its a solution to ending the war, which is what is wanted, but you are saying this solution is gonna ruin everything because of a separate problem. You need to realize that separate problems have separate solutions bro! And in this analogy there are many solutions! Just like there are many solutions to creating good matches with this system.
For wvsw its definitely more problematic with limited sets (4 total for NA for example), but this can always be expanded outwards to 5 or more like the old days (or some other solution). And there are other solutions of similar magnitude to addressing this problem.
As long as the pairings and teams are properly balanced its not a problem. It shouldn’t be too hard to pair the servers in such a way where you create a number line of strongest to weakest. Then the first 3 become the starting tier 1, then the next 3 starting tier 2 etc.
To date they have been pairing to create balanced tiers, rather than a number line, since people were not prong to ever leaving or changing their tiers cause of their refusal to destroy the glicko. They need simply re-evaluate how they pair once they integrate this new system. Stop thinking of tiers, this system will effectively delete tiers. Just picture a number line:
[1-2-3]-[4-5-6]-[7-8-9]-[10-11-12]
After 1 week we might get:
[1-2-5]-[3-6-9]-[4-7-8]……
After 2 weeks we might get
[1-2-3]-[5-9-4]……..
Fill in the blank however you want. This system isn’t scary at all, you are over-complicating things. No 1-0-0 situations are more prong to exist than they are already in the existing system. And if they do, its not the system that is liable. Everyone is also failing to note that the currently tier system is just as liable as this one is for such a problem….only the consequences last for over 2 months lol rather than a single week. There is no reason not to support this idea. It limits risk, it solves problems, it doesn’t present new problems.

I mean that’s just sad that you think the only way for wvsw to exist is for people to continue playing the losers each week and for people to continue playing the winners each week….

Don’t you feel bad advocating for the status quo of elite vs pleb? ANd justifying it based on the idea that it will destroy everything if we change. There are just too many parallels to irl human history….

I’d feel bad. Feel bad.

biggest surprise poll Anet made on the balancing kitten
how i though we were getting along with you guys………

Gunner Morton.8340:

Endelon.1042:

http://dulfy.net/2016/04/28/gw2-world-vs-world-poll/

WvW Scoring Improvements

Reduce the impact of night capping.
Lessen the gap between winning scores and losing scores so losing teams can still recover.
Adjust objective score relative to upgrade level.
Adjust score for capturing objectives.
Rebalance the score awarded for activities that don’t reward points per tick.
Take suggestions from the community!

The changes in bold have yet to be implemented even though they were part of the very first “poll”.

This.

Not voting until they finish the stuff they mentioned in the previous polls. Nightcap fix is too important and affects this new poll so until they change it there is no reason to vote now.

Exactly. These polls are meaningless as scoring, servers, and ppt doesn’t matter. It’s wasted effort due to linkings and bandwagoning. There is no reason to put effort into wvw from a player aspect, just blob up, cast your spells, log off….there’s your end game.

Everyone just needs to move on, anet doesn’t seem to have a clear path or work plan. Granted they’ve lost a lot of all stars from anet, but whoever is driving this ship is hitting every coral reef in the bay

Jim Hunter.6821:

Sharen Graves.1276:

This poll is loaded and mute as soon as it says more loot.

option1) No matter what you attached to the poll the one that has more loot is always going to win. It like asking if you want to keep the current system or add multimap looting like you have in AB. No one voted for this because it had clean up or or improvements. (not saying not one person did but majority read
“more loot that’s what I want”) This is also going to promote Ktrain and blobs.

option 2) Higher pop server in t1/t2 don’t want this system and have the majority of the WvW players. So it’s not going to get voted for. I mean having movement would be great.

The poll should have ask if players would like:

option 1) a 1 up 1 down system with a short explanation
option 2) Glicko scoring adjusting with a short explanation

I’m in T1 and I’d love for them to give 1 up 1 down a try. But the problem is these polls are pointless when they don’t put any limitations on who is allowed to vote. They let PvE players that have no interest in the overall health of the game vote, they’ll only show up when their server is winning so why not vote for better rewards for the little time they spend in WvW?
And if you look at Mal’s sig in the first response to this thread you’ll see he has 30 accounts, he’s against a 1 up 1 down system and he can vote 30 times against it. That will actually make a decent impact on a poll where 67% of the people who have looked at it have chosen not to vote.

They shouldn’t let people vote unless they have achieved a certain rank in WvW, this cuts down on the alt account voting and it makes sure the people who are voting have a good understanding of the game mode and how the changes will affect it.

I could vote 30 times, but in reality I will not. At least so far I only voted once in every poll (Anet can check if they want).

Whilst, yes, 1up/1down is likely a bad idea, the other option we vote for is much worse and not reversible. Or at least with how they worded it. I would rather we experiment with this.
The other option is to further promote band waggoning with rewards. And ui improvements are overall moot.

Really people are voting for Skirmishes? God what is wrong with people? Do you really want to wreck WvW? Where is your server pride? Where is your can do attitude? Having issues covering daytime/afternoon/evenings/overnight? Figure it out. Where there is a will there is a way!!

Mylerian.9176:

Having issues covering daytime/afternoon/evenings/overnight? Figure it out. Where there is a will there is a way!!

4 years in the game and you want us to care about what’s happening in a timezone we don’t play?

Swamurabi.7890:

1U1D will start out as a 1v1v1, then the next week it will start as a 1v1v1, which will become a 1v1v0 before the weekend is over, and finally end up as a 1v0v0.

1U1D will be the death of WvW

It’s weird how often I find my self nodding my head on your posts. You must play EU.

Cerby.1069:

There is no reason not to support this idea. It limits risk, it solves problems, it doesn’t present new problems.

Yes there is.

It only works if all the servers are closely balanced.

The servers are not closely balanced.

So it doesn’t work.

Ben K.6238:

Cerby.1069:

There is no reason not to support this idea. It limits risk, it solves problems, it doesn’t present new problems.

Yes there is.

It only works if all the servers are closely balanced.

The servers are not closely balanced.

So it doesn’t work.

They arent closely balanced because anet has been linking servers to create stable tiers instead of trying to make every pairing competitive with each other.

1 up 1 down would work fine if they shoot for equal populations across the board and relink on a monthly basis.

Jayne.9251:

Swamurabi.7890:

1U1D will start out as a 1v1v1, then the next week it will start as a 1v1v1, which will become a 1v1v0 before the weekend is over, and finally end up as a 1v0v0.

1U1D will be the death of WvW

It’s weird how often I find my self nodding my head on your posts. You must play EU.

Nope, NA player, but playing less and less. I seem like I’m EU because I play on FA, a server that is used to not winning matches and instead concentrated on winning fights.

As I look at both options, I’m starting to get the feeling that both will be bad for WvW.

1U1D will look like season 2 and season 3, which were the worst time to play WvW.

Veteran WvW players played when the rewards were crap and changing rewards won’t change how they play. However, I worry that adding rewards for winning, either skirmish or match, will create a snowball effect that will give a winning server a boost in population/coverage as the fairweathers come out which will lead to lower participation for the losing servers later in the week.

I feel this poll is a lose-lose.

Swamurabi.7890:

Veteran WvW players played when the rewards were crap and changing rewards won’t change how they play. However, I worry that adding rewards for winning, either skirmish or match, will create a snowball effect that will give a winning server a boost in population/coverage as the fairweathers come out which will lead to lower participation for the losing servers later in the week.

I feel this poll is a lose-lose.

Doesn’t this ultimately end up with more people playing WvW overall, and the rise in active population will seal high-tier servers from transfer for longer, so the impact’s overall pretty well cushioned?

Jim Hunter.6821:

They arent closely balanced because anet has been linking servers to create stable tiers instead of trying to make every pairing competitive with each other.

1 up 1 down would work fine if they shoot for equal populations across the board and relink on a monthly basis.

If I recall correctly a dev actually also called that out as an option once the system is in place. But right now anything less than 2 months is impossible because of the time it takes for glicko to adjust.

Sarrs.4831:

Swamurabi.7890:

Veteran WvW players played when the rewards were crap and changing rewards won’t change how they play. However, I worry that adding rewards for winning, either skirmish or match, will create a snowball effect that will give a winning server a boost in population/coverage as the fairweathers come out which will lead to lower participation for the losing servers later in the week.

I feel this poll is a lose-lose.

Doesn’t this ultimately end up with more people playing WvW overall, and the rise in active population will seal high-tier servers from transfer for longer, so the impact’s overall pretty well cushioned?

It might not have been an issue pre-HOT, but now numbers matter way more then skill.

I think both options will eventually lead to matches ending up being 1v0v0.

does the 1u1d remedy for the ppt win war solution?
ask yourselves, some of us want to face different people on the field
i wanna see other people how they fight on an open field, defending or attacking an obective

for years/months if its your kind of gameplay i cant argue
but is there really anyone here who fights on WvW, or most of you guys are just ppt bots

that is why im also against on the tiers
as long as there are tiers, no one can solve the population imbalance
take not its different from coverage
coverage is much harder to solve than population imbalance on the Fight side and not on the PPT side given the skirmish implementation
i can only think of the solution to those imbalance was player stat scaling just like the bosses and lords

Norbe.7630:

i can only think of the solution to those imbalance was player stat scaling just like the bosses and lords

Because it worked so well in Wintergrasp…

I’m curious if ANet would let us know:

Total Votes cast for Current Project Priority > Total Votes cast for Past World Linking

If the above is true…then this would “prove” that WvW must be growing in players, or at least by players that vote in Polls.

If so…how much did it INCREASE by or DECREASE for that matter?

Just wondering…

Diku.2546:

I’m curious if ANet would let us know:

Total Votes cast for Current Project Priority > Total Votes cast for Past World Linking

If the above is true…then this would “prove” that WvW must be growing in players, or at least by players that vote in Polls.

If so…how much did it INCREASE by or DECREASE for that matter?

Just wondering…

No, that would only prove that more voted on this vote than previous ones.

Anet most likely have much better metrics to show average WvW population over time.

And they probably wont show you either.

Dawdler.8521:

And they probably wont show you either.

They never show us anything anyway…

Dawdler.8521:

No, that would only prove that more voted on this vote than previous ones.

Anet most likely have much better metrics to show average WvW population over time.

And they probably wont show you either.

Agree…you’re pretty sharp.

I’m really fishing to know the average WvW population over time.

You guys need to push the skirmishes idea further and make a map where fights are the primary focus.

You need to add better rewards that don’t promote bandwagoning. Instead of increasing rewards for winning the Skirmish/match just guarantee better rewards for the things you accomplish (capturing/killing) but add diminishing returns based on the amount of players that helped.

So solo capping towers or keeps should guarantee exotic with a high chance for ascended drops. Each additional player that helps should lower that chance by about 10% until you hit the current drop rate (should never be 0% chance).

This encourages more players to go out and get stuff done without relying on a commander. Which means less coverage gaps (because smaller groups will be willing to run), less blobs, and it may even encourage players to move to lower pop servers.

Jim Hunter.6821:

So solo capping towers or keeps should guarantee exotic with a high chance for ascended drops. Each additional player that helps should lower that chance by about 10% until you hit the current drop rate (should never be 0% chance).

Some people would go “kitten OFF, I want my rewards”.

Jeknar.6184:

Jim Hunter.6821:

So solo capping towers or keeps should guarantee exotic with a high chance for ascended drops. Each additional player that helps should lower that chance by about 10% until you hit the current drop rate (should never be 0% chance).

Some people would go “kitten OFF, I want my rewards”.

Yes, it would against Anet’s philosphy that you should never be unhappy to see other players around.

Not to mention people who play at off hours where there are no defenders and you can easily solo towers get rewarded more.

Malediktus.3740:

Jeknar.6184:

Jim Hunter.6821:

So solo capping towers or keeps should guarantee exotic with a high chance for ascended drops. Each additional player that helps should lower that chance by about 10% until you hit the current drop rate (should never be 0% chance).

Some people would go “kitten OFF, I want my rewards”.

Yes, it would against Anet’s philosphy that you should never be unhappy to see other players around.

Not to mention people who play at off hours where there are no defenders and you can easily solo towers get rewarded more.

Catering to care bears is a big part of what has ruined WvW. They seem to think dumbing down the combat and making things passive/easier will draw in the casual players, but the casuals only show up when there are commanders or dedicated players to lead the way. They need to encourage players to not rely on having the biggest blob to get things done.

As far as off hours capping is concerned, those players are already more rewarded. This idea at least encourages them to split up instead of running in 1 k-train blob, which gives the defenders a fighting chance since they are running up against 2 or 3 people instead of 20-30.

To me this poll sounds like a bad joke: Who cares about scores, as long as A-Net keeps determining the winner of each match in advance by daft server linking?

Jim Hunter.6821:

Malediktus.3740:

Jeknar.6184:

Jim Hunter.6821:

So solo capping towers or keeps should guarantee exotic with a high chance for ascended drops. Each additional player that helps should lower that chance by about 10% until you hit the current drop rate (should never be 0% chance).

Some people would go “kitten OFF, I want my rewards”.

Yes, it would against Anet’s philosphy that you should never be unhappy to see other players around.

Not to mention people who play at off hours where there are no defenders and you can easily solo towers get rewarded more.

Catering to care bears is a big part of what has ruined WvW. They seem to think dumbing down the combat and making things passive/easier will draw in the casual players, but the casuals only show up when there are commanders or dedicated players to lead the way. They need to encourage players to not rely on having the biggest blob to get things done.

As far as off hours capping is concerned, those players are already more rewarded. This idea at least encourages them to split up instead of running in 1 k-train blob, which gives the defenders a fighting chance since they are running up against 2 or 3 people instead of 20-30.

Nowadays PVE players are on WvW to “slack off” not to ktrain. They can easily get 20-30g per hour on pve. I’m currently on a PVX guild and its very common for me to read that they slack off too much cause they are on WvW instead of farming gold.

I think WvW needs competitive gold farming methods, the method you mentioned would be too toxic. Maybe having a squad size setting would help. medium size squad (25) normal squad (50), small (10). Smaller squad beating larger should be rewarded more. Skirmish reward should be per server not winner(prevent bandwagon), top squads (per size) or guilds with most kill etc..

Also i think it would help a lot if they remove the huge amount of gold needed to start/upgrade guilds, playing WvW should be enough to upgrade WvW dedicated guilds.

Jeknar.6184:

Mylerian.9176:

Having issues covering daytime/afternoon/evenings/overnight? Figure it out. Where there is a will there is a way!!

4 years in the game and you want us to care about what’s happening in a timezone we don’t play?

Yes you should. As the overall score is what should matter most.

Mylerian.9176:

Jeknar.6184:

Mylerian.9176:

Having issues covering daytime/afternoon/evenings/overnight? Figure it out. Where there is a will there is a way!!

4 years in the game and you want us to care about what’s happening in a timezone we don’t play?

Yes you should. As the overall score is what should matter most.

Overall score will matter when winning start to matter. Right now there is no point in winning as you gain nothing for it. At least with rewards for skirmishes we can focus in winning during the time we play instead of stressing over what happening while we are not playing.
Skirmishes can be much more competitive oposed to Matchups that are pretty much over by monday.

McKenna Berdrow.2759:

The poll has ended! The final results are:
60.1% WvW Scoring Improvements Phase 2
39.9% WvW Matchmaking Improvements
This means that the WvW team’s next big priority will be adding rewards to Skirmishes and improving the Skirmish UI. Thanks to everyone who voted!

I hope you took the time to read through the discussion and aren’t looking solely at the poll

McKenna Berdrow.2759:

The poll has ended! The final results are:
60.1% WvW Scoring Improvements Phase 2
39.9% WvW Matchmaking Improvements
This means that the WvW team’s next big priority will be adding rewards to Skirmishes and improving the Skirmish UI. Thanks to everyone who voted!

Will rewards be given at the end of each skirmish or at the end of each week. I would suggest that rather than basing rewards solely on a servers performance that it include individual contribution as well, or just go solely by an individual’s progress during skirmishes. This way every player actually has to do something to earn a reward and contribute to their server, rather then just stacking up on a winning server and only playing during peak times. Please discourage farming.

There should be a minimum requiment to let you be elegible to the skirmish/week reward. Problably somenthing like the meta event progress in the HoT maps (where your reward is based on the overall participation across the event). Playing while outnumbered should award more participation to encourage playing out of the peak times.

Hey. I can play while the outnumbered buff is on during NA prime…

Sarika.3756:

Hey. I can play while the outnumbered buff is on during NA prime…

Some servers may have different peak times, but I actually meant play when there are less people around… Dragonbrand for exemple had EBG queued at 11am EST, but their NA seen to be very outnumbered.

McKenna Berdrow.2759:

The poll has ended! The final results are:
60.1% WvW Scoring Improvements Phase 2
39.9% WvW Matchmaking Improvements
This means that the WvW team’s next big priority will be adding rewards to Skirmishes and improving the Skirmish UI. Thanks to everyone who voted!

Hi Berdrow

new rewards will be on this month ?

I don’t pretend to speak for them, but I haven’t known them to complete a next big priority in 22 days before.

Ben K.6238:

I don’t pretend to speak for them, but I haven’t known them to complete a next big priority in 22 days before.

you’re misusing ‘big’
1u1d isn’t actually that big a project; it may be a ‘high priority’ but it isn’t big
skirmish rewards restructuring and UI changes may be big, but a lot of that work has likely been completed already

Jerry CCH.9816:

McKenna Berdrow.2759:

The poll has ended! The final results are:
60.1% WvW Scoring Improvements Phase 2
39.9% WvW Matchmaking Improvements
This means that the WvW team’s next big priority will be adding rewards to Skirmishes and improving the Skirmish UI. Thanks to everyone who voted!

Hi Berdrow

new rewards will be on this month ?

I wish I could see the funny side of this, give better rewards for skirmishes, opens up BG.
I want to laugh, I want to think its April come early, but some one is so out of the loop that is making decisions at this current time, its all become a big joke.

I did not vote in this, since it gave 2 options 1up1down or rewards, neither was the way I wanted to vote, the 3rd option was let me see results.

You failed us.

Jim Hunter.6821:

You need to add better rewards that don’t promote bandwagoning. Instead of increasing rewards for winning the Skirmish/match just guarantee better rewards for the things you accomplish (capturing/killing) but add diminishing returns based on the amount of players that helped.

So solo capping towers or keeps should guarantee exotic with a high chance for ascended drops. Each additional player that helps should lower that chance by about 10% until you hit the current drop rate (should never be 0% chance).

This encourages more players to go out and get stuff done without relying on a commander. Which means less coverage gaps (because smaller groups will be willing to run), less blobs, and it may even encourage players to move to lower pop servers.

+1

This should be highlighted, blobbing should not be the most profitable way to play WvW, or we will never get rid of this mentality.

And this is the only way to ever make people consider moving to smaller servers. It solves some of the main problems in WvW from the very start, but unfortunately ANet’s Care-Bear-Rule prohibits them from fixing this.

Jeknar.6184:

Overall score will matter when winning start to matter. Right now there is no point in winning as you gain nothing for it. At least with rewards for skirmishes we can focus in winning during the time we play instead of stressing over what happening while we are not playing.
Skirmishes can be much more competitive opposed to Matchups that are pretty much over by monday.

I find it amusing how much this is starting to remind me of EotM. I do not think that has to be a bad thing, I think it could a good move depending on how they did it, to make WvW either more casual or competitive, depending upon the execution.

Anyway, I do think that focusing on “This Skirmish” is a good step for both types. Curious about how they are going to handle rewards, certainly hoping it won’t be “Stack server for rewards!” type.

RIP WvW 2016. Alas I knew you well once. Now you have turned into a kitten , so I must flush you away!

Ok, for the people complaining about night capping, does anyone 600 the borderlands at all much less for more than an hour anymore since linking? I’m thinking not. So what you’re salty that people stay up later than you or sleep different hours? Like he said, you’re not the only one who plays the game. If their server didn’t play during the day as well they wouldn’t do as well with the skirmish system, thats how they fixed night capping. They shouldn’t punish nightcapping so severely that basically theres no point to wvwing at night at all just because you’re in bed, sorry the world doesn’t revolve around you.

I dont understand the bennefits whatever side of the pool….

Aeolus.3615:

I dont understand the bennefits whatever side of the pool….

First option meant they’ll work on improving the game.

Second option meant they’ll fix something they have no choice to fix anyway.

McKenna Berdrow.2759:

The poll has ended! The final results are:
60.1% WvW Scoring Improvements Phase 2
39.9% WvW Matchmaking Improvements
This means that the WvW team’s next big priority will be adding rewards to Skirmishes and improving the Skirmish UI. Thanks to everyone who voted!

Please start adding “neither” or “none of the above” options to the polls. I’m pretty sure UI and rewards improvements won solely because 1U1D is no longer a valid means of scoring such that the integrity left in WvW would be disrupted to a very large magnitude.

There are absolutely urgent, major changes that need to be made, but none of these have representation in the polls and nor do players have a means of conveying they have opinions in other territories.