Guild Wars 2

From another thread, I posted:

Anyways, we probably all know that WvW is a bundle of contradictions.

We want fair matches, but we don’t want the same stale matchups.

We want to play anytime, but we don’t want coverage to be an unfair advantage.

We want to win, but we don’t want people to stack on the winning server.

We want to have as many players in our map as we can, but we don’t want our opponents to have more players on the map than us.

We want to be able to fight in the numbers that we want (zerg/solo/roaming), but we don’t like bumping into a much larger group and getting insta-melted.

We want server pride, but most players have no idea about their WvW server and never consciously chose it.

etc.

I guess this means that WvW will always be an unhappy balance between all of these opposing desires, and thus it will always be somwhat flawed?

I’m going to give some of my views on this, and what methods I’ve seen that could change or moderate the problems of these. Not the answer, but food for thought.

Rieselle.5079:

We want fair matches, but we don’t want the same stale matchups.

Considering how difficult it is to get even amount of players on servers (the quote: “Like herding cats” comes to mind), a handicap system might work better. Not a handicap to PPT, since that will only strengthen the problem, but a handicap to fighting strength. Something like strengthening guards, make upgrades faster and cheaper, free supply X/timer, make normal siege function like superior etc. Preferably something that stacks in intensity, so when you’re down to Garri, n camp and perhaps the N towers, you can actually fight back hard. You’re still losing PPT hard, but at least you can still fight, and have some fun.

Make it so even overwhelming or underwhelming fights can still be fun, interesting and challenging ? One of the ideas I saw that could work in this manner, is that each team has a limited amount of npc guards and supply, and the more map you own the thinner they are spread out, while the less you have, the more is focused in that area. Imagine Garri with +100 guards.

Rieselle.5079:

We want to play anytime, but we don’t want coverage to be an unfair advantage.

I have seen propossed changes to the Point scoring that could fix a whole lot of this, I especially remember munkiman had some really good ideas about a point system that would change the whole coverage to still be an advantage, but not a decisive one. (I remember he posted that in the CDI population thread, if you’re interested).

Rieselle.5079:

We want to win, but we don’t want people to stack on the winning server.

I love this one, since there is practically no reason to win. But people are so hard-wired to fight to win, that they don’t even stop to consider that. 2 extra chests with blue/green is not exactly spectacular. I’ve started seeing win/lose more as a way that we can affect which servers we stand a better chance of fighting against. I consider a good match-up to be the “win”, and getting a bad match-up to be the “loss”. And if I was controlling the PPT efforts on my server, we would constantly be aiming toward sitting in the middle between 2 servers we liked to play against. Never ever trying to win just to win.

#specialsnowflake2015 or something :p

Rieselle.5079:

We want to have as many players in our map as we can, but we don’t want our opponents to have more players on the map than us.

I think answer 1+2 would help somewhat on this. But this is also dependent upon perspective, some (I admit the minority) actually like being outnumbered. organized groups and roamers for example. But being outnumbered would be less of an issue if you felt you could still fight back against them. I’d look at #1 for this.

Rieselle.5079:

We want to be able to fight in the numbers that we want (zerg/solo/roaming), but we don’t like bumping into a much larger group and getting insta-melted.

This is why I’m a large supporter of making different maps for different play styles, so people can go look for a style of play they favour (Unfortunately atm the home BL system makes this impossible). Several other things have been suggested,

I really liked the “sound indication” to zergs, so you could sort of hear the racket as a huge group got near, the larger the group the more sound (with a visual indicator as well).

Make objective champions scale with numbers, so 60 people take him down same speed as 30.

Rieselle.5079:

We want server pride, but most players have no idea about their WvW server and never consciously chose it.

We want Community, but we have no idea what sort of community we tie ourselves to when picking a server. I really think people should be encouraged to try other servers and find a place for themselves, not by having to read forums and visit server websites, but by playing with the people in question. But with the current server structure that is impossible.

But alternatives to servers is also poorly received because it would affect the existing communities. It is a delicate problem with no clear answers.

Rieselle.5079:

I guess this means that WvW will always be an unhappy balance between all of these opposing desires, and thus it will always be somewhat flawed?

“It is human to err, to err is to be human.”

If someone made a perfect game, then no other game would sell, ever again

But yes, WvW will always be “flawed”, the design in the first place won’t allow it to be perfect, simply because it is dependent upon other players to create the game mode itself. It definitively has potential for improvement, and it needs some actual safety guards vs players

joneirikb.7506:

I’m going to give some of my views on this, and what methods I’ve seen that could change or moderate the problems of these. Not the answer, but food for thought.

Thanks for a very thoughtful post!

I sometimes think it might be interesting if ANet divides the tiers up by population/coverage.

Instead of glicko, instead the tiers are hand-picked by ANet (with community feedback, and supported by WvW participation statistics.)

Basically trying to match servers up based on similar population and coverage. If a server is consistently winning its tier easily, and the server above it is consistently losing, then ANet can consult with the servers involved to see if they want to trial a swap.

“Winning” would then mean something, because it means your server is “punching above your weight” in terms of organisation and skill. It also removes a disincentive for winning (the thought that, if you win too much, you’ll go up a tier and get destroyed by higher population/coverage servers.)

A server that consistently wins its tier would get a bit more kudos then.

I don’t like suggestions that vary PPT or other bonuses based on population, because it creates a incentive to lower your map population. PUGs and random PVE players trying out WvW would get even more flak, for “taking up slots” on the map and possibly costing the server some advantages. I think this would foster an unfriendly atmosphere in WvW.

I like the “noisy zerg” idea too. I’ve previously made suggestions that there should be some sort of “radar” siege object, that will detect zergs and highlight them on your server’s map. The larger the zerg, the further away your radar can detect them. Then remove orange and white swords. This creates an information meta-game where you have to actively scout and build radars to detect the enemy, whilst they have to split their zergs into smaller groups to avoid detection and meet up at the objective to perform a surprise attack.

As for “perfect game”, my definition of “perfect” is a bit different from most, I guess.
To me a “perfect game” is a game without flaws. It might not be the most fun game, or a game that everyone prefers. Just that it does what it’s trying to do without flaws.
The more complex a game, the harder it is for it to be perfect.
Eg. Tetris is a perfect game.
Supreme Commander: Forged Alliance is less perfect than Starcraft 2. But I consider it a more fun and better game, because of its grand ambition. etc.

I have to be honest. I began to read your original post. I then looked and noticed immediately that all of your bullet points began with “we”. That is my cue to disregard your, or any post. If you desire to share your opinion, I can appreciate that, but the second a poster suggest they speak for more than themselves, I cannot take them seriously.

Shrug, if you’re disregarding my post based on the use of a pronoun, then I’ll disregard yours based on your excessive pedantry, lol.

Sigh, you are not using that term correctly my friend. It is not pedantry when you post your personal opinion and dishonestly claim to represent or speak for others. Which is what your wording means. When the pronoun used redefine the entire representation and meaning of a statement, it is not pedantry. It is the difference between showing confidence in your statements, by allowing them to speak for themselves, and displaying an effort to be disingenuous, and attempt to add artificial weight to your statements by dishonestly suggesting you speak for, or represent others.

I read the "we" more as a generalization of what many players on these forums and in the game has talked loudly about. Not as an absolute "every single player that plays the game" style. And as a generalization of often voiced concerns, and how they often contradict each others, I think it worked.

But yes, in general don’t ever use the word "we" on this forum. When I first started reading here I thought this was just some sort of quirk for this forum, but the more I have read here, the more I just realized that so many people with so many different opinions often wrote "we", even if that idea was completely against my opinions etc, which then made for a whole lot of posts I wanted to reply just to say "I’m not part of this we".

It is sort of a "good manner" thing here on the forum.

Rieselle.5079:

snip

I guess this means that WvW will always be an unhappy balance between all of these opposing desires, and thus it will always be somwhat flawed?

Just from reading some posts on the WvW section, I can see what you’re getting at. Though I find what you say to be somewhat true, nothing can really be done about it. I’m sure there have been attempts to tackle these problems but no solution can make EVERYONE happy. WvW isn’t quite flawed. It just has a bit of everything that complicates the game mode. It is open to interpretation and the amount of ways to play WvW just doesn’t allow for “true balance” (if there really is such a thing).

@coglin You’re derailing the conversation. I understand where you’re coming from when you say that the OP shouldn’t use “we” as his/her views may not represent the whole community. Nonetheless, I doubt that the OP intentionally wanted to use “we” in that way. If so, then you have my apologies. (I still highly doubt it.) Please stay on topic and at least contribute to the OP’s discussion.

Rieselle.5079:

We want fair matches, but we don’t want the same stale matchups.

I agree, I’d like to test my mettle against other server’s players..

We want to play anytime, but we don’t want coverage to be an unfair advantage.
We want to win, but we don’t want people to stack on the winning server.
We want to have as many players in our map as we can, but we don’t want our opponents to have more players on the map than us.
We want to be able to fight in the numbers that we want (zerg/solo/roaming), but we don’t like bumping into a much larger group and getting insta-melted.

TL;DR: Coverage (either in time or in people) QQ
And every WVW thread mentions the coverage “problem” at least once..

We want server pride, but most players have no idea about their WvW server and never consciously chose it.

Ok, who is this “We” you are talking about?
I love my server, I have a perfect idea how low it’s ranked..

Rieselle.5079:

I guess this means that WvW will always be an unhappy balance between all of these opposing desires, and thus it will always be somwhat flawed?

Nah, it means that there will always be kittens that like to QQ about anything..

Tribio.8531:

Rieselle.5079:

We want server pride, but most players have no idea about their WvW server and never consciously chose it.

Ok, who is this “We” you are talking about?
I love my server, I have a perfect idea how low it’s ranked..

I think he/she was referring to PvE players etc, that pick a server and never again notice that server thing, until they try to get 100% map completion and have to go to WvW.