Guild Wars 2

anyone else think that they were going to fix all of the things on that list? i mean why present it that way and then cherry pick afterwards and act like youre doing us all a great service (in reality you are, i thank you for it, but cmon). seems to me that everything on that list is necessary, but hey im just a random what do i know. i would hope that eventually they get around to all of the scoring and qol features, because theyre one and all great additions that would really revitalize wvw imo.

It’s coming.. . .

What is the point of this thread…? First you scold them then you say it’s great that they’re fixing stuff.

right on. suppose my anticipation gets the better of me sometimes.

It isn’t them fixing everything on the list that is concerning, it is HOW they are proposing to fix them that is the biggest problem here. Before this poll should have even been considered, they should have shown different ways to solve the problem and considered the numerous alternatives that are much better than their proposed solutions. If all of the solution’s being offered are bad and fail to address the core problem, a bad poll is just bad.
end game for the proposed solutions = PvD undefended objective, KIll NPC get Chest, Siege it to the teeth, Zerg avoid fight get i n tower siege hump and kill 5 ppl outside . This only matters during 6 hour period, everyone else outside of that time left game already.

As long as PvD undefended + zerg siege humping is the way to win END GAME is YB 2.0 for all servers eventually, + devalue players outside of prime time = kill the game faster because this is bad/ lame game play that treats players like crap.

im pretty sure that was a very certain type of comment that i wont respond to.

Stand The Wall.6987:

im pretty sure that was a very certain type of comment that i wont respond to.

What comment? About the cause/ effect of the impact of the scoring system? IF the end game is still PvD/ zerg siege hump I am not seeing that it solves the problems. The cause and effect, pros and cons of each solution should be shown clearly, and currently the END GAME of each is not even being discussed and THAT is the most important thing to consider when making these changes is how it affect the overall game play long term.

Pros and cons should have been addressed and multiple solutions should have been considered and offered to be polled. How the game is scored directly impacts how the players play that game, and players change their behavior according to the systems in place. IF the system rewards specific behaviors, those behaviors will be increased over time, as they have been already.

Honestly, I think your time has passed anet. I believe some horrible decisions were made and bad project management has been your downfall. The end is near, you can already see it.

37.8%

Adjust scoring to be relative to current activity and population (Large)

lil devils x.6071:

If the system rewards specific behaviors, those behaviors will be increased over time, as they have been already.

I totally agree with this one. The issue is, the system rewarding specific behaviours is broader than the sole WvW, and includes balancing between classes and specs, and the whole game actually. For example, even if there’s now druid, water tempest or Ventari tablet, very few people play in a healer/support fashion in WvW, PvP (not even talking about PvE…), as far as I saw.

And it’s the same with every game mechanics, rewards and scoring in WvW…

The worse part of it is whenever they try to shift the fashion, and DBL were such a try, they only get a wall of complains because people are used to a specific way of playing, enjoy that very way, won’t consider any change in their habits but changes that’d make that specific way easier (let it be kill easier, survive longer, and get better loot e.g.) And anyone saying they enjoy something else gets “You’re no true WvW player” and other nonsense.

So, the only good question is, what is ANet actual view on WvW ? Because there’s a moment when people loving Pepsi should stop going to Coca Cola’s forums and rant about how they should change their reciepe.

And that moment is getting nearer and nearer.

LetoII.3782:

37.8%

Adjust scoring to be relative to current activity and population (Large)

That means if you are playing at the time you posted this your efforts do not matter as much as the next guy. Activity level is not determined by your actual activity level. It is determined by a predetermined 6 hour period.

lil devils x.6071:

LetoII.3782:

37.8%

Adjust scoring to be relative to current activity and population (Large)

That means if you are playing at the time you posted this your efforts do not matter as much as the next guy. Activity level is not determined by your actual activity level. It is determined by a predetermined 6 hour period.

….. And, they have said, ppk is included in the same category.

This poll is, sadly, just very messed up and won’t help Anet at all!

lil devils x.6071:

It isn’t them fixing everything on the list that is concerning, it is HOW they are proposing to fix them that is the biggest problem here. Before this poll should have even been considered, they should have shown different ways to solve the problem and considered the numerous alternatives that are much better than their proposed solutions. If all of the solution’s being offered are bad and fail to address the core problem, a bad poll is just bad.
end game for the proposed solutions = PvD undefended objective, KIll NPC get Chest, Siege it to the teeth, Zerg avoid fight get i n tower siege hump and kill 5 ppl outside . This only matters during 6 hour period, everyone else outside of that time left game already.

As long as PvD undefended + zerg siege humping is the way to win END GAME is YB 2.0 for all servers eventually, + devalue players outside of prime time = kill the game faster because this is bad/ lame game play that treats players like crap.

WvW is PvPvE with a strong emphasis on siege mechanics. You can accept it or not but that’s self-evidently what it is and what it has always been. If that’s ever seriously in doubt then ANet is going to have to come down on one side of the fence, decisively, pick a direction for WvW, stick with it and change the rules to encourage that style of play and discourage others. If that’s done we will end up with a clearer WvW offer and those who find that offer appealing will stay and, if they are acting rationally, those who don’t will go and find other things to do that suit them better.

It has been apparent since launch that the official vision for WvW is, approximately, a ladder-style competition between Server-Level entities in which gameplay is based heavily on taking and holding structures. The trope is “medieval siege warfare” and siege machines are designed into the gameplay at the most basic level. It may well be that a more open-field, guild vs guild oriented offer would have been more popular but it wasn’t the offer that was on the table and in four years it has never been suggested that it ever would be.

If these changes do move WvW to a more unequivocal “take and hold territory” model then that’s all to the good. Lack of clarity has been a huge part of the problem with directional drift until now. Get WvW into shape, make some definitive statements about intended gameplay if necessary and then let that clear offer define what population the game mode can attract and keep.

Tiny Doom.4380:

lil devils x.6071:

It isn’t them fixing everything on the list that is concerning, it is HOW they are proposing to fix them that is the biggest problem here. Before this poll should have even been considered, they should have shown different ways to solve the problem and considered the numerous alternatives that are much better than their proposed solutions. If all of the solution’s being offered are bad and fail to address the core problem, a bad poll is just bad.
end game for the proposed solutions = PvD undefended objective, KIll NPC get Chest, Siege it to the teeth, Zerg avoid fight get i n tower siege hump and kill 5 ppl outside . This only matters during 6 hour period, everyone else outside of that time left game already.

As long as PvD undefended + zerg siege humping is the way to win END GAME is YB 2.0 for all servers eventually, + devalue players outside of prime time = kill the game faster because this is bad/ lame game play that treats players like crap.

WvW is PvPvE with a strong emphasis on siege mechanics. You can accept it or not but that’s self-evidently what it is and what it has always been. If that’s ever seriously in doubt then ANet is going to have to come down on one side of the fence, decisively, pick a direction for WvW, stick with it and change the rules to encourage that style of play and discourage others. If that’s done we will end up with a clearer WvW offer and those who find that offer appealing will stay and, if they are acting rationally, those who don’t will go and find other things to do that suit them better.

It has been apparent since launch that the official vision for WvW is, approximately, a ladder-style competition between Server-Level entities in which gameplay is based heavily on taking and holding structures. The trope is “medieval siege warfare” and siege machines are designed into the gameplay at the most basic level. It may well be that a more open-field, guild vs guild oriented offer would have been more popular but it wasn’t the offer that was on the table and in four years it has never been suggested that it ever would be.

If these changes do move WvW to a more unequivocal “take and hold territory” model then that’s all to the good. Lack of clarity has been a huge part of the problem with directional drift until now. Get WvW into shape, make some definitive statements about intended gameplay if necessary and then let that clear offer define what population the game mode can attract and keep.

PvP should not be an after thought in a large scale PvP game mode ( It was advertised as a large scale PvP game mode by Anet and promised to be such btw to all of those who filled out the surveys used to create this game). So if it is NOT a large scale PvP mode, that would mean they lied, and those who enjoy large scale PvP should take their business elsewhere?

Siege mechanics are fine as long as the focus of siege mechanics is on Siege vs siege Siege vs structure not siege vs player. Objective based PPK would make the objectives more valuable to the players since it would increase their loot and score due to fighting over the objectives without the use of siege on each other rather than the objective doing nothing and scoring by itself with no one there or rewarding lazy game play.

Jong.5937:

lil devils x.6071:

LetoII.3782:

37.8%

Adjust scoring to be relative to current activity and population (Large)

That means if you are playing at the time you posted this your efforts do not matter as much as the next guy. Activity level is not determined by your actual activity level. It is determined by a predetermined 6 hour period.

….. And, they have said, ppk is included in the same category.

This poll is, sadly, just very messed up and won’t help Anet at all!

Yes, even their PPK is devalued outside that 6 hour time zone so you may kill more players while outnumbered and it is of less value than a zerg during that 6 hour period killing havoc groups.

lil devils x.6071:

Tiny Doom.4380:

lil devils x.6071:

It isn’t them fixing everything on the list that is concerning, it is HOW they are proposing to fix them that is the biggest problem here. Before this poll should have even been considered, they should have shown different ways to solve the problem and considered the numerous alternatives that are much better than their proposed solutions. If all of the solution’s being offered are bad and fail to address the core problem, a bad poll is just bad.
end game for the proposed solutions = PvD undefended objective, KIll NPC get Chest, Siege it to the teeth, Zerg avoid fight get i n tower siege hump and kill 5 ppl outside . This only matters during 6 hour period, everyone else outside of that time left game already.

As long as PvD undefended + zerg siege humping is the way to win END GAME is YB 2.0 for all servers eventually, + devalue players outside of prime time = kill the game faster because this is bad/ lame game play that treats players like crap.

WvW is PvPvE with a strong emphasis on siege mechanics. You can accept it or not but that’s self-evidently what it is and what it has always been. If that’s ever seriously in doubt then ANet is going to have to come down on one side of the fence, decisively, pick a direction for WvW, stick with it and change the rules to encourage that style of play and discourage others. If that’s done we will end up with a clearer WvW offer and those who find that offer appealing will stay and, if they are acting rationally, those who don’t will go and find other things to do that suit them better.

It has been apparent since launch that the official vision for WvW is, approximately, a ladder-style competition between Server-Level entities in which gameplay is based heavily on taking and holding structures. The trope is “medieval siege warfare” and siege machines are designed into the gameplay at the most basic level. It may well be that a more open-field, guild vs guild oriented offer would have been more popular but it wasn’t the offer that was on the table and in four years it has never been suggested that it ever would be.

If these changes do move WvW to a more unequivocal “take and hold territory” model then that’s all to the good. Lack of clarity has been a huge part of the problem with directional drift until now. Get WvW into shape, make some definitive statements about intended gameplay if necessary and then let that clear offer define what population the game mode can attract and keep.

PvP should not be an after thought in a large scale PvP game mode ( It was advertised as a large scale PvP game mode by Anet and promised to be such btw to all of those who filled out the surveys used to create this game). So if it is NOT a large scale PvP mode, that would mean they lied, and those who enjoy large scale PvP should take their business elsewhere?

Siege mechanics are fine as long as the focus of siege mechanics is on Siege vs siege Siege vs structure not siege vs player. Objective based PPK would make the objectives more valuable to the players since it would increase their loot and score due to fighting over the objectives without the use of siege on each other rather than the objective doing nothing and scoring by itself with no one there or rewarding lazy game play.

So pretty much if they got rid of A/C’s and Ballista’s you’d be happy? Those seem to be the biggest offenders.

Tiny Doom.4380:

lil devils x.6071:

It isn’t them fixing everything on the list that is concerning, it is HOW they are proposing to fix them that is the biggest problem here. Before this poll should have even been considered, they should have shown different ways to solve the problem and considered the numerous alternatives that are much better than their proposed solutions. If all of the solution’s being offered are bad and fail to address the core problem, a bad poll is just bad.
end game for the proposed solutions = PvD undefended objective, KIll NPC get Chest, Siege it to the teeth, Zerg avoid fight get i n tower siege hump and kill 5 ppl outside . This only matters during 6 hour period, everyone else outside of that time left game already.

As long as PvD undefended + zerg siege humping is the way to win END GAME is YB 2.0 for all servers eventually, + devalue players outside of prime time = kill the game faster because this is bad/ lame game play that treats players like crap.

WvW is PvPvE with a strong emphasis on siege mechanics. You can accept it or not but that’s self-evidently what it is and what it has always been. If that’s ever seriously in doubt then ANet is going to have to come down on one side of the fence, decisively, pick a direction for WvW, stick with it and change the rules to encourage that style of play and discourage others. If that’s done we will end up with a clearer WvW offer and those who find that offer appealing will stay and, if they are acting rationally, those who don’t will go and find other things to do that suit them better.

It has been apparent since launch that the official vision for WvW is, approximately, a ladder-style competition between Server-Level entities in which gameplay is based heavily on taking and holding structures. The trope is “medieval siege warfare” and siege machines are designed into the gameplay at the most basic level. It may well be that a more open-field, guild vs guild oriented offer would have been more popular but it wasn’t the offer that was on the table and in four years it has never been suggested that it ever would be.

If these changes do move WvW to a more unequivocal “take and hold territory” model then that’s all to the good. Lack of clarity has been a huge part of the problem with directional drift until now. Get WvW into shape, make some definitive statements about intended gameplay if necessary and then let that clear offer define what population the game mode can attract and keep.

Couldn’t agree more with that.