Guild Wars 2

Greetings folks,

We all know about some of the major issues hurting WvW right now. Right now timezone (off-peak all-capping) and population imbalance are creating deficits that cannot be overcome. There is a pattern in WvW that we have good fights for a few days and then the gap between the servers gets so large in points that you are left with an exhibition match for the 4-5 days with the lower ranked servers (and often bored winning server as well) just waiting for time to expire.

The way I see it something has to be done about this.

Since ANET does not want to reduce the effectiveness of all-capping or off-peaking in itself we are left with the problem of scoring and how these unassailable gaps ruin WvW participation towards the end of matches. This is not fun for either team.

I propose that ANET scale the matches back down to 3 days. This is just long enough for teams to still bother investing in upgrades (hell, people still were investing with the one day matches)…but not so long as to let the scoring system ruin all the fun.

If you are wondering what is wrong with the scoring system I will quickly summarize to close this out: The system has no mechanism to create excitement in the event of a team leading for an extended period of time. Even a small advantage over a few days scales into a blow out. When this happens participation in the losing servers drops and we all suffer.

Darkness Falls.

Darkness Falls.

The solution is Darkness Falls.

Winning in WvWvW opens a PvE mega dungeon for the winning side. It siphons away X% of the winning side’s players, opening the door for the losing side to rally and start aggressively clawing back what was lost.

Worked beautifully in DAoC.

SpectacularYak.6518:

Darkness Falls.

Darkness Falls.

The solution is Darkness Falls.

Winning in WvWvW opens a PvE mega dungeon for the winning side. It siphons away X% of the winning side’s players, opening the door for the losing side to rally and start aggressively clawing back what was lost.

Worked beautifully in DAoC.

I never played DAoC so I am not familiar with the concept. Kinda like a jumping puzzle but only for the winning team?

Sounds cool though could backfire since some servers like Kaineng would never get to do the dungeon

I thought about this, but I came to the conclusion that having 3-day cycles would skew the rankings more, being that some of these cycles would partially be on weekends, some would be entirely weekends, and some would be all weekdays. As much as population varies based upon the time of day, it also varies more based upon the day of the week.

For example, in the current matchup between Sorrows Furnace, Sanctum of Rall, and Darkhaven, SF was better able to hold over the weekend and get a healthy lead. Now that the work/school week has begun it seems that SF’s potential points have been leveling out closer to those of DH and SoR during the day. DH seems to usually be on top during the nights, and the pp totals between SF and SoR are at a constant interchange during the day.

Roland Falantyr.3290:

I never played DAoC so I am not familiar with the concept. Kinda like a jumping puzzle but only for the winning team?

Sounds cool though could backfire since some servers like Kaineng would never get to do the dungeon

It was just a huge, deep dungeon full of bosses and loot. It was a very appealing carrot to be chased and added an extra layer of incentive for succeeding in RvR combat. Of course, once seized, a substantial portion of players disappeared inside it, and the other sides would rally in their absence, and then THEY would seize Darkness Falls, and flood inside, and fight with/chase out the side holding it, and around and around it goes.

It was like a population siphon whenever one side started aggressively pulling ahead. Along with three factions, it functioned as a great equalizer in RvR. And it was just a neat dungeon too.

Lotro had/has a PvE dungeon too. Totally meaningless. Once people do it once or twice for the novelty factor it becomes a non issue.

ONLY way to do it and people dont want to hear it is dynamic population caps.

Have a floor to it so that it doesnt go below a certain number. Obviously on lower population servers this still wont help as I am confident some of those servers have less than 10 people on right now. I would say the 2 servers facing Borliss pass might be totally non existent in there as of this time. BUT if the match were close or semi competitive it might be.

There are a lot of issues. They (Anet) have to look at WHEN servers have peak player numbers in there. Posting graphs isnt enough, starting week long matches WHILE still allowing server transfers is not nearly enough., they didnt have enough data anyway.

Considering there are about 10 FULL servers right now in NA in terms of server population and other than maybe HoD, none of the have WvW queues, I think that says a lot. Especially when the only real ‘end game’ for people who are 80 is to PvP and WvW has the most potential to be epic and long lasting.

WvW is basically a failure as it sits right now, as people become more and more aware of how broken and meaningless it is the fewer and fewer people will be logging in to play, and most definitely willing to spend resources in there.

Rodarin.6058:

Lotro had/has a PvE dungeon too. Totally meaningless. Once people do it once or twice for the novelty factor it becomes a non issue.

ONLY way to do it and people dont want to hear it is dynamic population caps.

Have a floor to it so that it doesnt go below a certain number. Obviously on lower population servers this still wont help as I am confident some of those servers have less than 10 people on right now. I would say the 2 servers facing Borliss pass might be totally non existent in there as of this time. BUT if the match were close or semi competitive it might be.

There are a lot of issues. They (Anet) have to look at WHEN servers have peak player numbers in there. Posting graphs isnt enough, starting week long matches WHILE still allowing server transfers is not nearly enough., they didnt have enough data anyway.

Considering there are about 10 FULL servers right now in NA in terms of server population and other than maybe HoD, none of the have WvW queues, I think that says a lot. Especially when the only real ‘end game’ for people who are 80 is to PvP and WvW has the most potential to be epic and long lasting.

WvW is basically a failure as it sits right now, as people become more and more aware of how broken and meaningless it is the fewer and fewer people will be logging in to play, and most definitely willing to spend resources in there.

Seems a bit extreme. I will say though that it would certainly accomplish making people transfer off the dominant servers into the lower population ones.

That said, given the ANET has flatly refused to even acknowledge this as a problem I can’t see them doing something this extreme.

The problem isn’t what happens on the scoreboard. The problem is what happens with upgrades. I don’t think anyone really cares what the numbers say, they care about having fortified walls and cannons shooting them a hundred feet out of the spawn. The losing side has a fairly steep uphill battle to even get a toehold on a map. When that toehold gets “night capped” back and upgraded so we have to face the same superior fortifications, with superior buffs, and superior numbers of defenders night after night.. it gets old fast.

The scoring system isn’t the problem. People not having fun because the winning side is handed all the tools to “win harder” is what’s killing WvW.

Weavols.8973:

The problem isn’t what happens on the scoreboard. The problem is what happens with upgrades. I don’t think anyone really cares what the numbers say, they care about having fortified walls and cannons shooting them a hundred feet out of the spawn. The losing side has a fairly steep uphill battle to even get a toehold on a map. When that toehold gets “night capped” back and upgraded so we have to face the same superior fortifications, with superior buffs, and superior numbers of defenders night after night.. it gets old fast.

The scoring system isn’t the problem. People not having fun because the winning side is handed all the tools to “win harder” is what’s killing WvW.

This is exactly right, with one very small addendum.

The score matters a little bit, because it tends to generate interest in WvW.

But as you said, what really matters is staring at a keep filled to the brim with supplies, Fortified Walls, Reinforced Doors, Cannons, Oil, Guards, Vendors, half of the dominating servers map population catapulting and trebbing your spawn point.

Your only real choice when facing that is to go fight over one of the side supply camps until you can SOMEHOW manage to get enough people carrying supplies to start laying siege to the very first tower outside of your spawn zone… because face it, you’re never going to hold anything else until you have that at least.

I agree with the responses here for the most part. The entire WvW scenario is designed for advantages to snowball. Winning begets winning…

This may be fine if the only intention is to declare a fair winner at the end…but if the desired outcome is a fun match for the entire 1-2 week set then it is currently failing.

Roland Falantyr.3290:

I agree with the responses here for the most part. The entire WvW scenario is designed for advantages to snowball. Winning begets winning…

This may be fine if the only intention is to declare a fair winner at the end…but if the desired outcome is a fun match for the entire 1-2 week set then it is currently failing.

I totally agree. this reminds me a lot of aion. Ncsoft did not want to force population balance and eventually both sides just gave up. The losing side first did then with no competition the winning side later followed suit.

I am curious how long the winning servers will enjoy the lack of contentious matches. I have a bad feeling that the winning servers are all filled with alliances who stacked servers intentionally anyway.

I remember when the good pvp guilds would go to underdog servers on purpose in past games. My, how gamers have changed over the years…

Roland Falantyr.3290:

I am curious how long the winning servers will enjoy the lack of contentious matches. I have a bad feeling that the winning servers are all filled with alliances who stacked servers intentionally anyway.

I remember when the good pvp guilds would go to underdog servers on purpose in past games. My, how gamers have changed over the years…

The problem with that is that the first few days are awesome… and THEN the landslide victory happens later.

So these “elite alliances” comfort themselves by convincing themselves that they didn’t win on the weekend because they couldn’t get their whole group in, but they managed to finally get everyone in during the week and truly assert their dominance and superiority of skill.

Then, they relish in their landslide victory as a counter-argument to the fact that they get curb stomped every weekend.

… or something like that.

Sky.9347:

Roland Falantyr.3290:

I am curious how long the winning servers will enjoy the lack of contentious matches. I have a bad feeling that the winning servers are all filled with alliances who stacked servers intentionally anyway.

I remember when the good pvp guilds would go to underdog servers on purpose in past games. My, how gamers have changed over the years…

The problem with that is that the first few days are awesome… and THEN the landslide victory happens later.

So these “elite alliances” comfort themselves by convincing themselves that they didn’t win on the weekend because they couldn’t get their whole group in, but they managed to finally get everyone in during the week and truly assert their dominance and superiority of skill.

Then, they relish in their landslide victory as a counter-argument to the fact that they get curb stomped every weekend.

… or something like that.

Yep, well said.

Sky.9347:

But as you said, what really matters is staring at a keep filled to the brim with supplies, Fortified Walls, Reinforced Doors, Cannons, Oil, Guards, Vendors, half of the dominating servers map population catapulting and trebbing your spawn point.

This could be addressed by capping a keeps allowed upgrades at tier1/2/3 , respective to that keeps distance from the owners spawn.

Example:
The home borderland team is allowed to fortify to tier3 only on garrison, tier 2 in bay/hills , and is limited to tier1 upgrades at the briar/water towers, and tier1 at vale/water supply camps.

Likewise invaders could be limited to tier2 at enemy garrison, and tier 1 at the north east/west towers.

Overall effect would to limit fortification ability the deeper you push to the enemys spawn.

Lifewaster.5912:

Sky.9347:

But as you said, what really matters is staring at a keep filled to the brim with supplies, Fortified Walls, Reinforced Doors, Cannons, Oil, Guards, Vendors, half of the dominating servers map population catapulting and trebbing your spawn point.

This could be addressed by capping a keeps allowed upgrades at tier1/2/3 , respective to that keeps distance from the owners spawn.

Example:
The home borderland team is allowed to fortify to tier3 only on garrison, tier 2 in bay/hills , and is limited to tier1 upgrades at the briar/water towers, and tier1 at vale/water supply camps.

Likewise invaders could be limited to tier2 at enemy garrison, and tier 1 at the north east/west towers.

Overall effect would to limit fortification ability the deeper you push to the enemys spawn.

This is very interesting. I’ll think about this for a while before I share my thoughts; thank you for thinking outside the box!

Lifewaster.5912:

Sky.9347:

But as you said, what really matters is staring at a keep filled to the brim with supplies, Fortified Walls, Reinforced Doors, Cannons, Oil, Guards, Vendors, half of the dominating servers map population catapulting and trebbing your spawn point.

This could be addressed by capping a keeps allowed upgrades at tier1/2/3 , respective to that keeps distance from the owners spawn.

Example:
The home borderland team is allowed to fortify to tier3 only on garrison, tier 2 in bay/hills , and is limited to tier1 upgrades at the briar/water towers, and tier1 at vale/water supply camps.

Likewise invaders could be limited to tier2 at enemy garrison, and tier 1 at the north east/west towers.

Overall effect would to limit fortification ability the deeper you push to the enemys spawn.

That is a very intriguing idea.

I was unaware that the server scores decided whether I was enjoying PvP or not. I’ll have to pay more attention when I’m logged in and adjust my attitude accordingly.

Seriously though, just PvP. The server scores were never meant to be a reflection on you personally, and players who interpret it that way will never be happy.