Guild Wars 2

Top 5 WvW Problems and Solutions

1. Numbers trouncing skill.
Solution: Divide the rewards for doing stuff by the number of players in the group. (Source: real life). How this could be implemented:

- In-game: The drop from a player is divided by the number of people that tag him/her. Rewards for capturing objectives are divided by the number of players that capture them.

- Overall: Give a significant gold/ WXP bonus for winning a matchup that is divided by the entire server.

2. Uneven matchups, but correct matchups become boring over time.
Solution: Remove match randomisation. Tiers will naturally change around more as servers pick weeks to go for the overall gold/WXP bonus.

3. Skill lag.
Solution: Will be corrected by solution to 1. Since it is both less lucrative to run in a zerg and less lucrative to be in a high population server, people will transfer/ sign up to lower tier servers.

4. Karma trains.
Solution: Will be corrected by 1.

5. Winning/ losing a matchup being meaningless.
Solution: Will be corrected by 1.

(Preemptive) 6. Server stat bonus from holding an objective.
Solution: This makes no sense and will trivialise everything else in wvw.

You have far too much faith in people doing what is best for themselves.

People zerg because they’re lazy and hate being killed. Even if you increase the rewards for small group play 100x, people would still rather just auto-run and auto-attack with one hand while their other hand is doing, well, you fill in that blank.

I fully support what you’re trying to achieve, but I’m not sure this will change much.

Solution 1 has troll potential and it doesn’t address the problem with the people who are content with pressing 1 in the safety of their zerg’s numbers (A lot of people).

The best fix I see for 1, 3, and 4 is still what has been suggested over and over again imo and that is to increase/remove the aoe limit and to remove the downed state in wvw. If removing the downed state is too much, I think a debuff should be applied to anyone reviving a downed player which makes them far more susceptible to damage (conditions included) for the duration of the revival. Mitigation moves such as invulnerability are cancelled, all attacks are unblockable, and revealed is applied to stealthed allies while they revive.

This is the equivalent of downed allies being dead, but they still have a chance if they went down in a safe area or if someone has a skill to revive them.

Would be cool if they would implement a buff that recognises how many players are aroud you, and if there are 4 or less (for 5 man party) you would get some bonus stats or something. Or do it reverse way, the more players around you, the less damage you can deal. This could encourage playing in small groups attacking objectives from many sides instead of mindless hive.

I’d add:

• Being able to WP in to contested keeps/castle
  Solution: have the WP locked out during roll over
• Being able to glitch into towers/keeps/castle
  Solution: keep finding and fixing these
• Lack of commander grouping features
  Solution: short term, let commanders set a tag color; longer term, provide full commander grouping features

The fact that you get the very same rewards by running in a gigantic 80 man blob, as you would have if you ran with 5 people, speaks volume about the incompetence of the current WvW team.

@Monoman.2068: AoE-cap won’t be removed, and this has been explain multiple times on here already.

@Ragnar.4257: People also blob like maniaks because that’s the most rewarding way of playing WvW at the moment. Remove/decrease the rewards and I’ll guarantee less server-blobs.

Zenguy.6421:

I’d add:

• Being able to WP in to contested keeps/castle
  Solution: have the WP locked out during roll over
• Being able to glitch into towers/keeps/castle
  Solution: keep finding and fixing these
• Lack of commander grouping features
  Solution: short term, let commanders set a tag color; longer term, provide full commander grouping features

^dito
Guild that own the building should be able to use the waypoint

Vertillies Crytheus.3065:

Top 5 WvW Problems and Solutions

1. Numbers trouncing skill.
Solution: Divide the rewards for doing stuff by the number of players in the group. (Source: real life). How this could be implemented:

- In-game: The drop from a player is divided by the number of people that tag him/her. Rewards for capturing objectives are divided by the number of players that capture them.

- Overall: Give a significant gold/ WXP bonus for winning a matchup that is divided by the entire server.

2. Uneven matchups, but correct matchups become boring over time.
Solution: Remove match randomisation. Tiers will naturally change around more as servers pick weeks to go for the overall gold/WXP bonus.

3. Skill lag.
Solution: Will be corrected by solution to 1. Since it is both less lucrative to run in a zerg and less lucrative to be in a high population server, people will transfer/ sign up to lower tier servers.

4. Karma trains.
Solution: Will be corrected by 1.

5. Winning/ losing a matchup being meaningless.
Solution: Will be corrected by 1.

(Preemptive) 6. Server stat bonus from holding an objective.
Solution: This makes no sense and will trivialise everything else in wvw.

Regarding #3. #1 does not fix the issue because you will still have the occasional large group causing skill lag.

The better solution is them working on the actual problem, and they have been, because fixing the actual problem fixes that problem in other areas of the game.

I really dislike suggestions like this because it doesn’t fix the server problem that needs to actually be fixed. These band aid solutions people try to propose as a fix are really bad. The time it would take for them to implement systems that people keep proposing is time taken away from fixing the actual problem.

Regarding #5(and #2) does not take into account servers matched up against servers that can steam roll. People are not going to magically start playing just because they get a reward. Close to the same number of players on all servers would bring people out so it still won’t help those getting trounced, and you’ll still have boring match ups.

Not everyone avoids WvW because of lack of profit. Some just don’t like to PvP and no amount of reward will bring these people out.

1. Will not help

I played DAOC for many years and they have an RP reward system which rewards you more for being solo/small man etc than if you run 100+

This just encourages the elitest attitude and encourages people not to work together.

Some people enjoy solo and some enjoy 100+ zergs. Neither one of those playstyles should be favoured in the way they are rewarded.

Why penalise people for having fun?

Corfel.8047:

1. Will not help

I played DAOC for many years and they have an RP reward system which rewards you more for being solo/small man etc than if you run 100+

This just encourages the elitest attitude and encourages people not to work together.

Some people enjoy solo and some enjoy 100+ zergs. Neither one of those playstyles should be favoured in the way they are rewarded.

Why penalise people for having fun?

I agree with this totally.

I like small ops to full map zergs.

I don’t care to be penalized for enjoying the game and I don’t care to have something discouraged that I enjoy.

4 out of 5 suggestions are based on your first idea, which isn’t going to happen, thus we’re left with nothing.

I mean, surely breaking the zoneblob meta into 5x 20vs20 across the map would solve a LOT of issues with wvw currently – skill lag flipping lack of tactics etc – but the idea of reducing the already absymal rewards of wvw…not too found of it.

Also, Anet already said they won’t do something like that iirc (for usual “no room to griefing allies” policy).

How to then? By making blobbing less effective.

Larger maps.
No WP to keeps under assault.
Scoring system not unbalanced so heavily on coverage.
And so on… (there are a lot of other suggestions on topic, not going to list them all)

Corfel.8047:

1. Will not help
   Some people enjoy solo and some enjoy 100+ zergs. Neither one of those playstyles should be favoured in the way they are rewarded.

Why penalise people for having fun?

To bad that actually running in a 100+ man zerg is far more effective in terms of everything really, rewards included. As a solo roamer your not able to cap those big objects nor kill multiple people that easily, compared to those who favors zerging, leaving a solo roamer with less rewards at any given day.

It really baffles me how some people can be this narrow-minded that they don’t grasp that the current reward system is idiotic, to say the least.

Tellerion.8102:

Corfel.8047:

1. Will not help
   Some people enjoy solo and some enjoy 100+ zergs. Neither one of those playstyles should be favoured in the way they are rewarded.

Why penalise people for having fun?

To bad that actually running in a 100+ man zerg is far more effective in terms of everything really, rewards included. As a solo roamer your not able to cap those big objects nor kill multiple people that easily, compared to those who favors zerging, leaving a solo roamer with less rewards at any given day.

It really baffles me how some people can be this narrow-minded that they don’t grasp that the current reward system is idiotic, to say the least.

By definition then, you expect solo players to be able to cap towers and keeps?

The only reward a zerg can gain over a solo player is the keep/tower takes. This should be the case.

Towers and keeps are meant to be taken as a team effort – thus players who are solo can take part in the capture and receive a reward the same as those zerging around the map

Towers can be taken solo too, though it’s hard work and only possible when the tower’s server isn’t active or recognising the attack. However, the reward system as it is, is still stupid.

The summ of rewards for the Zerg is way bigger, than for smaller groups. And, individually spoken, the Zerg had it way easier. That encourages zerging and less tactics.

IMHO holding a fortification should give rewards and you should get nothing or way less than now, when capping a tower, keep or camp. Camps should also send dollies only, when camp supply is full or reaches 100 supply or smth. So that camp flipping won’t help to get supply to your tower, but holding the camp.

Dollie escorting should give some rewards (yes I am aware of the issues with dolie escorting rewards, never the less, a reward should be given).

One shouldn’t get a gold event reward when blinking the last second into the circle for capturing the camp.

There are endless examples of rewards in the reward system, that don’t make any sense. And lowering over all drop rate in WvW just to implement a cahmpion loot box just encourages more Zerging and tower flipping, even after that has been pointed out as a problem by the community already. Looking at the state of the game after almost a year since release, I must say: This supposed to be perfect at release date game is everything but perfect, and the ANet team, asside from fixing culling, is screwing it up with each update I feel. No hopes of ever having a better thought through reward system in GW2.

Corfel.8047:

By definition then, you expect solo players to be able to cap towers and keeps?

The only reward a zerg can gain over a solo player is the keep/tower takes. This should be the case.

Not really, you were the one that said that neither one of the playstyles should be favored over the other in terms of rewards, I can even quote you on it:

Corfel.8047:

Some people enjoy solo and some enjoy 100+ zergs. Neither one of those playstyles should be favoured in the way they are rewarded.

So I simply pointed out that you were plain wrong, as a player being a part of a zerg will always get more rewards than someone solo roaming. I never suggested I wanted solo players to cap towers/keeps on their own. And you also get more kills, meaning more wxp, by running in a bigger zerg.

If you take the time to read my first post in this thread it becomes pretty obvious that I want them to decrease the rewards for the people that participate in gigantic blobs. For the simple reason that it’s unhealthy for the game to have people blob up like that, as it’s impossible to fight against due to the aoe cap, skill lag and res mechanics.

Solo roaming playstyle generally dictates that they are doing it for the challenge. I don’t know anyone roaming solo who’s doing it for the XP/Coin returns… If they just want the XP/Coin then surely it doesn’t matter how they achieve it and joining a zerg to take a tower would be no problem?

What you’re swaying towards is the issue that lies with reducing rewards for zerging and increasing those for solo.

It might seem nice in theory but that’s what leads to players becoming elitest, unco-operative, selfish and greedy.

You want greater rewards for doing something by yourself that others like to do together. Over time that sort of mentality destroys a playerbase.

Tellerion.8102:

Corfel.8047:

By definition then, you expect solo players to be able to cap towers and keeps?

The only reward a zerg can gain over a solo player is the keep/tower takes. This should be the case.

Not really, you were the one that said that neither one of the playstyles should be favored over the other in terms of rewards, I can even quote you on it:

Corfel.8047:

Some people enjoy solo and some enjoy 100+ zergs. Neither one of those playstyles should be favoured in the way they are rewarded.

So I simply pointed out that you were plain wrong, as a player being a part of a zerg will always get more rewards than someone solo roaming.

Kind of taking what I said out of context there.

What I was getting at is that towers/keeps aren’t supposed to be taken alone.

That’s why the reward is great for them. So if a player, solo or zerger, wants that reward then they have to go and contribute to that “zerging” scenario.

I don’t see how I took it out of context, when you clearly stated that neither of the playstyles should be favored over the other in terms of rewards, yet in reality one is greatly more effective than the other. Again, I was pointing out why that is false, I never implied that taking tower/keeps should be a solo-mission, so stop going around that bush.

Corfel.8047:

Solo roaming playstyle generally dictates that they are doing it for the challenge. I don’t know anyone roaming solo who’s doing it for the XP/Coin returns… If they just want the XP/Coin then surely it doesn’t matter how they achieve it and joining a zerg to take a tower would be no problem?

That’s some interesting logic.

Roamers would love to have more XP/coin that zergs get, but roamers don’t like zerging due to how brainless and boring it is, hence they roam and spend a lot of their time running around desperately trying to find fights despite not getting too many tangible rewards beyond just sometimes having fights that they can enjoy.

You might say “whatever, roamers do their thing without rewards now, so they will continue to do it in the future, no need to change anything”, but, realistically, the skew in the reward structure towards zerging can’t not make roamers eventually go extinct. The skew guarantees that new players who want to zerg are going to stay with the game in general and in WvW in particular much more frequently than new players who want to roam, so…

Corfel.8047:

What you’re swaying towards is the issue that lies with reducing rewards for zerging and increasing those for solo.

It might seem nice in theory but that’s what leads to players becoming elitest, unco-operative, selfish and greedy.

You want greater rewards for doing something by yourself that others like to do together. Over time that sort of mentality destroys a playerbase.

I don’t buy that.

Why so many players don’t like zergs? Because zerging takes very little brain, that’s why. It dumbs down the game. And not only does zerging dumb down the game for those who zerg, it also dumbs down the game for those who don’t zerg and don’t want to zerg. That’s a key point.

I don’t see how wanting to play with some brain can be “the sort of mentality that destroys a playerbase”, as you are saying.

Adris.1859:

Would be cool if they would implement a buff that recognises how many players are aroud you, and if there are 4 or less (for 5 man party) you would get some bonus stats or something. Or do it reverse way, the more players around you, the less damage you can deal. This could encourage playing in small groups attacking objectives from many sides instead of mindless hive.

I agree with this, but I think it should be a debuff in the form of some OOC movement penalty so large groups cannot respond quickly to the antics of smaller more coordinated groups.

1. goes against everything that Anet believes in. It would lead to people getting mad when a random person joined a fight they were in and that is not conducive to a good community/teamwork atmosphere.

One idea I have to cut down on some of this stuff is to make it so that you only get the rewards and points for capturing a tower, keep, etc if your server then holds that position for at least 30 minutes. After that time everyone who participated in capturing that spot would get their rewards and points would start ticking for that position every 15 minutes like normal. I think it would put more priority on defending what you have captured instead of capping and leaving. Don’t know how it would play out, just an idea.

Ragnar.4257:

You have far too much faith in people doing what is best for themselves.

People zerg because they’re lazy and hate being killed. Even if you increase the rewards for small group play 100x, people would still rather just auto-run and auto-attack with one hand while their other hand is doing, well, you fill in that blank.

I fully support what you’re trying to achieve, but I’m not sure this will change much.

This is entirely correct, but reaching everyone is not the goal and nor should it be. Zerg’s are a great ‘first entry’ into WvW and should exist for that reason alone if we want to keep WvW sustainable in the long run.

Right now the reward system in WvW is a lot like the early days of WAR where you had big zergs running around avoiding the enemy and capping objectives because that is what was rewarding.

Frankly at this point all I want is for the game to NOT favor zergs in every conceivable way. Anything to encourages folks to break into smaller units would be a plus, even if it doesn’t accomplish everything we want.

Ragnar.4257:

You have far too much faith in people doing what is best for themselves.

People zerg because they’re lazy and hate being killed. Even if you increase the rewards for small group play 100x, people would still rather just auto-run and auto-attack with one hand while their other hand is doing, well, you fill in that blank.

I fully support what you’re trying to achieve, but I’m not sure this will change much.

Completely false. Did you even read his post? You are unbelievable. IF they made changes to hurt zergs (penalities for large numbers, nerf of downed state, increase of AoE cap, stronger AoE abilities), then small-men would be able to better compete vs the skilless ‘’guild groups’’ (aka 40 people with the same tag being completely innefficient while stroking themselves). Numerous times have we been able to down 15 of them out of 30 within the first 10 seconds, only to have them all rally by one person getting stomped. So even if they got completely outplayed, the mechanics of the game hurts small-men.

Then obviously there will be more small-men, since it’ll be easier and more accessible to all.

While I agree, less incentive for zerging is needed, number 1 is never going to happen – it is completely antithetical to Anet’s stated philosophy for GW2.

Changing the downed state would be a good idea. But since no dev that I am aware of has ever even commented on that, it is probably technically impossible as it would likely affect PvE as well.

The simplest thing that would most encourage people to spilt up and not zerg in one giant group is a revamp of the Commander system. And it appears they are working on that.

I am really very skeptical of dividing rewards by the number of players present for an event. Such a system would be contrary to the rest of the PvE game and present an unnecessary hurdle for people trying to switch from PvE to WvW.

I think a good way to fix the problem might be to simply spread out the maps. They said they wanted to get rid of WPs in keeps to try to keep a zerg’s mobility under control so that might be a good start, but if the maps were generally maybe 30-50% bigger that might make it more valuable to keep smaller groups on field.

Top solution for competitive players is to leave GW2 and find another game till a more competitive pvp game comes out. The overall (99.9%) majority mentality is do whatever it takes to win regardless of the challenge involved. INCLUDING guilds that say they run “small man” teams.

Losing fights and coming back with ridiculous bunker/portal blind thief/mesmer group builds and more people than you had when you lost the original fight just to guarantee based off Anets crap mechanics a win….is just puzzzzzzy.

Solution- leave gw2 until a major change happens. (highly unlikely, why change the mmo carebear lounge?)

I think the rewards in WvW are backwards. Rewards should be diminished or removed for teams that take objectives. Rewards should be maximized for teams that hold objectives. The motivation to take an objective remains since you cannot get points for objectives until you first get them. Anet does this on the 15 minute timer for the servers. They should be doing the same for players.

In this way, 100 person blobs get little by storming maps in a circles. They have to now start leaving people to defend and earn points.

Just think of the mechanics of the board game RISK.

Convenant.7092:

Ragnar.4257:

You have far too much faith in people doing what is best for themselves.

People zerg because they’re lazy and hate being killed. Even if you increase the rewards for small group play 100x, people would still rather just auto-run and auto-attack with one hand while their other hand is doing, well, you fill in that blank.

I fully support what you’re trying to achieve, but I’m not sure this will change much.

Completely false. Did you even read his post? You are unbelievable. IF they made changes to hurt zergs (penalities for large numbers, nerf of downed state, increase of AoE cap, stronger AoE abilities), then small-men would be able to better compete vs the skilless ‘’guild groups’’ (aka 40 people with the same tag being completely innefficient while stroking themselves). Numerous times have we been able to down 15 of them out of 30 within the first 10 seconds, only to have them all rally by one person getting stomped. So even if they got completely outplayed, the mechanics of the game hurts small-men.

Then obviously there will be more small-men, since it’ll be easier and more accessible to all.

Did you even read his post? He didn’t say anything about AoE cap or downed state. He only commented on rewards/loot.

How about you read before accusing others of not doing so.

And I remain unconvinced that changing loot/rewards will make people stop zerging. People don’t zerg to make money, PvE will always be better for that. They do it to laugh in the face of the other server while requiring almost no effort on their part.

OP, nope sorry, your idea will destroy the WvW community, guilds will only run with guild mates all others players will be rejected. This is enough of this problem already as it is in WvW that would only compound the problem.

The only safe possibly solution to zerg size is LIMIT THE AMOUNT OF PLAYERS FROM EACH SERVER PER MAP. This may require more WvW maps to be made, it may also force players to lower pop servers who get tired out waiting in que, thus balancing WvW more.

2: I am for any server can play anyone. However, the loser server should have several bonus based on the difference in population and structure and rank. And the winner server should be worth a lot more wvw points.

Example: The worst 2 servers play the top server. The top server has all the structures and the worst 2 servers have a total of 50 players max.
Every players of the top server should be worth 10x more points. Every players of the loser servers should have 10x more armor, 10x more health, be able to carry 50 supplies, and do 20x more damage to structures, constant speed, do 1.5x more dmg to enemies. Now you have the equivalent of 50 champions walking around.

Ex: if the difference between the winner server and the 2 losing servers is minimum, then I wish the winner server to be worth 25% more wvw xp.

Zergs over 40 people need a debuffs

A) Make it so that a group of 40+ can be seen anywhere on the map at all times, by every person(including enemy)

B) Groups of 40+ take more damage from siege

C) Groups of 40+ take more damage from players, and deal less damage, scales to the # of players you have

I see all theses peoples crying because they cant win ’’uneven’’ match up.

I feel there is a Call of Duty syndrome here. If you are winning it means it was a fair fight and you outplayed your enemies. If it’s the opposite, they had too many guardians, too many ACs, they had a bigger zerg…

Excuses are for losers.

On Kaineng we had a big exodus of 3 of the biggest WvW guilds while we were in tier 2 or 3 I think. We fought for like 3 months constantly being outnumbered on the way down.

but we decided to get organised, not only as a guild, organised server-wide.
We train pugs and lowbies into basic WvW strategies. We help people build themselves around group play and support instead of 1v1 and help them get PVT gear, we train new commanders at leading players.

Kaineng is one tight community, all guilds work together for the greater good.
We are still outnumbered in most of our match up but even our pugs usually win most
of the fights, even if outnumbered. Our pugs know the meaning and how to use combo fields, can move tight and stick to the commander. Imagine what our organised guilds can do !

so my response to OP is organise yourself but hey I know it’s easier to say that it’s game’s fault and it’s not well balanced.

btw sorry for bad english it’s not my mother tongue

Glad to see so many thoughtful responses.

Quite a few people suggested that dividing rewards by players would reduce server-wide cooperation. I really don’t think it will….

Anyone can cap a sentry. A camp can be soloed by a good player. Haven’t heard of a tower be capped by a single player but it might be possible on a dead map…. You get the point- just put enough honey at the top of the tree and people will work together to get it if that is the only way. Guilds with sufficient numbers on may shun ‘pubs’ from raiding with them and taking some of the reward, but are you telling me that guilds love non-guildies running with them now?

Quite a few people suggested a stat buff for lower numbers or a debuff for higher numbers. The problem I see with this is that it would make things seem that bit less realistic and, I’d argue, rewarding, especially if you win against bigger numbers. I think if you win against bigger numbers you deserve to know you earned it fair and square.

I agree with the removal of waypoints suggestion, but think it wouldn’t alter how servers played unless the scores were very close which, unfortunately (because of the uneven populations) they rarely are.

For those that said it’s just about organisation, I respectfully disagree. There comes a point where the numbers are so uneven that even if virtually the entire borderlands is on mumble/ teamspeak etc and all WvW veterans they simply cannot overcome the numbers difference.

I’m not saying that server / fight / coverage numbers should always be even. I’m fully aware that this could never happen. All I’m saying is that if you/ your group or guild / your server wins a fight or matchup or captures or defends something because of better skill facing uneven numbers then that should be rewarded accordingly. Any transfers of players to lower-population servers in search of greater rewards in response to this would be a bonus.

I’m confused reading this thread. I could’ve sworn this started out as a presentation of idea to fix various issues in WvW – primarily skill lag. It seems to have evolved into anti-zerg thread [which is just as confusing – what’s a zerg in comparison to a blob? Is a guild raid of 20 a zerg? When does a zerg become a blob? And which is worse?]

kelman.9451:

The only safe possibly solution to zerg size is LIMIT THE AMOUNT OF PLAYERS FROM EACH SERVER PER MAP. This may require more WvW maps to be made, it may also force players to lower pop servers who get tired out waiting in que, thus balancing WvW more.

As someone else in this thread said – the only real solution to skill lag is fixing the problem at source: and that’s a case of making the server code efficient at handling a lot of data plus optimising the hardware it is running on. Limiting numbers will only lead to other problems and in itself does not FIX the problem.

Anything else detracts ..

Quite a few people suggested that dividing rewards by players would reduce server-wide cooperation. I really don’t think it will….

:|

if your five guys are taking a tower and ten guys happen along right as you bust in the door, they reduce your rewards by 2/3. there will be flames.

people will start kittening about leechers constantly

commanders won’t tag up because it reduces rewards for their guild

et cetera et al

which is why Anet didn’t go with reduced rewards for ANYTHING in the whole game. You should never be angry or lose out just because another player showed up.

there were a few threads about this recently, I thought the best solutions were to give event credit (or at least WXP) to everyone on the map. that way there is less incentive to zerg for the sake of rewards. That might cause problems with afk leechers, but thats a solvable issue.

Bloodwort MacFangho.4638:

I’m confused reading this thread…fix various issues in WvW – primarily skill lag.

Skill lag was one of six issues I was addressing in my first post. Zergs and blobs are the cause of almost all the skill lag people suffer from, so to fix one you have to fix the other. I think if it was just a matter of fixing the code we wouldn’t be a year into the game with this problem still being here. EDIT: Devoncarver said yesterday:

“We are making strides to improve the skill lag, but it is a very large and very difficult problem to solve.”

I agree that limiting numbers with lower map caps would be a pretty poor solution, just because it is so artificial, annoying and detracts from the scale of the battles.

Shoe.5821:

if your five guys are taking a tower and ten guys happen along right as you bust in the door, they reduce your rewards by 2/3.

No they won’t. Anet already addressed the leechers problem by introducing the gold/silver/bronze badge reward system. Those people that rock up right as the door is going down would recieve bronze reward at best, which could be made to be an almost negligible share of the rewards. If this system is not perfect it wouldn’t be hard to tweak.

Shoe.5821:

I thought the best solutions were to give event credit (or at least WXP) to everyone on the map. that way there is less incentive to zerg for the sake of rewards.

I like this idea somewhat but would it mean you would get way more rewards for playing on your server’s prime time. This would result in even bigger coverage issues for most servers. That is why I said to also give a reward to each player for their server’s place at the end of the matchup, divided by server size.

I’d also triple the map sizes and remove waypoints in conjunction with these changes.

Corfel.8047:

By definition then, you expect solo players to be able to cap towers and keeps?

The brotherhood is able to cap towers in solo mode. We can cap keeps in low numbers as well:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8emzLJC_M34&feature=youtu.be

From my point of view these actions are much more difficult and take much more time and tries than running in a blob and take down the doors. Low number troops actions should be rewarded somehow from my point of view.
It is quite unfair that many solo and roaming players have been playing from the day one and they have several times less rewards than those playing as zergs or blobs.
This is not easy to implement, mainly due to night-capping and morningcapping…
Is is problematic…
Best,

Haltair, one of the Twelve Shadows

And don’t forget the forthcoming #7… Ascended weapons!