Showing Posts For Cavalorn.8057:
As an ultra-competitive Leader of Titan Alliance, my views on the design intent of WvW would be vastly different to most gamers. I am in complete agreement with the OP : “WvW was developed as a never ending continuous battle”, albeit it’s actually a 168 hour battle.
The problem with the design is that Anet expect us to solve our own issues, as to how to achieve as continuous battle, without providing adequate tools / incentive to do so. However, the solution you seek to improve your experience is vastly different to the solution for mine.
I haven’t actually proposed any solutions as yet. I’m a game designer myself, so I’m always interested to get a handle on the variant perspectives involved.
It does seem to me that some people – not yourself – are making the assumption that WvW is only for those who aspire to win at all costs and that the solution for those who are not having fun is simply to adopt a more hardcore attitude. If WvW was designed only for those who aspire to win, then that’s fair. However, if WvW is expressly for the casual and fun players as well as the hardcore, then that advice is based on a false assumption and is therefore worthless.
I know it may have been TL:DNR, but I clearly state in my post :
" I can’t speak on behalf of the lower tiers and the issues they face with PvDooring and Time-zone imbalances … "
Yes, I picked up on that. My question was more to do with what you perceived the design intent of WvW to be.
I don’t get the impression that all that many people really care about being top tier. They do care about having fun, however. If we’re in agreement that this is a legitimate perspective, then that’s all to the good.
Top Tier WvW – What it takes to be on top.
Do you think WvW is only for those who aspire to be top tier?
If not, do you think it should be?
We feel that everyone should have the ability to contribute no matter what time of the day it is. How we’ve came to this conclusion is that no player’s time is more valuable than another.
I’m afraid there is an inherent contradiction here, and it has to do with the meaning of the term ‘valuable’.
You seem to be confusing ‘valuable to us, the game company’ with ‘valuable in the context of an ongoing war between servers’.
You are emphasising the value of every player’s account to you by allowing all players to participate on the same terms regardless of region. This is understandable.
But when it comes to the value of a given player’s time to the wvwvw campaign, then an ‘off peak’ player’s time is demonstrably more valuable than a ‘prime time’ player’s. Off peak players are able to garner points for their server at times that regular players cannot. This is reflected in the way servers are actively trying to recruit off peak players.
So, when you say ‘valuable’, you need to consider to whom something is valuable.
This is not saying that we are against any adjustment to scoring, or against developing another mechanic to improve the capping system. This is simply saying that we will not be changing WvW based on some players’ idea of off time hours.
So… if you’re willing to consider adjustments to scoring or to capping mechanics, but not willing to base those on time of day, I can only conclude that any adjustments would have to be based on relative map populations regardless of time (e.g. a reworking of the Outmanned buff). Is that a fair assessment?
Want fair? spvp or pve.
This is not a fairness issue. This is a balance issue.
One has no place in game design. The other does.
I love how in every single matchup posted, the #1 servers outscored the #2 and #3 servers combined.
Erm…
HOD. 233K
SBI. 169K
ET. 133K
SF: 183,080
DH: 176,911
SoR: 168,322
Tarnished Coast: 249,370
Maguuma: 145,752
Ehmry Bay: 138,845
Underworld: 249,869
Ring of Fire: 174,046
Whiteside Ridge: 111,173
‘Every single matchup’?
Saw this pointed out on a thread that’s now been locked. Can anyone confirm that this is how the system actually works?
I see no reason to doubt it – there has to be some sort of limit or else orange swords would pop up all over the place – but I’ve not been able to find official confirmation anywhere (and yes, I have looked). Cheers.
Simple and brilliant suggestion. Outnumbered servers are going to be suffering more casualties anyway, so it makes sense to slash or do away with their armour repair costs. It would also encourage the outnumbered to take part in valiant, heroic cough suicidal cough activities to drive the enemy back.
I’m not talking about taking orbs away from the game as a blanket decision at all. I’m asking if people had the option to destroy THEIR orb, even if it was only on a temporary basis, would they take it.
Like the title says, if you had the option to bung your world’s orb into the Crack of Doom and prevent it from respawning for, say, 24 hours, would you use it?
Just curious to see if anyone would choose to lose the orb’s buff in exchange for denying it to the enemy.
Quick analysis of the data for Monday 17th September as it relates to the Underworld/Arborstone/Jade Sea match (approximate times only). In context of this post, ‘outnumbered’ is when one server has max pop and the other doesn’t.
On Underworld Borderlands:
Arborstone outnumbers Jade Sea for 6 hours
Underworld outnumbers Arborstone for 2 hours and Jade Sea for 7 hours
Jade Sea outnumbers nobody
On Jade Sea borderlands:
Arborstone outnumbers Jade Sea for 5 hours and Underworld for 8 hours
Jade Sea outnumbers Underworld for 4 hours
Underworld outnumbers nobody
On Arborstone borderlands:
Arborstone outnumbers Jade Sea for 8 hours; Underworld never achieves max pop
Jade Sea outnumbers nobody
On Eternal Battlegrounds:
Arborstone outnumbers Jade Sea for 3 hours and Underworld for 3 hours
Jade Sea outnumbers nobody
Underworld outnumbers nobody
If nothing else, this rather proves that the whole ‘ermagherd Jade Sea is seekrit ally of Arborstone’ rumour is a load of bullkitten.
The interesting bit is cross-referencing where server A has a queue to get into a given map but server B doesn’t. Those are, obviously, the times when server A has max pop on the map and server B is outnumbered.
Which is presumably part of the reason why they’re reducing free transfers to one every 24 hours.
So late on Tuesday evening, Arborstone was more desperate to get into the Underworld borderlands than on to any other map, including EB? Blimey.
Orbs-The worst of all worlds slaughter rule, and why they don't belong
in WvW
Posted by: Cavalorn.8057
Now this is a valid concern.
Writing in The Prince, Machiavelli laid out a fundamental point of warfare: that which is easy to take is harder to keep, and that which is hard to take is easier to keep.
This is borne out in WvWvW. Camps are relatively easy to capture, but they’re much harder to defend against another capturing force. Towers are in the middle, and keeps (especially the likes of Dreaming Bay and of course Stonemist) are buggers to take but are much easier to stop anyone else from taking once you have them.
But the Orb mechanic goes completely against this. For the attacker, it is easy to take AND easy to keep. For the defender, at least in that crucial beginning stage, the orb is hard to keep and even harder to take back.
I’m fairly sure this is why we see one side having all three orbs so often, and I’m not sure this isn’t part of the design. Orbs seem to be designed to be so easy for an invader to capture and hang on to that the original owner is meant to crave getting them back. If that’s the plan, I respectfully disagree with the wisdom of it.
Orbs-The worst of all worlds slaughter rule, and why they don't belong
in WvW
Posted by: Cavalorn.8057
What puzzles me most about orbs is that an attacker who grabs one is much more able to keep hold of them than the initial defender. The defender’s orb spawns in the cradle, which isn’t exactly the most defensible spot on the map, but once an attacker gets their hands on it they can take it to a keep.
Unless I’m much mistaken, the only way the side who owns an orb can take it to a keep is by intercepting it once it’s been stolen and then taking it to an altar. That seems completely backward to me. The only reason I can see why we can’t just grab our own orbs from the cradle and take them straight to our garrison is to prevent griefing, i.e. joe kitten grabs orb and takes it straight to the enemy. But surely we could use some sort of a waypoint system and choose to teleport our orb from the cradle to one of our keeps?
The current system is also another ‘snowball effect’ in so far as it favours a strong attacking side; if they can grab the orb fast, they can defend it far more easily than could the side where it spawned. So an initial, situational advantage becomes a more permanent advantage.