Showing Posts For Jandrea.4615:
I think the population imbalances are more a perception of winning in many cases rather than a lack of players who could be having fun if they try. People open the wvw menu, think from what they see that see their server either will win, or will not win, and don’t play. I go play anyway, and have a very good time, as there are many things you can do even if you haven’t enough to hold the keeps.
1. The first change is short-term. Change the wvw display to give people the full story. Add a ‘history’ page that shows you what happened in the last hour or the last 5 ticks. It could show how many ‘hold the camp/tower/keep’ points each side earned, how many ‘player stake’ points, and other points, like for guard point captures and anything else that has an effect on score, like dynamic events.
As it is now, people are not seeing what they can do to make a difference. Taking Stonemist may be impossible, but staking 10 players, taking a merc camp, capping four guard points, killing two dolyaks and doing a veteran harpy event? That is possible.
This change could be done (I think) relatively quickly and would help players feel that wvw is worth playing even if they don’t own the keeps. It would also help drive discussion on more meaty changes.
2. The second change is on a longer timescale. Once people get used to seeing where points REALLY come from, change the scoring system so that it feels possible to recover from a bad night. I think scoring needs to change, but only after people get a reliable in-game way to see what is driving the old scoring system.
3. Long term, add an alliance system. This sounds hard to develop if done well, and done poorly it would be a disaster. My first thought is if one team has more than 50% of the overall score (not just the structure-holding ppt but all sources of wvw score points) for 30 minutes then have a moderate chance to generate an alliance event every 10 minutes.
If the alliance event happens, then up on the side of the screen there will be a pop-up window that puts it to a vote for the two lower scoring teams: “Alliance? y/n. “ If the majority of both teams (not the overall majority) vote yes, then WvW does a ‘redirect to lion’s arch’ and everyone is kicked out. The two allies come into wvw as if they were one server, and there are only two colors on the map. They split their score evenly. At the end of the alliance (maybe four hours?) everyone is kicked out of WvW again and returns with their normal colors. Selecting who has what structure at that point would be difficult, and would probably have to be selected by who’s home base it was closer to.
P.S. Please work on the queue system. A reliable, fair queue with some feedback (short, medium, long) and multiple queues for multiple BLs would be a wonderful improvement.
If anyone is making a free trial, stop by and get to know us!
I think sometime the encounter bugs out, which is why some think it is possible and some think it is impossible. When we did it, the priestess would hit her stealth/heal EVERY time at about 45%, not just the first time. The time we took to get her down to that percent varied, and we tried switching in some very high DPS characters. We could never get her beyond that exact same heal point. I am not sure what we did to bug it, so not sure how the testing team can reproduce it. Maybe it was because we had switched characters in the dungeon, or because we had a linkdead return, or the ranger pet, or letting her heal to full once?
After beating our heads against it for hours and switching in almost an entire new set of characters to see if different classes helped, and hours of wasted time, I doubt I will try this path again, which is sad, as I wanted the dungeon explorer achievement.
I am on SoR and I would like to see more WvW this week, so I have a suggestion. Could TC and ET form an alliance against SoR? That is a reason for the three server system, so players can do that type of thing. I know not everyone would agree, but if the main WvW guilds agreed it might even things up quite a bit.