Guild Wars 2

Jayne.9251:

I was wondering how many of you, over the years, have witnessed this phenomena?

I’ve seen it happen with at least five or six games that have sputtered out and died because of this social media tool.

What happens, is that a group bands together and those who yell the loudest and longest, tend to get their way — regardless of whether it benefits the game or not. Developers of various games have reinforced this behaviour by caving to demands, often just to get players to quiet down. Over the years, players have been conditioned that if you don’t yell, you get nothing. It’s endemic in most MMO gaming forums.

So we are left with this kind of abrasive mode of communication, where the developer turtles and the playerbase gets more angry. To the point that any kind of interaction winds up being antagonistic, regardless.

What’s concerning about this, and as I’ve said, I’ve watched it happen on multiple MMO forums over the years is the fallout from what I call the “appeasement plan.”

Players yell and scream for X change. The developer assesses the largest volume of voice on a forum and makes a decision based on X demand. Over the years, players have learned that you don’t have to be in the majority, you just have to be loud — and pushy. The squeaky wheel and all that.

The worst part? After the changes are implemented, the ones who were yelling the loudest usually bail for other games once they see the plan fail. And the game ultimately suffers because the devs were trying to “listen to its playerbase.”

It’s no skin off the teeth of those who were yelling if they leave the game for somewhere else. They only care if they get their way. And if it fails, no big, there’s always another game out there.

TL;DR: I would highly recommend that while the forums are great to get feedback from the most ardent fans of the game, that Anet actually offers an in-game poll by game mail, asking each player to give input to what they’d like to see in changes. (And be prepared to alter existing plans if the data goes against current programming changes). Any time a player logs in, they are given this poll about potential changes, and can click off multiple choice radio buttons of what they prefer. This absolves the company of reacting (stomping out fires) to vocal manipulation and social engineering on forums. It also gives them an accurate head count of interest to proposed changes.

It just seems to me to be the more sensible thing to do.

Oh, this is part of a bigger trend, actually. A while back, someone did a write up on the “MMO Locust Cloud”. There’s a couple million players that jump from one game to another, any time a new one launches, and spend the first 6 months after launch demanding change as loud as they possibly can. Typically, what they’re asking for pretty much breaks down to just “make it like WoW!”. Even though WoW is usually the game they had left to come ruin whatever game’s launch. So this locust cloud goes around demanding a general WoWization of every AAA MMO that ever launches. The developers cave (usually due to pressure from pulishes trying to “chase dat Wow money”), and end up stripping away what made their game special and enjoyable, and are left with a shallow WoW clone, that sadly pales in comparison to the original, and pales in comparison to the game that was originally launched. This is also where the nerf cycles usually originate from. it basically boils down to “I got killed by an x, weaken them so I can kill them.”

What we’re seeing now is a version of that. A new expansion came out, which is like crack to the Locust Cloud, and now we’re seeing several people that are basically brand new to the game forcefully pushing for changes, that basically boil down to “make it like WoW.”

The whole cycle is thoroughly destructive. Not just for the individual games, but for the industry as a whole. It destroys variety, creativity and options, and pigeonholes both players and developers into single repeated template. And if players don’t particularly like that template, they’re left with nothing. It suffocates the entire industry, and is one of the main reasons for some of the current, horrible, trends we’re seeing in modern games. Lack of challenge, hand holding, removal of communities, removal of options, removal of RP from the RPGs, blatant funneling to the cash shops, removal of the fun factor, etc. It doesn’t lead down a good path, but… I don’t know if there’s anything that can really stop it at this point.

Jayne.9251:

TL;DR: I would highly recommend that while the forums are great to get feedback from the most ardent fans of the game, that Anet actually offers an in-game poll by game mail, asking each player to give input to what they’d like to see in changes.

Yes. Forums suffer from self-selection bias.

I was wondering how many of you, over the years, have witnessed this phenomena?

I’ve seen it happen with at least five or six games that have sputtered out and died because of this social media tool.

What happens, is that a group bands together and those who yell the loudest and longest, tend to get their way — regardless of whether it benefits the game or not. Developers of various games have reinforced this behaviour by caving to demands, often just to get players to quiet down. Over the years, players have been conditioned that if you don’t yell, you get nothing. It’s endemic in most MMO gaming forums.

So we are left with this kind of abrasive mode of communication, where the developer turtles and the playerbase gets more angry. To the point that any kind of interaction winds up being antagonistic, regardless.

What’s concerning about this, and as I’ve said, I’ve watched it happen on multiple MMO forums over the years is the fallout from what I call the “appeasement plan.”

Players yell and scream for X change. The developer assesses the largest volume of voice on a forum and makes a decision based on X demand. Over the years, players have learned that you don’t have to be in the majority, you just have to be loud — and pushy. The squeaky wheel and all that.

The worst part? After the changes are implemented, the ones who were yelling the loudest usually bail for other games once they see the plan fail. And the game ultimately suffers because the devs were trying to “listen to its playerbase.”

It’s no skin off the teeth of those who were yelling if they leave the game for somewhere else. They only care if they get their way. And if it fails, no big, there’s always another game out there.

TL;DR: I would highly recommend that while the forums are great to get feedback from the most ardent fans of the game, that Anet actually offers an in-game poll by game mail, asking each player to give input to what they’d like to see in changes. (And be prepared to alter existing plans if the data goes against current programming changes). Any time a player logs in, they are given this poll about potential changes, and can click off multiple choice radio buttons of what they prefer. This absolves the company of reacting (stomping out fires) to vocal manipulation and social engineering on forums. It also gives them an accurate head count of interest to proposed changes.

It just seems to me to be the more sensible thing to do.

That’s all well and good for the chosen few that sit in the upper echelons of the leaderboard. What about the rest of us?

What about the people that log in to WvW and are lucky to see five enemies all day?

What about their inability to transfer to a higher pop WvW server? What about what happens to people when their server empties out for the week because of tier population imbalances?

What about the fact that removing servers does not dismantle communities. Communities choosing to dismantle themselves does

If you need the game to tell you who is on your team, then your team isn’t as strong as you thought it was.

WvW might seem fine from the perpective of the top. I used to run on TC, and it looked fine from that vantage point.

However, more than half of all servers don’t have the ability to fight competitive WvW matches, and exhorbitant server transfer fees shouldn’t be a permanent requirement for guilds to reorganize in to and out of larger armies.

It’s easy to forget how horrible WvW is as a game mode when you’re not at the top. This is unlike any other part of the game. Even in complete noob tier pvp you are still getting good matches. Even in completely screwed PvE maps you still have events adjusted to solo.

When there isn’t a population that is roughly equivalent for all teams involved there is no WvW and the current server model does not support, and can not support enough teams to make that happen due to the effect of server stacking and basic human desire to win

yeh i loved the action in there

there is absolutely no reason to make it accountbound
especially if you consider that it is really the only jumping puzzle where you cant park characters like people said before…
fights in there were ultra fun
and it is rather boring having to do the jumping puzzle without enemies stopping me from doing it

also a bit off-top but still related:

there was a short time when i hated that “Killing you in Obsidian [JP]” guild

but then i thought… hey… sooo often i would have had noone to fight
the jumping puzzle would have been boring without them trying to stop me from doing it…
and i was MUCH more happy and really felt like i achieved something when i actually did the JP while they tried to stop me!

so dont cry about camper guilds like them in the Obsidian JP because those are the ones that actually make it challening and fun!

Chill out.

If whatever happens does indeed have the effect of destroying WvW communities as we know it, I’ll be out the door with you. But that can be saved for latter. There is no need to fret over what is most likely an incomplete draft that would naturally seem overly specific and exclusionary.

But I and others most likely do understand that there are things at stake here that you value, but there’s no point in getting angry without all the details. What Arenanet does need to know is that you and others have invested time and other resources to build whatever you have right now, and those efforts should not be in vain.

They said it was “replacing” Alpine and that they may bring it back in either a rotation fashion or as like a special map for the WvW tournaments. However, they don’t seem to have anything down pat on what they’re going to do.

Edit: Here’s the link to it https://youtu.be/irQ_71ClFqo?t=3m15s

Notsoperky.2348:

Lack of thought whenever wvw is concerned.

More like lack of experience causing a disconnect between how WvW players (who are PvPers at heart) view their toons.

Tyler Bearce.3427:

The chest, containing Proofs, being account bound is a bug. Earning specializations (skills and traits) is intended to be character progression. Ex: If you want to fully train up your warrior, you actually need to play your warrior for some amount of time. I say some amount of time since Tomes of Knowledge have allowed players to bypass a lot of existing character progression.

Just to add to the discussion since your post. WvW masteries were originally soul bound until you came around to the player POV that WvW is more about player/account progression than character. Now you’re talking about taking that account progression system and bolting another character progression system on to it. They are in opposition to one another. The same decision that was eventually made to make WvW masteries account bound applies to the proofs of heroics.

Obsidian Sanctum exists.

The new borderlands are nothing like EB style. At least, I’m not seeing it. Can you be more specific in your assertion? I see EB as a place where fights are constant and defending is hardly a thing except for sometimes when you hold SM or when your keep is under attack. Everyone is right next to each other and can spawn close enough to get back into the action in a moment of so.

The old BLs were a place where the home team had an advantage only in the northern triangle and could get a full map advantage by getting WPs in the side keeps. At it’s best, it made for intense defense of the side keep WPs but at worst it made it impractical for a smaller force to attack the BL (with WPs) of a larger force no matter what kind of strategy they employed. Thus, most of the action took place on the smaller forces BL where they resisted getting run over for as long as possible. Usually, attackers would build siege in a nearby tower and thus ensure victory since the smaller force couldn’t counter the siege very effectively.

The new BLs have keeps where multi-pronged attacks have a much better chance of working due to not being able to be spotted from miles away. Additionally, since the home force can’t WP them, a smaller foreign force has a chance to effectively siege it if they play their cards right. Defending them is currently a bit less intense among some people since no one is using guild upgrades, but once those come along there’ll be even more reason to hold a structure for a long period besides just better walls/gates. Also, with the sentry mechanic, tracking enemies is much easier. Whether it’s getting early warning on a zerg or hunting down a pair of roamers, their marking is essential. I really can’t wait to be able to put that on a tower…a scout’s dream.

But, more to the point, the borderlands are not much different in terms of mobility for a server that couldn’t routinely WP sidekeeps. They’re certainly not EB-esque, at least. But, we should note, the whole borderland concept is somewhat contrived anyway. Every team has always been able to spawn near a keep and at least one tower. If they so chose, they could make any border their own for one corner. The only thing that makes the hometeam different is that they spawn near a keep and two towers instead of one so it’s usually worth more to hold your own border than to move elsewhere.

Hello, I’d like to give a quick introduction to illustrate my position on this “faction” talk that has been floating around.

I haven’t been playing since headstart but I’ve probably logged more hours in 2 years than a lot of the people that have been playing for longer (due to my health/living conditions). WvW is almost literally all I do in Gw2. Of course I’ve explored other areas and for a brief time after HoT I was doing a lot of PvE but WvW has always been my main focus. I’ve been on roughly 12 servers between EU and NA, I’ve commanded plenty (albeit most of it being in EotM), have been a big time solo roamer for ages up until recently when I just kind of got tired of it; basically I’ve done all WvW has to offer and then some.

I’m still not tired of it. I still play WvW every day and I still feel like it’s alive and well despite all the cries of a “dead game mode.”

I’m still not tired of it because of community and pride. I’m not certain how factions would change the game but I do know that any degree of pride I’d have for my own faction would be a lot more watered down version of what I currently have for my home server. Your server is like a neighborhood or a village; you become familiar with people and it starts to feel like a home. You can even go there just to strike up random conversation because you feel comfortable enough with your servermates that the conversation will carry. Or you recognize offending server mates while roaming/zerging and know what they’re like as a player from intimate battles. It gives WvW a special feeling of home/familiarity that I think keeps a lot of us playing despite feeling like it’s a neglected area of the game.

I love to go to EotM to relax sometimes because it feels less strenuous. It’s like a WvW playground for newbies and PUGs that might one day relieve themselves of their training wheels to discover “true” WvW. That’s all fine and good but it also has a feeling of anonymity. I don’t often recognize names that I see there and I don’t really feel like I’m fighting for anything. It’s just red versus blue versus green. I’m not going to have any type of competitive hatred for these colours because one week I might be fighting someone and the next they might be my allies. In real WvW, that never happens and that’s why you develop a competitive distaste for certain servers.

To some, it might sound like a negative side effect that could be remedied with the anonymity of mega-server WvW but it’s really not a bad thing. It just gives you a type of pseudo-patriotism that makes you feel like your server is worth fighting for to beat up those guys. Those bad guys you just oh-so wish to see defeated that mega-server WvW like EotM doesn’t accomplish.

If they pack everyone on to one server, like for example, shove a bunch of people on to JQ that stay JQ but changes colours every week, then that wouldn’t be quite so bad albeit confusing with how many players there would be. But if people aren’t really on a server, they’re just rotating out every week like EotM then it loses a lot of that special community feeling that servers provide.

I understand the idea that those of us on lower population servers should move up but I hope others understand the idea that not all of us care to move up. We love our server and our friends there too much to care that we’re low pop. Of course if factions become a thing we can still talk to our friends but one week they might be our buddies, the next we might be fighting them and personally I’m not cool with that…

So I don’t know about everyone else but if factions become a thing it may very well be the straw that broke the horses back… I’ve weathered a lot of things through out my days in WvW and this isn’t one of those things I’d be willing to weather.

See memories of good and bad times attached below:
1) Golem rush week on Crystal Desert, #winning
2) Siege trolled on Ferguson’s Crossing.
3) The one time we managed to pull that kind of PPT against Dragonbrand!
4) 25 PPT during Isle Of Janthir’s downfall against Fort Aspenwood. I sieged a camp and held my ground for 4 hours.
5) Going ham on Desolation EU – everyone put a commander tag up just for lolz and we rolled all of EBG (back before coloured tags).

GROMIT.7829:

Gonna have to agree with OP

I’m from Piken and to be honest our PPT is rubbish but the enemy flat out refuses to fight us and when they do they wipe 9/10 times, i’m struggling to understand why they are so bad at this part of the game (not an insult, just an observation).

We don’t PPT much but we PPT enough to keep our place, but honestly EVERY server we fight can’t fight back or just runs, it’s not fun anymore, what happened to all these servers ?.

I was on Piken for a couple months a couple of years ago, and I got to see your open field groups first hand. The honest truth is that you guys are just….. really really good at it. Don’t get me wrong, there were a couple servers that were just laughably bad, where I watched a group of maybe 20 from Piken take on a group of about 70 with no real problems. But that was also the server I was doing 13k crits to people while wearing full bunker gear, so they seemed all sorts of dysfunctional. But, I think at this point, you guys have built up a pretty solid reputation for being extremely strong in the open field, so I’m guessing other servers have adjusted their tactics to try to avoid engaging you where you’d hold the clear advantage.

Though what I learned while I was over there is that the different language based servers all had different focuses. The English speaking servers focused on the open field fights. The German servers were masters of siege defenses. And the French servers seemed to primarily just get into an omniblob then run away until everyone else was asleep. Which was…. very bizarre to see 70 people run away from 15 for 8 hours a day every day for a week. I still haven’t been able to mentally process that.

I don’t think the ideas of PPT and fights should be mutually exclusive like they seem to be in some people’s minds. To me that points to issues with the game design. Scoring points for your server to help win the match should be more directly tied to actively playing and engaging the opposing players.

I also think all sorts of fights, whether it’s solo, small group, or large group can and should be supported. Each can and should play a worthwhile role in earning points for the server’s success in the match, and all should be able to exist on the same map in concert with each other.

That’s one of the great things about open-world unbalanced PvP…the potential for everyone to help out by engaging opposing players in the way that works for them. “fights” can and should include open field, small and large scale, siege or no, walls or no… pretty much any way players can engage other players.

What about a much more active system of scoring that’s better exposed to the players? One that rewards the fun and active things you can do in WvW, and provides less reward or none at all for passive activities that don’t involve engaging the opposition. How?

What if matches were decided by active scoring instead of passive old PPT? Players earn “world points” for their server by actively engaging in WvW against opposing forces.

Tie into the NPC scaling system that’s already in the game and use it in a new way. As a fight between players occurs, account for the number of players on each side of the fight. When the fight ends (when a player leaves combat), provide a “world point” reward to that player based on their performance in the fight (healing + damage + CC? + stomps).

The same can be applied when near an objective. Defenders should be rewarded with world points for every 3 minutes they successfully hold an objective against active attack. World points could also be rewarded for people doing active things like escorting / killing yaks (or players carrying supply), and upgrading objectives.

All of these world points would go into one big pool and at the end of the week, the server with the highest world point total wins.

Weight the world point rewards by taking into account:
-The size of the forces on each side (more points for fighting outnumbered, less points for zerging down small force)
-Points for kills
-If an objective is involved, weight the rewards based on how long the objective was held against active attack, and how upgraded the objective is.

Then give a floaty chest or popup on the screen that says something like

“You’ve helped your server win the match! You earned XXXX world points!”

Or do floaty numbers and a cool sound.

Personal rewards of loot and gold and karma could be tied into the same system. Give chests every X amount of world points you earn, or make personal reward tracks like sPvP has which you advance by earning world points. Heck, even WvW masteries could be tied to the same system. Bring it all together and expose it to the player so it feels good and makes players want to engage in good ways, rather than negative, passive ones (like zerging undefended objectives all day).

People would be able to clearly see and understand their contribution, and their contribution to the server’s points would be personally rewarding in a direct and immediate and meaningful way. It would feel more “fair” and common-sense…if I win a tough fight against a larger force, I should get more reward!

Sitting with maps full of undefended and un-upgraded objectives would do nothing for a server. Attacking and capturing undefended and un-upgraded objectives would provide minimum points (or maybe none at all). In this way, people would seek out fights and work to move supply and upgrade because it would directly and obviously reward the server and the player for engaging with the opposition and actually playing the game mode.

Zerging mindlessly around maps would become the least profitable play…both personally and in terms of world points. It would be really hard to earn points with a huge group and no opposing forces. Small forces would be much more encouraged to take part in the match, and would be able to contribute in a real way by playing smart and with skill.

The most possible points for the server, and the fastest personal rewards should come from:
1) Fighting even or larger forces in any form and winning. This is what it’s all about.
2) Successfully upgrading and defending objectives from active attack. Yes, defending objectives should be a bit more rewarding than attacking objectives. defending is harder, takes more time, and is more limited in where it can occur.

Successfully capturing upgraded and defended objectives should be next on the value scale, only slightly less rewarding than the other two.

So there’s an idea. Probably needs some work, but you’ve incentivized positive, skilled play and actively engaging opposing forces, and disincentivized zerging and karma training. You’ve made WvW feel more rewarding directly, and made it about the fights and server score at the same time.

(This all assumes that upgrading goes back to being a manual process of turning in supply (not personal money or karma) in order to “build” upgrades).

This is one of the big reasons I switched to Thief as main. 1h sword on thief is much more fun to play than ranger 1h sword imo.

I have nothing against “high risk, high reward”, but the mechanics just feel clunky and unnaturally restrictive. Even if it is working as intended, it still feels like a bugged weapon.

As much as I love the idea of playing a 1h sword build on my ranger, the execution just feels wrong to me. =(

How many times do we have to answer this? Yes, in a sense yes it’s working as intended. Sword auto chain includes 2 short leaps, all leap skills lock you in animation. Can you dodge in Swoop? RTL? Is it bad design? Possibly, but then what isn’t to Rangers.

briggah.7910:

Swagger.1459:

Well, I’m 99% sure megaservers are coming so everybody will have to put away their server pride for the greater good and future health of wvw.

I’m 99% sure you are the dev working on this but you do not want to post as red to make it official because that will cause the forums to go into a rage over this POS idea for a fix.

And I am 90% sure he is some kind of troll with an agenda. I just haven’t decided which kind yet, someone looking to foment the world pride crowd or the rumor spreading type. No one other than troll responds to their thread so kitten much with so many kitten quotes.

Here’s the thing.

I love the folks on my server. Fantastic people. We all get along really well.

I want to keep them that way.

There’s a harmony of cooperation, and I guess that’s why the only time I don’t post polyanna posts is when I feel that source of community is threatened. Otherwise, it’s all sunshine and roses, and I’ll find a way to work with this new thing, etc.

My experience is that when you combine a bunch of people (particularly online) into any kind of group with a leader designate and officers, etc, it does work well for some. But eventually more numbers = drama. Sometimes you don’t even need the numbers.

I deal with resolving issues at work.

I deal with resolving issues at home with my family.

I do not want to have to do the same during my leisure time.

I used to run a 350-man guild on another game. I spent the bulk of my time stomping out personal fires and drama between guild mates than I did actually playing the game.

In the end, I choose to run solo and work between multiple guilds. Having no alliances to one guild over another, I can maximize my effectiveness, while still keeping out of the big stuff that goes on within the guilds themselves behind the scenes.

I’m happier that way. And I’m a more effective member of my server’s team that way too.

And I know I’m not alone in this. I think this is why the bulk of each server’s defense team are solo players that work well together, but still want their independence.

Perhaps I have commitment issues

Catalin.5341:

• Also you need to grind a lot for your guild and I know one guild that only does WvW and since the expansion was out they do more farming in PVE than ever to rush to the +5 supply upgrade of the guild.

The funny thing is that by the time they finish grinding that out, there won’t be anyone in WvW left to use it.

Catalin.5341:

• Old borderlands were not that popular back then either and people still prefered EBG. On SFR you would always had a 30ppl queue for EBG while the home map had some people, but the other 2 maps where kind of deserted. Some exceptions were made when a new season would start or the reset night.

LOL yea funny how people forget. The new map though I’ll agree is less fun for certain reasons related to navigation, distances, and offense/defense balance.

Sorry to inform you but… WvW is a RvRvR game mode, which in turn is an open pvp game mode. Meaning that realms (servers) fight each others. Does NPC represent the realms? No. The players/community on those servers represent the server. It is a mix between assault and defense (like any other RvR or RvRvR games). The fact that there are NPC’s you need to take down in order to capture an objective doesn’t mean it is not a pvp game mode anymore…Sadly, there is a difference between a great RvRvR game mode with useful PVE mechanics (keeps/towers/camps and their lord that are the required magnet in order to produce the fights) and irritating PVE mechanics (wind turrets, earth walls, flame turrets, slow turrets, random enemy creatures that gets you in combat outside any form of objectives, etc.).

WvW without any form of players fighting players would not be a viable game mode. When you say PVE is forced. I don’t consider taking down a lord that gets 0 chance of fighting back an actual group of players to be enough content on its own to qualify as a PVE game mode. I can affirm, as a matter of fact, that WvW would not have lived 3+ years if there was no Players vs players action involved. I will even add that the near entirety of its player base play WvW in order to beat other players, be it in all out brawl or in a tactical battle (siege/defense).

So basically, the OP is not asking to remove all the PVE mechanics. He is simply asking to remove those that are detrimental to WvW. Removing those undesirable mechanics won’t instantly heal the damage that HoT caused on the WvW game mode. But I am sure that it will bring back many of the WvW hardcore players that left after the release of HoT and the replacement of Alpine Borderland for the new Desert Borderland.

This is your glorified impression of what WvW is supposed to be.

In reality, its not a PvP mode at its core. Its actually a PvE mode at its core. You may not like that fact, but its fact nonetheless. PvE is forced while the PvP is technically optional. Fortunetly most of us are so competetive that when we see other players trying to take what’s ours, we want to kill them. And we get the WvW that we all fell in love with when GW2 released. If you take away all that PvE that disturb you so much, instead of PvDing and killing lords to take a keep you’d walk in and kill… nothing. Because removing the PvE wont suddenly replace it with more PvP. It’ll just remove the PvE.

I find desert border too big also, but that has nothing to do with the WvW gameplay mode as a whole. That just means a too big map is too big.

WvW is about team organization and cooperation. Whether players are grouped into servers or alliances, the game mode still requires “team organization and cooperation”. That is next to impossible to do when players are reluctant to join or form guilds that have dedicated WvW teams. I’m sure you have all now been on an “unorganized” PvE map and know what I’m talking about. Don’t like the rules of a particular guild? Start your own!

Alliances and mega-server are not going to really “save” WvW. WvW has been heading in a more casual direction for a long time and mega-server will only accelerate it to EOTM-like casual game play. The average size of a guild has been shrinking since launch. The days of many servers having that one huge anchor guild with dedicated WvW activity with “night crews” disappeared long before HoT. If that idea bothers you, get organized!