amen to that….ANet invested a lot of money into GW2 and Wv3. Equal matchups is obviously what their intention has always been, not map flipping.
It would be good if we could all agree to re-balance the servers and everyone would happily go on their merry way. Unfortunately that will never happen due to external influences on all of us (playing with friends, family times, school, work, connectivity etc).
Getting something that works for 60%+ should be achievable I would have thought. Obviously any solution would need to factor in concurrent population into the scoring and/or doing something to mitigate the ‘unfair’ advantages committed servers have over the less committed servers (by committed, I mean servers who actively work towards 24×7 presence and dedicate the time that requires)
The only way I can see to achieve higher satisfaction is disconnecting the teams from servers, to allow players to form their own super/mega guilds or teams for the sole purpose of Wv3 – which then would not be WvWvW
…
Until either of those things happen, the night-capping will remain an annoyance to the same groups of people (despite the fact that night-cappers are in turn night-capped
nice! good on that guardian I personally find it very annoying that our name tags stand out so much in those sort of circumstances. Hiding against a red background is the only real option we have in order to hide the name tag as well (unless you have steal that is).
It would be nice if ANet reduced the distance at which name badgers were visible (without having targetted the person at least). That way, camoflage would be more effective. Having said that, I can understand why they did it (makes it much easier for targetting purposes etc if you can see the name badges).
heheh….telling comeback that!…but simply translates to “I don’t like what you said but can’t think of anything constructive/meaningful to add”
as I mentioned, 2 servers out of 3 is not 2 thirds of the world GW2 population. If you wish to discuss why / how things should work etc, then please use relevant information or at least state it clearly.
We all get very passionate about this issue it seems, or just fed up with it
If people want to come up with alternatives / solutions, then they actually need to think beyond their own circumstances and consider the global impact. I’m quite happy with how things are, it works for me how it is, but I do recognise that I am only 1 person and that it doesn’t work for everyone. Haven’t seen particularly viable alternatives to it. The closest to fair I’ve seen to date, is the concept of scaling scores to the number of active participants. And that is a LOT of work to implement once you start considering the exceptions – idlers, disconnected users, pve’ers, bots, puzzle jumpers who are not ever participating (vs ones that do participate)….theres prolly plenty more of those exceptions that make it very very difficult to measure/code.
(edited by Guild Wars Fan.3249)
It is not, and should not be the job of the players to balance this (or any) game mode, period. If victory in ANY game relies not on strategy or tactics, but pure differences in time zone(s) of a server’s population, that game mode is BROKEN, period.
very hard to disagree with that argument the issue I see, is that ANet is trying to achieve something with Wv3 which I admire. They want a pvp arena that lasts days instead of hours or minutes. As such, the game is open 24×7. If I want to play in a game like this, I need to be realistic about what I need to do.
I can just turn up for my 3-6 hours every night along with the other Oceanics and live with being night-capped by the NA crowd everyday. Or I could move to an NA centric server or recruit for my server. OR I could give up and quit and play another game (aka whine about how broken the game is until it is changed and BECOMES another game).
There are a plethora of MMO’s that have dealt with the issue…
Thats one of the issues right there…the ‘opponent goes to bed’ to me is MY teams problem…not the other server who does maintain people online, and not ANet’s.
…and let’s face it – the servers that are “dominating” are only doing so because they’ve been allowed to play a game mode that SHOULD be a 24/7 struggle back and forth as essentially a PVE game mode in the “off hours” of that server’s time zone.
again, no one is allowing them to play, they are choosing to play at that time because it is convenient for them. And yes, it should be a 24/7 struggle, which again, is the opposing servers’ players’ choice.
Your next argument will be to “change servers if you don’t like it”. To which I reply yet again – why the hell should I have to? I’ve joined an officially sanctioned US server in good faith, built a large Guild filled with our community members, and maxxed out our guild research to level 5…
Yes, I see that you see the obvious solution too. And, no, you don’t have to…but…er….thats your choice isn’t it? I too have joined an officially sanctioned server in good faith, built up friendships and continue to contribute to guild influence and all that entails. I am cursed with living in a timezone that is not always conducive to equal match ups. Its unfair on me, for sure…capping against a sub-par enemy is not as rewarding or fun. Luckily for me, the server I am on is getting more an more NA guilds and as such we tend to fight more servers with more of a presence in my timezone.
It is unfortunate that night-capping is an issue….and maybe we do have too many servers for the number of players that we have….or maybe Wv3 is too fast and the maps too small and the whole idea was that there should be a lot more standoff conflict so capping went slowly…with more tactics etc…In fact, maybe they are grooming us all to a EU vs NA mega WvW in which all US servers team up against the EU servers 24×7 for massive wars on huge maps
It would be nice if Anet would let guilds move AND keep their upgrades etc.
…we are in a bit of a “golden age” for PC gaming now, and it’s only going to get better over the next 18 months or so. Anet can accept responsibility and fix the multiplayer aspect of the game or large (6000 players+) communities like ours will simply move on to the next game that tries to (which is looking more and more like PS2 at the moment).
this too is true…it will be interesting either way, to see what ANet does.
I have high hopes for GW2, but Anet has alot of work to do, and putting the ball in the player’s court to balance a broken game mode is a bad start. If they want an “anything goes” player-driven environment, that’s exactly what they’ll get – but they ARE NOT Eve online, and they are not equipped to be.
to me, what ANet have done is say: “hey look! we have this concept called WvWvW where battles last 7 days, server vs server vs server. You field the best team(s) you can and whoever leads at the end wins. Its not perfect, but we thought you might like it.”
At any rate – it seems this debate has broken down into two camps – the “it’s not broken because we’re winning” group, and those who can see the potential being wasted due to the time zone issue being abused unabated (and, apparently, endorsed by ANet).
there is no ‘it aint broke because we’re winning’ – at least not that I’m a member of…where do I sign up!!! oh…hold on, we’re not winning
ANet have given us an Arena in which to compete 24×7. Thats it. It IS up to the players to balance it – if the players in question want to compete seriously.
I like the idea of points being awarded based around objectives and effort, however, there are several flaws and/or unsolvable issues.
If there are 5 attackers outside, besieging the tower, and 2 trebs bombarding the tower (and lets complicate it further) and also a keep, with 2 spotters who are ranging in the treb and getting it on target. There are really 5 + possibly up to 4 other players besieging the tower. At what point do you decide who is besieging a tower. What happens when another 2 players run past and are PVE’ing on a moa with some aoe which happens to hit the tower too? Do they count?
Or do you base it of ‘nearby’ players and end up excluding the trebbers, but including that big group of ask’ers who have found the optimal spot to sit in and get free xp?
I particularly like the idea that when you take the tower/keep, that upgrades are kept. Don’t know if ANet would like it so much, as one of their money sinks is gone
The first forumula you stated (towerbasepoints * 40/(10+5(defender advantage adjustment)) means the defenders advantage works against themselves. Was that deliberate? So, instead of
towerbasepoints * 40/10) → towerbasepoints * 4
they get towerbasepoints * 40/(15)) → towerbasepoints * (3 2/3rds).
I like the idea of Wv3 being server based. Unfortunately, I suspect that that is causing a lot of the issues people are having.
By associating Wv3 with a players home server, we get the ability to give rewards to that server based upon its performance etc, which in turn provides more meaning to the PvP’s in addition to the reward of winning against other players. This is all very elegant, however, it does cause the problem we are seeing. Players from the same locales tend to play on the same server as it makes pugging etc much simpler and for some of us, gives sense of more of a local community (e.g. on SoS, you do tend to feel you are representing the Oceanic region).
Unfortunately, this does not translate well to balancing playing times in server vs server matchups.
Given the name of this game is Guild Wars 2, I would have expected more guild-based Wv3. Getting a little off-topic with that, but it does have some vague relevance
Perhaps we could move to more of a ‘Team’ model. i.e. we form Wv3 teams. Whether you form your team from your server pop, or from multiple servers would be irrelevant. You limit the number of players per team allowable in Wv3 at any one time to some arbitrary number (I’m sure ANet have some idea about the number of people they think would work best per side in Wv3 give nteh map size), which may vary over time as ANet adjust it based on a bit of analysis. Let say (for the sake of having a number) that this is 280 people per team in Wv3 at any one time.
Total team size is entirely up to the Team Leaders (or should I say Guild??). But it would also behoove any team (if they want to be competitive) to make sure they had enough players to have full coverage 24×7. Perhaps the current reward system could also be applied to all team members who have participated in the current match (for some minimum amount of time or not at all, might have to look at ways to stop abuse of that tho).
The downside to this, is that you lose Server based affiliations, which I think are very useful and tie in well, and new players or players who wanted to dabble in Wv3 to see what it is all about would not have such easy access (tho, there would be nothing stopping them from joining a team or starting a new one – but I know some players are very shy and would be turned off by this).
Some of the existing issues such as supply-wasting would become easier to manage – allowing the ‘team leader’ to disable access to keep/tower supplies or functions etc or even kicking them from the team (not sure about this with regards to power mongering). Even, just allowing the team leader to kick people would solve that issue. Spying would still work (which I think is good for the game but once discovered, at least the spy could be dealt with, in fact, it would be fantastic to see something implemented around imprisoning said spy – locking them out of the game for a day unless they pay the team a ransom etc…anyway, getting off topic again
We’d get less idiocy going on (well, be able to do something about it at least) – griefing in puzzles would be more policy-based, rather than individual choice – most of the time, I leave other players alone in there, as I would prefer to be left alone in there as well. However, there are many times where it would be much better if I didn’t. If I’m really honest, I leave them alone because I am hopeless at the jump puzzles ( I blame it on screen lag due to my on-board-intel non-gaming-card lol low graphics settings ftw!).
[Note] Moved this here as it is off-topic for the night-capping thread
hmm JohnCataldo.9201:
‘Sure, start with some base so it’s not wonky. Make the math work right and weight it as needed. But 200 players per side should be more meaningful than 20 per side.’
I fail to see how 200 vs 200 vs 200 is more meaningful than 20 vs 20 vs 20.
In each case, the players in question are putting in the same amount of effort. No one is being disadvantaged. Keep / Supply swapping is just a lot slower
heheh…I love that one “(and not the insulting accusations you and your kind keep throwing around to deflect attention)”…hypocritical much???
you do raise a good point tho and I do agree that expecting all players to alter their behaviour in the best interest of the community is not likely to happen!
With a view to saving the WvW aspect of GW2, I fail to see how repeated posts saying (basically) the same thing is helping the situation. Not everyone is whining, and moaning about the same thing, so perhaps I could have been a little less aggressive
One of my primary concerns with adjusting scoring based on point-in-time population is that it is inherently flawed and demeaning.
Flawed, in that if there are 50 players standing around chatting (or posing for guild photos!…you know who you are!), while another 100 are actively participating in WvW, then that server is theoretically being disadvantaged because the server(s) they are competing with will be receiving a disproportionate score bonus. The active players are having their efforts demeaned as a result.
In truth, this may or may not be an issue (especially if the other servers are having the same issue – tho, with a night-capping server, this is more likely as it is in fact daytime for them and therefore they are more likely to have excess players loitering about).
While I agree that it has its merits, I dont agree with it in principal, as it has an immoral smell to it, in that we would be punishing players who don’t play in server-local time as they would be the ones this applies to most commonly. I say punishing, because the suggestion is to effectively reduce the scores while they are playing, simply because the other servers were unable to field an adequate team.
In fact, I don’t see how this would solve the problem. For example, lets say we take 3 realms:
Realm A: has a strong server-day-time presence and a weak night-time presence.
Realm B: strong day-time, a reasonable night-time presence.
Realm C: weak day-time and strong night-time.
For the purposes of simplicity, assume greater numbers = stronger i.e. all players are equal.
During the day:
RealmA and RealmB have their scores adjusted downwards because RealmC is weak.
At night:
RealmC and RealmB have their scores adjusted due to RealmA being weak.
So, basically, realmB gets the big nerf hammer because the other Realms are unable to field decent teams throughout the day.i Will RealmB still win? Yes.
Does this solve the problem of RealmB night-capping a number of RealmA’s stuff at night and defending it against them the next day? And likewise to RealmC during the day? Nope.
RealmC and RealmA find themselves swapping positions for a week.
(edited by Guild Wars Fan.3249)
Defiance [RUN] is moving to Sea of Sorrows! NA Guilds Join us!
in Guilds
Posted by: Guild Wars Fan.3249
(edited by Guild Wars Fan.3249)
hahaha…yet another crazy man trying to get a star beside his name….you know that star is visible through most objects don’t you? don’t know how many people times I’ve targetted that person first because I can see them before everyone else
having said that, I’d get a thief guildie to help me get those last ones. Its funny how well Shadow Refuge works for getting behind enemy lines Or a mesmer to portal you after sneaking past themselves.
I was watching a large zerg trying to take a castle when the commander called for a couple of rams and balista to be built. You could have heard a pin drop. This got me thinking a bit about the mechanics of siege weaponry.
For new players, siege weapons are too expensive to waste money / honor on as they don’t have enough resources. For ‘older’ players, this tends not to be the case as much, but even then they tend to hoard gear and often its a balance between dropping a balista in location A knowing that in a few minutes that that balista/treb is going to be effectively worthless as the keep will be taken. And the players that drop a lot of blueprints tend to be broke anyway
I actually really like this aspect of the game. There are forces the player has to take into consideration (greed vs helping-the-team vs always-being-the-one-to-drop-blueprints etc) make for an interesting dynamic, which in many ways greatly affects the outcome of the sieges etc.
However, I personally feel that this mechanic disadvantages the players who are more team oriented as they are more likely to use their blueprints/money/honor to pony up and help the team succeed. Rather than just grief on this, I’m suggesting the following solution:
When a player uses a blueprint, or contributes to building a siege engine, they are allocated a percentage of any kills from that piece of equipment. Something like:
Person in siege equipment gets 90% of kill XP.
Owner gets 5% of kill XP.
Last 5% is allocated to the supply contributors based on amount supplied.
e.g. an arrow cart takes 30 supply to build, so the owner drops the blueprint and contributes 10 supply to building, player A contributes a further 10 and player B the last 10.
Lets say the owner then goes off to do something else and another player (player C) jumps in and starts pwning. For every 100xp generated:
player C gets 90XP,
the owner gets (5% + 1 third of the last 5% => 5% + 1 2/3 % ==> 6%) so gets 6XP
player A gets (1 third of 5% => 1 2/3%) so gets 1XP
player B gets 1XP as well
IF the owner had stayed and jumped into the cart him/her self:
player C gets 0 as they did squat
the owner gets (5% + 1 third of the last 5% => 6% + 90% of the kill) so gets 96XP
player A gets (1 third of 5% => 1 1/3%) so gets 1XP
player B gets 1XP as well
It would be even better if loot drops worked the same way too. But I can’t really see how this could be worked into the same paradigm as loot is a little harder to just divvy up.