Guild Wars 2

why not get rid of the “flat” ranking and adopt a “tree” ranking? you know, like on sports tournaments but on a permanent basis…

say team is one world or linked world, linking will be automatic at the end of every week

• three teams will be matched up on tier1
• six team will be matched up on 2 matches on tier 2 (going on like that will need 12 more teams on t3, so let’s just stop at 2 tiers)
• one up one down: team going down from t1 will be splitted (if not a single world) and relinked with the teams remaining in t2, worlds from the teams going up from t2 will be merged in one team to face the remaining t1
• enjoy the next week

…dunno, maybe it’s my brain farting :p

edit: small clarification

i find all this nightcapping/primetime/stacking debate quite brain dead…
i think the solution anet came with is good (maybe the primetime multiplier is not needed, this has to be seen).
it is good because it is not forcing mechanics or player choices, but fixing flaws leading to poor (from a gamewide perspective, not player’s) strategic choice.
timezone stacking is best strategy for minimazing effort and maximizing ppts. with proposed changes simply it won’t be anymore. that’s it. simple. effective. late.

variation on theme

tempest trait line does not add up much apart the overloads that are totally worth

Nice OP!
I want to share my idea for a possible solution for both main question you arise: the ramp up time and lower dps.
My ides is to add another mechanic on top of what is now that works like direct damage, but not affected by any direct damage modifiers (can’t crit, not influenced by vulnerability etc.).

Now, base direct damage is calculated this way:

bdd= weapon strength * power * skill coefficient / armor

where armor is: thoughness + defense

I will add this dirty and rough idea, let’s call it condition damage initiator:

cdi= weapon strength * condition damage * skill coefficient / sturdiness

where sturdiness is: vitality + healing power

This cdi should be calculated everytime conditions are landed not taking into account stacks, if codition are not applied because of cap use stacks as multiplier. For example: if you apply 3 stacks of bleeding → cdi*1; if this 3 stacks or bleeding are not applied because of cap → cdi*3

I throw in cdi calculation weapon strength and skill coefficient just because they are in the direct damage formula, but those factors should be thought more accurately in order to prevent non-condition builds to gain to much from this mechanic (maybe factor in condition duration? or specific condition coefficient? add another stat to the weapon?)

Anyhow, this way ramp up time (time needed to reach the maximum damage potential) will not be lower simply because we are not applying condition faster and we’ve raised both the max and the average dps. But at the end of the rump up (reached the 25 stacks) your damage is boosted considerably.
Now to prove all this is worthwhile I should need some numbers, but I don’t have… maybe in future :p

Balancing between game mode will still be an issue.

my magic recipe. try it out, it’s tasty!!!

first: alliances by colour, on top on what is already, so mantainig 3 way server matchups ad is
second: limited guesting capabilities on allies’ matchups with proper prioritization on own matchup (maybe lowering a bit the mapcap to promote peoples spreading out more )
third: juicy rewards based on global color + own match placement (maybe accounting on color also EotM?)
fourth: 8h x 21 rounds a week, maybe even more rounds (so less than 8h each round)
fifth (optional): concentrated sauce of match’s maps

this way, or some better way on this foundation, we will:
- have dynamic alliances rearranged every week on an non-volountary base in order to prevent stacking and even out the relative “strength”.
- have a way to rebalance population inbalances between servers on a voluntary base (so people will play with who they want to play).
- mantain server pride and identity (i do care about it!).
- have wider goals and deeper strategical gameplay.
- address coverage issues.
- maybe we can leverage some good things for wuv from EotM (like enable guesting after some special event in EotM, or placing portals for guesting in some objective in EotM)

that’s it, don’t you like?

ps: sorry for poor english
Edit: stressed out first point better.

custom guild emblems! …I mean, own made ones… plz

I’ve already argued this topic on last CDI about wvwvw.
I repropose my idea of solution:
allow server guesting by color, give color (read in this contexts as alliance) some point system and put rewards based on server + color performance for the week.

About schedule: make another 2 or 3 copy of the schedule each shifted forward 1h or 2h, give players the means to choose which one they want run (and an option for a “random schedule selection”), let the MS do its voodoo with this additional info.
This will give to players that will be locked out from the big events (like me) the chance to participate, to everyone the chance to repeat failed ones in a decent time slice, to players that feel constrained in schedule a way to lessen that feeling

ManaCraft.5630:

…

I’ve to admit i did not take in considerations time coverage issues, but thinking about it, i belive that at the end imbalances (on time coverage, cold numbers and pure strenght), if and only if marginals, are one piece of the “engine” for tacticals and strategicals innovations.
Having always the “perfect balance” with matches will at the end kill the competition. You’ll end up with the only factor being the skills and coordination of teams, which at first glance seems the haven but it isn’t because the only meta will be how to bring the bests team together, not how to build up teams to be flexible smart skilled and coordinated enough to adapt to diverse situations.

If possible I’d like to request a rewrite of the above argument, because … well, it’s bad. I’m sorry, but it is. Essentially what you’re saying here is that we should not pursue a system which promotes skill and coordination, because the meta will then no longer be about skills and coordination. That, or I’m just not understanding you at all. Care to clarify?

You’r right, i’ve expressed myself in a wrong way. I’ll try to reformulate.
The aim of the game, this one in particular, is to promote skillfull gampelay and cooperation between players.
Given everything equal (“perfect balance”, also in average skills and coordination of the opposing sides), in order for one side to overrun the other the best option will be “steal” other best forces. That will be the most (and only, given no more room to improve skills and coordination… everybody top players) rewarding strategy.
Having little (and impredictable) imbalances gives at least more dimensions in order to improve skills and coordination requiring flexibilty and adaptability. (Having a zerg overrun you is fine, being systematically overrun week afte week is not)
Btw, i’ll drop this position: too abstract and extreme and … just bad

ManaCraft.5630:

In any case, I don’t advocate perfection. Perfect balance does not exist, and neither do perfect solutions. All of them carry within themselves their own sets of drawbacks. Some solutions are just more acceptable than others. None of the objections I offer here are meant to be seen as insurmountable obstacles that must be perfectly addressed come hell or high kitten. They are simply the price, as I see it, that you pay for accepting one solution over another. It is inevitable that you will accept certain drawbacks, regardless of which solution you advocate.

veo.9243:

And again, guesting will help to lessen imbalances on average (not crossing fingers, but building a system that push towards that direction), mantainig a degree of diversity and building enough room to deal with it.

Agreed. Faction-based systems, if they do their job, reduce the overall volatility of player distribution, even if there might be problems within subsets of the population. That being said, I’ve yet to see a guesting system that works to lessen the value of a player surplus within one faction. As I explained, if anything they only tend to allow those players to exert their influence over more servers.

Sure, perfect solutions does not exists, me as you as (almost) everybody in this thread we’re just trying to suggest what we belive are good solutions.
I belive that guesting is the best on the table also because, as i see it, it’s drawbacks are acceptable.

Right that guesting will valorize more the surplus: now its value is 0, simply ‘cause is unusable, it’s wasted. You automatically valorize it if you put in use.
Agreed that if you have so much, then we got problems again.
For this reason is important players base partitioning.
Atm is (for NA) partitioned in 24 (or 8 if you center it on matchups), too much as we all see the situation.
Having reduced only to 3 parts is too few in order for interesting variablity of sides (ending up fighting always the other 2).
Having it dived by 24 (or eight) than again regruped transversely by 3 (and i belive not more than 3, and shifting too) can lead to a more balanced subdivision… dunno, but sounds mathematically funny at least
Anyhow, I would rather prefer to risk some temporary imbalanced situation than a costant (and diverging) imbalanced situation.

PS. I apologize for strange phrasing and mispellings, I’m not english, and I’m struggling a lot to try to express myself effectively. I belive that my brain is starting partitioning itself ^L^

Phlogus.2371:

Manacraft,

Flexibility as an issue – I would envision WvW guesting within the faction as only limited by two game mechanics. Meet the gateway on your home server to demonstrate surplus and guesting to 2 servers in a 24 hour period similar to PVE guesting now. Once on a host server you should have full freedom of movement from map to map until such time as you leave server.
…

I think guesting should not be subordinated to other mechanics, first for the freedom that it will negate, second ‘cause you automatically lock out lower tier players from guesting incentivating them to transfer home (and that’s bad). At most I can see it subordinated on some mechanics in EoTM if EoTM change it’s purpose of being the overflow for WvW to be the hub for guesting in WvW.

Phlogus.2371:

…
I would want to go where I could make a impact over time. I would work to establish guild alliances between servers in my faction so that I could dependably call on 3-5 guilds off of a server I know has the gateway met.

Gateway excluded, you touched the really heart of the subject: open up to inter-server cooperations, giving new stategical opportunities in wvw gamemode.

Phlogus.2371:

…
In order to keep these alliances viable servers would have to be locked into faction, tier positions would shift within the faction and overall match victory for the week would be based on the faction total score. If I made friends with a allied force to the point I resented not having them on the field with me permanently then it would be a discussion about transfers.
…

Locking servers in alliances… maybe. For sure it will help strengthen relationships (which is good).
But also having a “shifting ground” on alliances will be interesting in terms of complexity of the relations bringing to deeper “political manuvering”. Dunno, it is an interesting aspect to dig more.

ManaCraft.5630:

…
First, guesting just isn’t flexible enough. Precisely as you say, in order for the system to have any meaning, guesting will have to be a limited resource. However, a limited ability to move across different maps/instances means that at some point you end up preventing players from being able to play with each other.
…
I much prefer a system without such limitations (i.e. where players can move between maps/instances freely), since there’s really no need for them in the first place.

Me to! But i look at this in this way: with guesting I’ll have 2 (or wathever) more chance to play with the people I want to, namely the commanders that left our dying server (Teldec, Lord Aragorn, Goldly, we miss you sooooo much!!) and maybe even have them come back from time to time.
Gusting will not be the total freedom solution, but will be better than what is atm.

ManaCraft.5630:

Second, there’s the problem of the relative worth of excess players. If one color should enjoy a surplus of players during a certain time period, they can now throw that extra force around not just on their own server(s), but on multiple additional servers as well. Guesting systems generally do nothing to diminish the value of such surplus force – in fact they tend to run the risk of exacerbating differences across time zones (to the degree that they exist).

Third, players are disproportionately awarded for guesting servers with a lack of opposition. Players invariably choose the path of least resistance to achieve their goals, and WvW is no different. If you want to play for PPT, it is relatively more effective to go for the low hanging fruit (i.e. guest a low tier server and PvDoor everything) than it is to take the fight to your enemy.

Second and 3rd goes hand in hand also with your subsequent thoughts on matchups imbalances.
I’ve to admit i did not take in considerations time coverage issues, but thinking about it, i belive that at the end imbalances (on time coverage, cold numbers and pure strenght), if and only if marginals, are one piece of the “engine” for tacticals and strategicals innovations.
Having always the “perfect balance” with matches will at the end kill the competition. You’ll end up with the only factor being the skills and coordination of teams, which at first glance seems the haven but it isn’t because the only meta will be how to bring the bests team together, not how to build up teams to be flexible smart skilled and coordinated enough to adapt to diverse situations.
And again, guesting will help to lessen imbalances on average (not crossing fingers, but building a system that push towards that direction), mantainig a degree of diversity and building enough room to deal with it.

ManaCraft.5630:

Note that I’m perhaps doing guesting systems a disservice here, in that I’m not taking time to list the benefits, but this post has run long enough as it is. Briefly, if I was to say something positive about them, guesting systems tend to be very simple and require very few modifications to existing structures (including player communities), and for that reason alone I actually think they, out of all the solutions on offer, stand the highest chance of being implemented.

No disservice at all, you pointed out things that are rational and need to be addressed better.
I also double your last sentece.

ManaCraft.5630:

Thisdan.6871:

While I find the idea of server alliances very interesting, Jocksy clearly highlighted the problems associated with a 3 color system.

Those problems are mostly the result of assumptions he makes about the design of the system. Language barriers are only relevant to whatever extent you decide to play with people who do not speak your language – which is entirely your choice. It would certainly be a more relevant problem if players were grouped together randomly in WvW, but there’s no reason why that would have to be the case. Same goes for the risk of a color-based system “killing tactics”. It would be a relevant concern if players are randomly grouped, but not if players are allowed to organize as they do today. As for motivation, since the map size will most likely not increase (by a.net’s own admission they can’t make maps bigger than the current borderlands), you’re unlikely to ever end up on a map with 500 players on it. Rather a series of smaller (read: current size) maps is much more likely, and on whichever map you play, you’ll then have the same amount of influence as you do now – although it is correct that if the sum of all map scores is allowed to determine the winning color, and if match length is kept constant, the average influence each player has on the outcome will fall. However, if that’s the objection, I would say that even in the current WvW system the ultimate outcome of each weekly round is so far beyond the influence of each individual player that I can’t see this making much of a difference.

Which leaves us with identity. This is probably the most common objection held by players concerning EotM, namely that the “color alliances” are not communities of their own making. Players are assigned to a random color, in a random instance, with random teammates. But again, there’s no reason why that need necessarily be the case. Players can have every bit as much influence over those things as they do now, in which case you’ll have the same foundation for creating/maintaining player-driven communities as you do today.

I totally agree!

so to brutally sum up, it seems we got 2 fields of opinions:
- change the way wvw is with color system matching and loose on identity and community but solving the problems on many low-tier matchups
- take the system as it is preserving identities and community that are the real “value” of this gamemode but also mantain the situations of low-tier matchups

other proposal were made to keep things together but involve in some “deep impact” on the current way wvw is (getting rid of ppt, changing maps and npcs, and many others)

I belive there is room for a third idea that keep guilds/servers/community identities and at the same time solve the low-tier issues. It will impact deeply (and positively!) also on the objective of current wvw but not the mechanics in-map.

The idea is based on a guesting system built around color grouping.

I’ve already expressed it on my previous post so i will not repost it, even if I have rearrenged and refined it quite a bit. Just to put my hands forward on possible objections:

- guesting should be a “scarce resource” for players in order to incentivate more stategical use of it (ie: 2×24h tickets like pve, or others solution to put some friction and make map hopping karma trains not so convenients)
- color grouping should be made with at least the criterion to not give it as a mean for easy sabotage (group together non direct competitors: given the current ranking at each time, group 1st+4th+7th+10th+…. on one color 2nd+5th+8th+… on another and so on)
- prioritize host’s server players on their matchup in respect to guests

at the end it is a hybrid solution between the current system and a possible “colored system”

I think it is really a viable solution, and you?

Dayra.7405:

Lol, yeah I can hear the commander in TS: “now lets get some karma at Vabbi’s WSR border”, resulting in a 50+ T1 zerg rushing fast over a T9 map.
10min later: “All red here, now to Underwords RoF border”
…
A few min later: “Oh sh**, T1 zerg ahead, lets go to …”

Not only by the winer, btw. the determined loser may have even more interest to “get some fun somewhere else”

Problem of course there is no incentive to win a match (neither the stats-bonus for score is noticed nor are the few bonus-chest taken serious by anyone (if noticed at all)

anyhow we got this problem that goes under the name of “server population in/balance”: some matchups can’t “consume” all the players they produce while others does not have enough even to be called a matchup.

agreed on the absence of really good incentive. this is a crucial point. more detailed leaderboards can give some room here, but also other things may need to be done. something like in-game bets on matchups results?

I admint, karma trains is an issue that must be addressed in my proposal. Cause of this I thought about synergies with 8h rounds: maybe with guesting tied to round you will think twice on how to spend this chance. Karma trains or strategical positioning? A bunch more loot there or stem the archirival world “foreign operations” here? OurEnemyGuild is taking everything in X, should we try to stop them with the help of OurFriendlyGuildOnThatServer or we care more make the train stop at another station?
Players will answer to those questions… I believe that this way it will open up for more strategic moves than to more chufchufs

The Lost Witch.7601:

veo.9243:

Guesting in WvW

snip

Risks
As far as i can see none, but my head hurts

Well, I can imagine that if a server is performing really well, they at one point dominate their own WvW bracket. They can then decide to guest on an underpopulated server in their color, capture all there is to capture there, and move on, etc. etc.

The difference between a high tiered server and a low tiered server is big not only in numbers, but also in strength.

I’m afraid that it would just turn into an endless karma train. Where players avoid the fight, often not even on purpose.

But you’ll have opposing forces coming from other worlds.
High tired servers, as is atm, will be probably matched against each other. One server would try to stop his oppositor as much as they can, or can even use guesting to try to lure them out some other matchup, alliances can quickly rise to stop “the enemy”…
Dunno, sure the guesting mechanic have to be carefully thought to avoid an endless “catch that rabbit” situation…

simple solutions works better (…but maybe I have hit my head)

Proposal Overview
Open up the possibility of guesting in wv3, but only on related color matchups.

Goal of Proposal
Solve with one (easy?) blow both overflows queues on crowded world and underpopulated world, without loosing world identity (and maybe strengthen it).
One possible positivie side effect wuold be to give an option for GvG in a natural way: guild match on (almost) empty matchups.

Proposal Functionality
We got this paradox in wv3: crowded world got players out on queues, underpopulated world are ghosts towns.
Use people from queue (look at them as unused resource) and make them populate underpopulated matchups (look at them as resource starving).
Give players the chance to join, for example, their red comrades on the matchup that involve worldX (red) vs worldY (green) vs worldZ (blue). Red players from Overflow a Thon world will not be guesting directly on worldX, but they will be guesting on the red side of that matchup (i suppose there is a server dedicated for the matchup with 4 instances in which, atm, only players from world X Y and Z can access, the key should be here).

Now to make this function really well we need incentives that make appealing and meaningfull for people that end up in overflow to move on other matchup and for people in underdog side to stick there and try to save the day (ie: make movements from top to bottom more than the other way round).
Something on this trak about rewards:
your color win the matchup < your world win the matchup << color + world win the matchup <<< jackpot: your color win all the matchups (implies your server also won its one)
So 2 scores: the one we already have for the world matchup, a new one for global color matchups that will be simply the average of the matchups.

This setting will synergize well with 21 8h rounds matchup subdivision, in particular the perspective of GvG fights.
This will also open up more room for guild’s inter-world relations.
This will strengthen world identities… for good and for kitten

ociated Risks
As far as i can see none, but my head hurts

EoTM proves that the issue of imbalanced server is solvable.
The proposed ideas of factions are good, but 3 factions would not be a good replacement for server identity: too diluted, too flat.
Why not think about something like 9 or 12 factions, so there will be 3 or 4 different matchups (through Glicko scoring) at the same time instead of 1 and factions can have more meaningfull “political” relationships and build “hatred” or “sympathy” in relation of others instead of factionX vs TheRestOfTheWorld. This will help the respective communities to build their identities.

timer is an issue for all the above, no doubt about it.
but timer is also a reference point in order to get a big group of loosely related player that need to be coordinated and organized, answering/addressing the very first step of coordination and organization: when does things start.
i think about espionage movies “synchronize yours watch, we’ll meet there at the hour X!”… without timers when exactly the hour X will be???

Just one idea: put the legend and lore behind the legendaries in the form of something like personal story which unveils all the darks

all good point in OP.
i’ll add my idea for turrets: make them like structures/obstacles so that characters (friends or foes) in order to go the other side of them have to turn around, jump over or destroy.
pair this with a rework of traits so that can give turrets much higher damage OR much higher resistance and you’ll end up with a complete new role in the game, especially in wvw.

i know, turrets need fixes more than modification… just speculating.

HellsPriest.6745:

…
We use Teamspeak as a source of help, not mandatory to use or get on. It can help though, alot.
…

sure it helps, it really helps a lot…. and this is the core of my concerns: external tool to get things done, or at least to smooth them down. IMHO no good, we can deal with it, but things can be much better.
Let me imagining some ways to exploit the commander role… Some way to let them create sub-events? Some ingame voice team channel? Some way for creating squads, recruit and manage (map signaling)? Some way to let them control one by one zerg members? (kidding here :p)
Things that may delve deep inside game mechanics, but that can help make this game really unique and leading rabbit.

No complaints or judgments here, just pointing out that something is missing in order to improve and enhance collaboration among many players, a lot of players!
And because this seems to be a qualifying point in ANet’s living world development strategy (scarlet, teq, and sure more to come), I believe it is worth think and talk about it.

It is not an issue itself TS3 or other… I only think that if the aim for big open world events like Tequatl is to make people collaborate and coordinate, the game should provide functional means for it…. in the meantime use TS3 ^^

I absolutely agree with the OP.
What I think should be investigated more by the community and ANet about this kind of content are the tools at players disposal to get organized efficiently. Map chat is not enough, requiring external programs a la TS3 shuold be avoided. Really I don’t have clues or good suggestion on such a tool, but I feel it is missing

Just my 2 cents….
I think the real problem with this kind of content is the absence of a real tool/interface/whatever to coordinate, organize and dispatch order among a lot of casual people getting there. The ingame chat channels are quite useless and external Team Speak is quite demanding…
I really don’t know what can be of help here and sure there’s many other imortant issuses that must be addressed by ANet pointed out countless time in countless post here and there in the forum, but for what i see nobody has pointed out this simple thing: ANet wants to deliver content that require coorinated and organized effort by lot of players, good!, but gives players way to coordinate and organize quickly and efficiently