Israel.7056

One of the main problems is that the game cannot always tell the difference between what we might consider "healthy gameplay" and what we might consider "unhealthy gameplay" or "intelligent gameplay" and "unintelligent gameplay" because what usually makes the difference is context. So take for instance repairing a wall. Sometimes it makes sense to repair a wall, sometimes it doesn't. But if the the reward system pays out for repairing a wall regardless of context then the game incentivizes repairing a wall under any circumstance and so the incentive is at odds with what we might consider "healthy or intelligent gameplay." Properly mirroring that sort of internalized contextually driven human calculus in an algorithm can be quite difficult for a game designer.

Another big problem here is that a player could decide that all they care about is the reward they get for repairing walls and completely ignore any other objective. So the rewards have to be good enough to incentive playing the game mode but not so good that they incentivize only doing a particular behavior over and over without any consideration for what else is going on.

> @"joneirikb.7506" said:

> > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > > @"joneirikb.7506" said:

> > > 1: Farming.

> > > 2: Again AFK farming defense events.

> > > 3: Own dedicated AFK commanders/squads, farming.

> > > 4: Which results in players throwing rams everywhere and building them, farming.

> > > 5: Encourage Karma-Train/Monoblob

> > >

> > > Rewards in WvW are so much better than what they used to be, you actually gain resources rather than expend them nowadays. It is in a much better spot than it has ever been regarding rewards. That said, not saying it can't be improved upon, but the way in which you improve upon it can be very touchy, since it's so easy to break a system like WvW and fall into pure farming.

> > >

> > > There is also the very touchy area that "rewards defines behavior", so rewarding wrong things rewards wrong behavior, and that people will always take the path of least resistance. This is even more important in WvW as a multiplayer modus where the other players are the content. So any kind of rewards needs to reward behavior that is beneficial to everyone and not just farmable or trollable (technically pip farmers right now).

> > >

> > > That, and there is also the point that gameplay itself is also a reward. As well as we've seen with pip farmers, that bringing people into the game mode that doesn't care about the game mode and just want to farm it, doesn't really bring anything good for those that enjoy the game mode.

> > >

> > > So how would you create a reward system that avoids all those pitfalls, and actually encourage healthy WvW play ?

> >

> > First you need to define healthy wvw play so we don't all end up talking past one another.

>

> You are right, and that is a titanic pitfall, since no one is going to agree on it, unfortunately. So either:

>

> 1: Whatever ANet says is healthy gameplay

>

> 2: Anything that actually makes people play against each other in some way.

>

> Personally think that "healthy gameplay" in WvW is anything that makes players seek conflict with other players. Anything from fighting over a keep, 2vs2 over a camp, dueling on a shrine, using siege against enemies etc. That won't catch everything (scouting for ex). Essentially, I want everyone showered in rewards for engaging the enemy in some way, and no rewards for avoiding the enemy. There are bound to be lots of problems with that, obviously.

>

> But I agree that the definition of "healthy gameplay" might be more important to discuss than the rewards, yet.

I basically agree with your idea of "healthy gameplay." Unfortunately humans are very good at finding their way around obstacles like having to engage other players to get things. I think the general fear that many WvW people have with rewards in WvW is that increased rewards will simply bring in more people who are interested solely in the rewards and who will no doubt look for any way possible to circumvent the whole engaging other players part. Consequently the rewards can get better but the quality of play could actually decrease for players who are genuinely interested in playing the game mode for sport.

I don't know if there's any foolproof way around this problem and I've seen this sort of behavior in every MMO i've ever played. Everyone wants to get stuff but relatively few people are willing to work hard to get it.

> @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > @"Eekasqueak.7850" said:

> > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > > > @"Eekasqueak.7850" said:

> > > > I think reward tracks should just advance faster personally, it takes too long to get through one.

> > >

> > > 5.5-7 hours is too long?

> >

> > Yes

>

> Got ya.

>

> Then allow those players that are WvW only to get world completion from all of the WvW maps, instead of having to do PvE.

>

> Allowed only for rank 2000 or higher.

100 percent just let me buy map completes with tickets and im good to go. Also make diamond chest tickets repeatable. Those two things would have me playing wvw a lot more.

> @"joneirikb.7506" said:

> 1: Farming.

> 2: Again AFK farming defense events.

> 3: Own dedicated AFK commanders/squads, farming.

> 4: Which results in players throwing rams everywhere and building them, farming.

> 5: Encourage Karma-Train/Monoblob

>

> Rewards in WvW are so much better than what they used to be, you actually gain resources rather than expend them nowadays. It is in a much better spot than it has ever been regarding rewards. That said, not saying it can't be improved upon, but the way in which you improve upon it can be very touchy, since it's so easy to break a system like WvW and fall into pure farming.

>

> There is also the very touchy area that "rewards defines behavior", so rewarding wrong things rewards wrong behavior, and that people will always take the path of least resistance. This is even more important in WvW as a multiplayer modus where the other players are the content. So any kind of rewards needs to reward behavior that is beneficial to everyone and not just farmable or trollable (technically pip farmers right now).

>

> That, and there is also the point that gameplay itself is also a reward. As well as we've seen with pip farmers, that bringing people into the game mode that doesn't care about the game mode and just want to farm it, doesn't really bring anything good for those that enjoy the game mode.

>

> So how would you create a reward system that avoids all those pitfalls, and actually encourage healthy WvW play ?

First you need to define healthy wvw play so we don't all end up talking past one another.

> @"tym.3791" said:

> I simply refuse to join team speak and or what ever else hoops they want me to jump through. Its not real hard to run a zerg, take objectives, and do well with out it. I know, I have tagged and done it, seen others as well do it. Everyone pretty much knows what to do. Keep the walls hot, watch for incoming, rinse and repeat. How having team speak or whatever offers a better advantage is beyond me. If your gonna jump maps, link the wp, and off you go.

Depends on how organized the opposition is. If there is no serious opposition then I agree with you.

> @"Virelion.4128" said:

>As condi build you cannot go full glass, you will loose to burst build because condi is slower.

It's just not necessary to run full glass with condi to be extremely effective. The marginal damage increase that one gets from running say grieving or viper isn't worth the trade off in survivability when given the choice to run TB. Power builds aren't given this choice but If there were a PPTVF 5 stat combo that had roughly the same damage output as mara no one would run mara.

>Even after eating full condi burst you have time to clear some of them or burst back.

In a 1v1 or small group fight maybe. In medium to large group play people aren't getting hit with one condi burst but several at the same time. So instead of having a few seconds to react and press buttons people take one tick and die without resi or healing just like with power.

>If you eat power combo you are dead.

It is about the same for all damage in WvW at some point. If you eat a full coordinated bomb you're in trouble no matter what the damage type is but with power damage armor and prot gives you at least some measure of protection, whereas with condi they give you none. A good comp can be designed to absorb quite a lot of power damage output and just walk through it, not so much with condi. Surviving condi just comes down to resi uptime and coordinated aoe cleanses. The only reason condi doesn't completely dominate the meta is class balance, which is shorthand for saying they nerfed condi scourge pretty hard.

>This is why as condi player you need more defensive stats to balance that. It is more efficient from defensive side, but you have a price to pay for all adventages.

I would argue that the marginal price to pay in instant damage effectively disappears in group play. I think condi is superior to power for any build that can output consistent condi damage in medium to large scale battles. The limitation for most builds isn't the stats right now it's the skill balance. There aren't actually that many available builds with consistent condi damage application. Scourge even has trouble with consistent pressure after the dhuumfire nerf.

> One balance patch can make almost all condi obsolete, look at the previous one. Only condi build left in spvp is mirage and some more stubborn scourges.

In the case of PvP condi is held back there largely due to the restricted amulet choices.

> There is one think condi has that makes them quite annoying. Condis are difficult to debug. After getting hit by massive strike you are unable as player to learn from the fight as good as vs power build.

I don't really see much of a difference when thinking about it generally. Perhaps there is a specific example you're working from in your mind?

No my experience is usually asking people to get in coms join squad and bring proper builds for hours until they finally do and then winning almost every fight until the next day where it often seems like everyone forgot how effective it was the day before.

> @"Virelion.4128" said:

> I love the fact that as long as condi is more common in the meta everyone shouts remove dire, nerf condi despite only few builds being overtuned. But when someone makes the same thing for power damage is not even considered seriously.

>

> Time to kill is serious issue in this game.

Well the basic issue with power v condi is simply that condi doesn't require as much investment as power. So even if very few builds can actually take advantage of condi due to class design, the ones that can have both insane survivability and strong damage output AND the damage goes through armor AND it isn't effected by weakness. So yeah even though it may be true that at this particular point in time condi isn't the go to for every single build for every single class all it takes is one bad balance patch to make condi the clear winner for 99 percent of builds.

> @"Tots.3056" said:

> > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > Would think that if you're dying a lot on a power build youd want to buff mara or something not remove power gear.

>

> Removing power gear and buffing condi tank gear is the only way to save wvw.

But TB is already op.

Unfortunately on mag it's usually a bad idea nowadays because there's not enough good players to carry two tags anymore.

Would think that if you're dying a lot on a power build youd want to buff mara or something not remove power gear.

Na don't know about that support engi meta

Dear diary,

Today in gw2 a guardian killed me.

You kinda just gotta accept that almost regardless of what you pick there's always some builds you're heavily disadvantaged against 1v1. Like I avoid 1v1s with condi mirages whenever possible because in my experience Rev just doesn't match up well against it. That isn't to say it's an impossible match, it's just a heavily disadvantaged one.

Now here's the issue: Say that you're planning on solo roaming and you know ahead of time that you're likely to run into a ton of condi mirages. Do you bring a rev? Eh maybe not. If you do bring a rev you need to accept ahead of time that you've really got your work cut out for you. Doesn't mean you can't win fights. Just means it's probably gonna be an uphill battle.

It is unfortunate that the most effective tactics are the always the most underhanded.

> @"Loosmaster.8263" said:

> Fun fact: If you don't build your server to play the game mode as intended, you will reap what you sow in the end ...

Aka buy more asians and australians.

> @"MUDse.7623" said:

> > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > So therefore the question of whether or not you snipe back is simply an issue of desired outcome.

> correct

>

> as for:

> > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > So hypothetically any means can be justified as long as it's believed to lead to the desired end and it doesn't treat any means or end as apriori better or worse than any other.

> that sounds a little worse than it actually is. not every mean is justified that leads to a desired end, if it also leads to undesired sideeffects.

> the issue in gaming is often that people want to win, yet they want do it sportsmanlike, with 'skill' etc. wich means they do not choose the optimal mean to reach the end 'win'. wich is not really an issue, because they still can win to a degree and get pretty far. but that is then not enough for many of those, they want more than they can get by their means. if they option for the means that will make them win the last few fights, then they will as a sideeffect lose their goal to be sportsmanlike, to act with 'skill'. i only want people to really think about what is important to them and achieve it, be happy with it. if you cant beat the ones that only want to win, so be it, thats not the goal you did set for yourself then. but if you realize winning against them is more important to you than being sportsmanlike, then you maybe should for your own good change the way you play.

That's kind of confusing because the "undesired sideffect" of losing honor or playing in a way that feels unsportsmanlike hinges on an external-to-the-game seemingly intuitive human means-based value set that directly contradicts the basic Sirlin ends-focused principle of "play the game on the game's terms." If the game doesn't recognize or reward for "sportsmanlike behavior" or "honorable play" or whatever you want to call it then the purist Sirlinesque position would be to disregard those notions and just focus on winning the game.

But perhaps more to the point the Sirlin approach can't tell you why you should or shouldn't want to win the game only how you should try to approach winning the game if you care only for winning. So to me this is one of the cardinal flaws with a purely pragmatic/scientific ethic; it can only ever be descriptive. Which is to say it can only tell you how to achieve a desired end given available means, it cannot tell you what the desired end should be or why the available means are right or wrong except in relation to realizing the desired end. So I think in that sense it's fair to say that a purely pragmatic viewpoint like Sirlin's doesn't a priori distinguish any means or ends as being inherently better or worse than any other, but rather only a posteriori in relation to the outcome.

> @"MUDse.7623" said:

>you were the one stating pin sniping is effective but boring and a game is about fun, not about winning.

Yeah and that was a bad answer to the question because it implies that if it weren't boring and didn't ruin the fun it would be ok. In other words it was a pragmatic rationale. I think it does ruin the fun but in truth it's not the real reason I personally think it's wrong to do.

> nope the question is if i would snipe back.

Ok but whether you say yes or no there must be a ethical rationale. If you say that games do not know right from wrong they only know effective and not effective and that gaming is essentially all about winning (which is the Sirlin position you have linked on your signature) and that all that matters to you is the practical result then that is itself an ethical framework. It's called pragmatism or sometimes consequentialism and it seems to be in line with your other posts about what works and what doesn't. The problem I have with pragmatism is that its fundamentally ends oriented rather than means oriented. So hypothetically any means can be justified as long as it's believed to lead to the desired end and it doesn't treat any means or end as apriori better or worse than any other.

So therefore the question of whether or not you snipe back is simply an issue of desired outcome.

> @"MUDse.7623" said:

> if you despise the sniping to begin with, it will be harder for you to improve on it both in doing it yourself and being less affected by it.

Why?

> i am certain if you truely want to, you can improve to a point were the opponents can no longer use pin sniping as a powerfull tool. but you dont want to go that route, because its too 'boring'. guess then you have to live with it.

Again I think you're missing the point of this discussion.

> i am not saying what can be done should be done. i am saying what can be done should be expected.

Ok but that's not being disputed here. I'm not saying that I don't expect pin snipe. I'm saying that pin snipe is wrong to do. Not that you shouldn't expect it or that you cannot do it, just that it's wrong to do.

> you yourself can either abuse every mechanic the game offers or dont do it because of whatever personal reasons you have.

But is either choice preferable to the other?

> but i expect my opponents to use every mechanic.

I do too because I've been playing MMOs for years now and I know how far people will go to win but that doesn't make it right.

> you refusing to use it or complaining about it wont make them stop using it. and no matter how anet changes the game there will be allways stuff you dont like in the game unless you play with 'everything to win', so you allways should expect everything regardless if you are willing to use it yourself or not.

Again none of this is in dispute.

> i am not in position to tell the OP what to seek in the game, i can just give him advise on how to get what he seeks if i know what he wants.

But it seems that what he's asking for is a value judgment which means giving value neutral answers like "it's part of the game" doesn't really make sense. Ofcourse it's part of the game, that's not in question. The question is whether or not you think it's right or wrong and why.

> @"Victory.2879" said:

> On the basis of some of these arguments then you shouldn't attack back lines either, as that's clearly wrong. Picking on those without the same armor as the front line! OMG! unfair! You should only attack those with the greatest armor! Wait, terrain advantage, unfair! Siege? Unfair! Whaaaaaaa.

A reductio of a strawman well done.

> @"MUDse.7623" said:

> boring is again very personal.

Yeah I don't think so. I think that we're all pretty much the same with some minor variations. I don't see humans as being so infinitely varied and radically different from one another that one cannot make at least general statements about common preference.

> if you despise the sniping to begin with, it will be harder for you to improve on it both in doing it yourself and being less affected by it.

Doesn't follow. I can learn about something but still find it to be completely despicable.

>i am certain if you truely want to, you can improve to a point were the opponents can no longer use pin sniping as a powerfull tool. but you dont want to go that route, because its too 'boring'. guess then you have to live with it.

Yeah but I don't think anyone should have to. I think you misunderstand the framing of this thread. The OP wasn't posed as a practical question ("is there a simple way to deal with pin snipe?") but rather as a question of ethics ("do you pin snipe back if someone pin snipes first?") to which I say probably yes but two wrongs don't make a right and I think pin sniping is wrong in and of itself and that no one should do it.

You're saying "well it's part of the game you should just learn to deal with it." Ok fine but that doesn't answer the question of whether it's right or wrong to do unless you believe that anything that can be done should be done in which case I completely disagree with that ethical principle. I don't think that just because something can be done that it should be done. I don't think one can derive an ought from an is. This is the exact same discussion as the ac discussion. I'm not saying that people cannot build acs I'm saying that they shouldn't. I'm not saying here that people cannot pin snipe I'm saying that they shouldn't.

> @"MUDse.7623" said:

> > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > > @"MUDse.7623" said:

> > > > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > > > > @"MUDse.7623" said:

> > > > > > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > > > > > > @"Turkeyspit.3965" said:

> > > > > > > > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > > > > > > > ITT: too many people who played assassin's creed and take "nothing is true, everything is permitted" as their online gaming mantra.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I go in to WvW to fight other players and NPCs for WvW XP, Reward track XP, complete dailies and collect loot. Your feelings are not anywhere on my list of concerns.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > If you are on the opposing team, I will do everything I can to defeat you, because in WvW all you are to me is walking WvW XP, Reward track XP, dailies completion and loot.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > - If you are fighting against two other members of my server, I will without a thought jump in to make it a 3v1 to not only help my team mates, but to collect WvW XP, track XP, dailies and loot.

> > > > > > > - If you are attacking any camp (mine or 3rd servers) and are going 1vs all the camp guards, I will single target you down, the if the camp is also hostile, I will kill the remaining guards and cap the camp myself - because WvW XP et al

> > > > > > > - If you flee a fight and fall off a cliff, get downed, and are self-healing to bring yourself back up....I DPS you down - because WvW XP et al

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > You can choose to play WvW any way you want, but don't presume to have the authority to tell me or anyone else how they can or can't play the game, or what you designate as 'appropriate'.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Because in a PvP game mode, if your primary goal isn't to defeat the enemy team in the most rapid and efficient method possible, then perhaps you're playing in the wrong game mode?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > ITT: too many people trying to bring safe spaces and trigger warnings into a players vs player video game.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > This isn't about safe spaces or trigger warnings, this is about basic video game ethics and respect of other players as human beings also playing a game not as enemy combatants fighting a war. This is not actually a war sorry to tell you.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > This is also not about my personal authority over you but about practicing the simple moral principle of "do not do unto others as you would not have them do unto you." Also sometimes called the Law of Reciprocity.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > If you profess to having no sense of propriety or respect for me then neither I nor anyone else has any reason to treat you with any sort of propriety or respect either and the whole situation degenerates into this absurd "game is war" mentality where we all do anything we can think of to win including possibly things that aren't technically allowed but nonetheless hard to punish like spying and sabotage and arguably even hacking if it's not obvious or easy to police. Nothing is true everything is permitted.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > And for what? Some WXP? Some loot bags? Reward track XP? Shinies and fluff, God help you.

> > > > >

> > > > > me killing the opponent in whatever way is indeed not a real attack to that person, it is only pixels. that doesnt mean that i dont respect the other as a human being. we both agreed to play the game and the game has set rules. if i kill you within these rules you agreed upon by playing the game, then i think that is respectful. if i use a hack for that, then its not. people whispering me after i kill them, insulting me cause they didnt like the way i fight, that is not respectfull. because they choose to play a game with the options i use.

> > > > > i actually would prefer my opponents to use everything the game offers rather than blaming me for doing so. i just had today a funny guy, after i killed him he whispered me that i just can kill afk people because he was playing with just one hand as he had a phone call, i remembered his name he already once accused me of something similar. then he stated that my class can only kill noobs in a normal 1 vs 1. so we had a few very onesided duels that he lost. he then switched to any noob could kill anyone with such a lame build as mine and i personally cant be a decent player because i play such a lame build. he himself is ofc one of the best players and everyone knows it bla bla. i would have much prefered if he just would have used all the options in the game and defeat me if he really is the better player, but he didnt and instead just tried to attack me, my person emotionally in trying to make me feel bad, he didnt succeed but that is beside the point. i just attacked his toon, he attacked me. so who is disrespectful of the other person as a human being ?

> > > >

> > > > The nice thing about duels is that both participants can always openly stipulate terms ahead of the duel so that there's no doubt as to what is going to be considered fair play and what is not.

> > > >

> > > > The same can be done with any sort of arranged match like a GvG.

> > > >

> > > > The difference with an impromptu fight is that one side can show up thinking the agreed upon rules are one thing while the other can show up thinking something drastically different i.e one group thinks it's going to be a fight without pin snipe and one group shows up with the express intent of just focusing the pin down.

> > > >

> > > > So to reiterate and slightly expand my original post pin snipe is indeed quite effective and certainly a non-bannable tactic but it's boring because it kills fights. I also think that the thought process of "this game is actually a war so I'm going to do literally whatever it takes to win" can lead to some very dark places very quickly. I would highly advise against that sort of thinking.

> > > >

> > > > The consistent answer would be to say never under any circumstance just like what I've said with acs but I've been in the situation before with myself or a friend being pin sniped so I know the temptation to just say "go ahead and do it back." Still two wrongs do not make a right.

> > >

> > > while i do understand your point and there might be some mechanics/tactics where you will get a majority of players to agree that they are 'not fair' , it is really hard to tell unless you specifically agreed on them. the way one feels offended because of pin snipe , another feels offended by condition builds, by range builds, by anything that can run away etc. while you maybe dont pin snipe, he will see you if you play condi like you see people that pin snipe.

> > > if i respect every players wishes, what they deem fair, i best just join naked without weapons /traits etc. to not offend anyone.

> > > i mean can you make a full list of what rules i need to additionally follow aside from the games own rules, that i will be seen as fair ? by everyone?

> >

> > No but I'm not proposing a majoritarian standard of ethics. I think the golden rule is a far better standard. Do not do anything to another that you would not like done to yourself. If you don't like your pin to get sniped don't pin snipe. If you dont care then do whatever but know that whatever you do to others you legitimate being done back to you and that that road quickly leads to either no fights or boring sniping back and forth. And for what?

>

> would it be boring and no fights tho?

> as said above for me personally everything in the games ruleset goes. and i expect my opponents to do anything in the games ruleset, altho they often dont. you make it sound like a threat, that my opponents will do the same. yet i exactly expect that. you are the one having an issue with it, not me.

> if now pin is sniped in every fight it is seen as usefull, sure people can give up and then there is no fight or people improve to make it either harder to pin snipe or make it have less of an effect on them. i dont understand why you dont want to learn to deal with it and just declare it as unsportsmanlike or whatever.

> the golen rule is nice as long as everyone despises the same things. if everyone had an issue with pin snipe, then it would work more or less. but the moment one is okey with his pin being sniped, as they see it as a chance learn to deal with it, to improve. then the golden rule will no longer protect you from pin sniping.

But then the whole thing degenerates into a snipe war and believe me when I say that I have sat through my fair share of snipe wars and I gotta tell you I find them to be pretty boring.

> @"Eramonster.2718" said:

>I'm more interested in how one could differentiate who's the enemy's commander (can't see their tag or can we?).

Usually takes about 5 seconds. He's the one everyone else is following.

> @"BlueMelody.6398" said:

> > @"Doo Lally.8594" said:

> > > @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > > >...........

> > >

> > > Mag it's likely because of coverage, though they were in first and solidly second before it became possible for BG to drop from T1

> >

> > Was logged in last evening on both EBG and Mag home BL - emptier than my heart. I'm on FC so could be coverage, could be Mag super-secret tanking Plan #1 which we are not privy to. ;)

>

> Unlike other servers, Mag's "coverage" deficiency isn't about time zone, it's about time of the week:

>

> Reset through following Wed -- high coverage

> Thu/Fri -- everyone disappears

>

> Guess everyone on Mag works 2 x 24 on those 2 days.

>

> All I know is Mag was solidly ahead until the last 18 or so skirmishes, then suddenly placed 3rd for almost the entire final 24 hours enabling them to drop behind NSP. You can call it "coverage", but I have a very different word for it.

It's called being tired in my case. I always take Thursdays and Fridays off, helps me maintain my sanity when playing this game.

If we can get some offprime coverage maybe we can stay in t2 but as it is we just lose everything overnight every night and wake up to everything t3 so it takes all day just to try to reset things just to lose it overnight again.