Get rid legendary stuff from pvp

[Anmas.2046]

It's a simple question to Anet ppl: why do you have to give away legendary stuff through pvp season games since they are useless to this game mode? Helping harscore pvp playres is not the answer. You are just making it harder for them. They have to team up with all those afking, botting or at the best not knowing how pvp works guys. People who are there just for the pips. And to make things "better", no penalty for losing a game. "Just participate enough games and you'll get your precious legendary". If it was it for the skins, you could easily give them through reward trucks. Again legendary are useless in pvp. If your aim is to make it easy to new players, there are dungeons and fractals where anyone can chose his teamates and run them. "Choose" not randomly team up with ppl who don't care about playing a competitive type of game. Just wondering Anet ppl, why do you have to give legendary stuff through pvp?

[Jelle.7856]

People talking about too few rewards, now there are too many rewards? Lol

 

Those people aren't the problem, it's just the population size. If we had enough players, we wouldnt have these issues where new players are suddenly matched into the same game as higher ranked players. We want to encourage more players to PvP, not discourage it.

[Anmas.2046]

> @"Jelle.7856" said:

> People talking about too few rewards, now there are too many rewards? Lol

>

> Those people aren't the problem, it's just the population size. If we had enough players, we wouldnt have these issues where new players are suddenly matched into the same game as higher ranked players. We want to encourage more players to PvP, not discourage it.

 

You really think all those players i described, come back to pvp in regular basis? Or, as i think, they are only inerested in legendary rewards and they never come back till next season for a new set of them? If that's "more players to pvp" then i pass. And population size? Really? Who sais that if you drop x new players, matchmaking will be balanced?

Same thing happened when free-to-play was introduced, pvp doesn't seem balanced.

[Bazsi.2734]

Yes, I think barely having enough population to maintain some form of matchmaking is bad, lets make it worse!

 

Please implement. I want to suffer!

[Anmas.2046]

> @"Bazsi.2734" said:

> Yes, I think barely having enough population to maintain some form of matchmaking is bad, lets make it worse!

>

> Please implement. I want to suffer!

 

So bring everyone to pvp, limit Q time to 10 secs, then play with bots and afkers... Can't argue with that.

[Bazsi.2734]

> @"Anmas.2046" said:

> > @"Bazsi.2734" said:

> > Yes, I think barely having enough population to maintain some form of matchmaking is bad, lets make it worse!

> >

> > Please implement. I want to suffer!

>

> So bring everyone to pvp, limit Q time to 10 secs, then play with bots and afkers... Can't argue with that.

 

I'm roughly plat 1+ lately because I cba to actually try for titles anymore, meme builds and meme plays only. Haven't seen a bot in ranked conquest for years. YEARS. My point here is, bots are stuck in the lower ratings, and afkers naturally don't survive up here for long either. You can only throw so many matches before you're in the goldswamp again. (basicly you could just get good and climb up so you don't have to deal with the BS in the silver/goldswamp)

 

If you take away the main incentive for PvP, you lose the type of player that likes to constantly work towards something. So a bunch of players would stop playing ranked, however with 90% of the rewards still intact, no reason to turn off the scripted bots, less reason not to afk. Also, less players means worse matchmaking, plat vs silver matches would happen more often(fewer players=>smaller differences on the ladder=>MMA puts you vs top/bottom players way easier).

So again, how would taking away legendary rewards fix anything?

 

Also why would you limit Q time to 10 seconds? Where did that even come from?

[Anmas.2046]

> @"Bazsi.2734" said:

> > @"Anmas.2046" said:

> > > @"Bazsi.2734" said:

> > > Yes, I think barely having enough population to maintain some form of matchmaking is bad, lets make it worse!

> > >

> > > Please implement. I want to suffer!

> >

> > So bring everyone to pvp, limit Q time to 10 secs, then play with bots and afkers... Can't argue with that.

>

> I'm roughly plat 1+ lately because I cba to actually try for titles anymore, meme builds and meme plays only. Haven't seen a bot in ranked conquest for years. YEARS. My point here is, bots are stuck in the lower ratings, and afkers naturally don't survive up here for long either. You can only throw so many matches before you're in the goldswamp again. (basicly you could just get good and climb up so you don't have to deal with the BS in the silver/goldswamp)

>

> If you take away the main incentive for PvP, you lose the type of player that likes to constantly work towards something. So a bunch of players would stop playing ranked, however with 90% of the rewards still intact, no reason to turn off the scripted bots, less reason not to afk. Also, less players means worse matchmaking, plat vs silver matches would happen more often(fewer players=>smaller differences on the ladder=>MMA puts you vs top/bottom players way easier).

> So again, how would taking away legendary rewards fix anything?

>

> Also why would you limit Q time to 10 seconds? Where did that even come from?

 

Bazsi you are focusing on plat+ tiers and the "play better to ascend" doesn't really works below plat. Since you admit that bot's and afkers stuck in low ratings, how is anyone supposed to do so? The pool of possible teamates ain't helpful at all. And if you read my original post, i 'm all in for ppl trying to improve or work towards a goal. That's why i proposed losing pips after defeat. That would give extra initiative to this kind of pvpers and discourage all those "bots" or afkers, dont you think so? As much as less ppl small lader differences, i don't see anything wrong with that. Matchmaking between tiers shows that's possible. Not plat vs silver as you mentioned but matcmaking is not my issue. Again my point is that ppl that only care for legendary rewards are flooding the "silver/goldswamp", as you call it, indifferent to play a match, not letting me and other "low pvp ability" players to enjoy a competitive type of game.

 

Q time goes to population you mentioned, more ppl less time on Q for matchmaking.

[Bazsi.2734]

> @"Anmas.2046" said:

> > @"Bazsi.2734" said:

> > > @"Anmas.2046" said:

> > > > @"Bazsi.2734" said:

> > > > Yes, I think barely having enough population to maintain some form of matchmaking is bad, lets make it worse!

> > > >

> > > > Please implement. I want to suffer!

> > >

> > > So bring everyone to pvp, limit Q time to 10 secs, then play with bots and afkers... Can't argue with that.

> >

> > I'm roughly plat 1+ lately because I cba to actually try for titles anymore, meme builds and meme plays only. Haven't seen a bot in ranked conquest for years. YEARS. My point here is, bots are stuck in the lower ratings, and afkers naturally don't survive up here for long either. You can only throw so many matches before you're in the goldswamp again. (basicly you could just get good and climb up so you don't have to deal with the BS in the silver/goldswamp)

> >

> > If you take away the main incentive for PvP, you lose the type of player that likes to constantly work towards something. So a bunch of players would stop playing ranked, however with 90% of the rewards still intact, no reason to turn off the scripted bots, less reason not to afk. Also, less players means worse matchmaking, plat vs silver matches would happen more often(fewer players=>smaller differences on the ladder=>MMA puts you vs top/bottom players way easier).

> > So again, how would taking away legendary rewards fix anything?

> >

> > Also why would you limit Q time to 10 seconds? Where did that even come from?

>

> Bazsi you are focusing on plat+ tiers and the "play better to ascend" doesn't really works below plat. Since you admit that bot's and afkers stuck in low ratings, how is anyone supposed to do so? The pool of possible teamates ain't helpful at all. And if you read my original post, i 'm all in for ppl trying to improve or work towards a goal. That's why i proposed losing pips after defeat. That would give extra initiative to this kind of pvpers and discourage all those "bots" or afkers, dont you think so? As much as less ppl small lader differences, i don't see anything wrong with that. Matchmaking between tiers shows that's possible. Not plat vs silver as you mentioned but matcmaking is not my issue. Again my point is that ppl that only care for legendary rewards are flooding the "silver/goldswamp", as you call it, indifferent to play a match, not letting me and other "low pvp ability" players to enjoy a competitive type of game.

>

> Q time goes to population you mentioned, more ppl less time on Q for matchmaking.

 

Don't come at me with the "can't climb because of team" bull-excrement, we all know your rating is more accurate the more matches you play. You get unwinnable matches, you get free wins. They even out over time. If you played the 120+ matches required, you're placed roughly where you belong.

If you're placed in the bottom half in any kind of competetive enviroment, you'll meet lack of motivation. The lower you go, the less most people actually care to compete. It's not affecting their actual real life, they won't invest into something they are bad at. This isn't a GW2 problem, this is a human problem.

 

To borrow your own words "low pvp ability" players don't get to enjoy competetive games like the more gifted ones do. It's not fair, I'm not saying this is okay, it's just how this works. Rewards - or the lack of them - won't change this.

[Bugabuga.9721]

I did the whole 'win 120 matches to get emblem of victory' because I wanted legendary amulet (and you can't get it any other way but via PvP, at least for now -- maybe in a year they'll add PvE way of doing it?). I am not sure me 'participating' in whole 5v5 PvP thing was a good thing, I just piss PvP-ers off. It's either a winning streak or losing streak (8+ losses in a row) and way too often 'sit in queue for 7 minutes, get 500-to-100 match' and seeing literally same people over and over and over again -- this match you get the revenant+fb duo, next match the opponent gets the same revenant+fb duo. And then someone never-ending pinging on the map and raging in chat. There were a few friendly matches, but ironically they also had PvE-ers doing PvP because they _had_ to.

 

I ended up moving from bronze 2 to gold 2, but it wasn't in any way fun and yeah, I'm not going to come back until something else PvE oriented requires PvP participation. I think it _would_ be better if there was an equivalent for every legendary in every game mode. That way if you want an amulet you don't _have_ to do PvP and could do WvW or PvE instead. That probably would make more people happy. But I presume the reason for requirement was to purely pump up numbers of 'participants' in PvP. Otherwise queues would be even longer, I guess?