ONE thing that you would give up if it meant magically solving everything? (Lag/pop./balance)

[GDchiaScrub.3241]

Just curious about motivations! Not worrying if anything is going to happen or is even plausible for the current Dev team. Also tell me WHY!

[GDchiaScrub.3241]

When you think that italics and bold works but then suddenly doesn't. RIP

[X T D.6458]

Dynamic map creation is essentially the eotm model. This creates a lot of problems, and eotm itself was hardly ever balanced population wise. You could initially start out with 3 sides full of players, but eventually once players start to leave one side will start to dominate the other. Unlike in pve, EoTM megaserver instances do not close when low on players, and send those players into another instance.

 

The 3 faction system would be complicated, because you simply cannot just have 3 sides and leave it at that. You need to have an internal structure to divide up players aka servers/worlds/realms etc. EoTM is also similar to a faction system that uses instance creation to divide up players rather then servers.

[GDchiaScrub.3241]

> @"X T D.6458" said:

> Dynamic map creation is essentially the eotm model. This creates a lot of problems, and eotm itself was hardly ever balanced population wise. You could initially start out with 3 sides full of players, but eventually once players start to leave one side will start to dominate the other. Unlike in pve, EoTM megaserver instances do not close when low on players, and send those players into another instance.

>

> The 3 faction system would be complicated, because you simply cannot just have 3 sides and leave it at that. You need to have an internal structure to divide up players aka servers/worlds/realms etc. EoTM is also similar to a faction system that uses instance creation to divide up players rather then servers.

 

Yep my first assumption was right. I probably should have left out examples of possible things that whatever choice could lead to. I did not intend to state those examples were the only outcomes of giving up a particular option.

 

 

[Kaiser.9873]

Giving up any of the 3 of those would make the game worse imo, so none of the above. If I had to pick one it would be persistent 24/7 mode, as I feel they could if pressed make it into hourly or daily resets.

[Silverstone.4539]

no thanks, I want to have my cake and eat it too.

[GDchiaScrub.3241]

> @Silverstone.4539 said:

> no thanks, I want to have my cake and eat it too.

 

I want to have a cake to actually eat. Mmm metaphors. Yummy.

[Malediktus.9250]

How about none of the above?

[STIHL.2489]

These long drawn out fights are for the birds anyway.

[GDchiaScrub.3241]

> @Malediktus.9250 said:

> How about none of the above?

 

That answer would assume everything is the same and nothing changes...so we would end up retaining all the various issues we have currently. This poll is for my own (selfish?) uses as a hypothetical, and I wanted a challenging question without an opt-out answer. It is my opinion that everything is not all hunky-dory for WvW. Nor am I under the illusion that any of these responses solve all problems. _They don't._

 

**I am asking what are you willing to sacrifice in order to gain something else.** That is what I find interesting, and something to learn from. If you choose not to participate, that's all right. But "none of the above" doesn't help me (or anyone maybe?) in the slightest. I am sorry. D:

[Malediktus.9250]

None of the sacrifices seem worth it for me, it would change WvW into an entirely different game mode. I will rather take the current issues then.

[GDchiaScrub.3241]

> @Malediktus.9250 said:

> None of the sacrifices seem worth it for me, it would change WvW into an entirely different game mode. I will rather take the current issues then.

 

Entirely different? Idk. Different in some aspect? Yes. Depends on which you pick, otherwise it'd still be a "massive war" as per ANET's little mission statement for WvW.

 

https://www.guildwars2.com/en/the-game/competitive-play/

 

I'm fine with this type of opinion, but I would like more details on the "why" bit of the poll so I can understand this perspective, and not be left with merely an unexplained response that lacks specifics.

[Sovereign.1093]

disable ppt. =) let it be points per event.

[ThunderPanda.1872]

1. Might as well redo PvP, considering that's going as successful as wvw

2. So eotm?

3. It's boring

 

Yea, I prefer having all these problems than playing not-WvW WvW

[GDchiaScrub.3241]

> @ThunderPanda.1872 said:

> 1. Might as well redo PvP, considering that's going as successful as wvw

Hm? If you play WvW for more than 2 hours a day I can see why those sorts of people would be skeptical to give up on 24/7.

> 2. So eotm?

I regret putting the examples in the answer itself since it seems people concluded that as the only alternative when you remove the current static server system.

> 3. It's boring

Okay, why? I really wish I could have put "Also tell me why!" in bold.

>

> Yea, I prefer having all these problems than playing not-WvW WvW

 

That's fine. This was a hypothetical to get a sense of motivations.

 

[Titan.3472]

12345None.

[ThunderPanda.1872]

> @GDchiaScrub.3241 said:

> > @ThunderPanda.1872 said:

> > 1. Might as well redo PvP, considering that's going as successful as wvw

> Hm? If you play WvW for more than 2 hours a day I can see why those sorts of people would be skeptical to give up on 24/7.

> > 2. So eotm?

> I regret putting the examples in the answer itself since it seems people concluded that as the only alternative when you remove the current static server system.

> > 3. It's boring

> Okay, why? I really wish I could have put "Also tell me why!" in bold.

> >

> > Yea, I prefer having all these problems than playing not-WvW WvW

>

> That's fine. This was a hypothetical to get a sense of motivations.

>

 

3 way 1v1v1 map politics bring more balance to the game mode than 1v1. A slightly stronger server will be able to just roll over the opponent. Map politics also fuels the hate, the salt, the trash talk and the excitement.

[GDchiaScrub.3241]

> @ThunderPanda.1872 said:

> > @GDchiaScrub.3241 said:

> > > @ThunderPanda.1872 said:

> > > 1. Might as well redo PvP, considering that's going as successful as wvw

> > Hm? If you play WvW for more than 2 hours a day I can see why those sorts of people would be skeptical to give up on 24/7.

> > > 2. So eotm?

> > I regret putting the examples in the answer itself since it seems people concluded that as the only alternative when you remove the current static server system.

> > > 3. It's boring

> > Okay, why? I really wish I could have put "Also tell me why!" in bold.

> > >

> > > Yea, I prefer having all these problems than playing not-WvW WvW

> >

> > That's fine. This was a hypothetical to get a sense of motivations.

> >

>

> 3 way 1v1v1 map politics bring more balance to the game mode than 1v1. A slightly stronger server will be able to just roll over the opponent. Map politics also fuels the hate, the salt, the trash talk and the excitement.

 

That was the intention I'm sure, but I will break this response into subjective and objective.

 

**Subjective:**

 

While indeed trash talk/salt may encourage excitement and even instigate a 2v1 (the politics part) against a supposedly superior server when it comes to the score. For NA, this was the classic 2v1 on BG during a seasonal tournament. What ends up happening most of the time nowadays from my perspective is this...2 larger servers squash the smaller one in regards to fights/ppt/what have you. OR it's 1 big server vs. 1 medium server vs. 1 medium(or small) server. _A 3 way does not prevent any one server from just rolling over the other opponents._ Even on my time on Vabbi (an EU server) this was apparent. Even still, while 1v1v1 may allow opportunistic plays like back-capping (or coverage wars)...I don't find the act of participating in those "strategies" the most engaging in this game mode.

 

Not only that, it is even harder to balance 3 teams evenly when it comes to coverage/population. I mean 3 is greater than 2 when it comes to teams after all. As far as the actual strategy, the map design affects that the most. Designing for 3 ways is a nightmare because it comes down to only one semi-viable shape: an equilateral triangle (ebg/eotm). In order to add variety, ANET made the Home Borderland style map, and for the sake of balance that was copied 3 times. Problem is, whenever they wish to add an interesting shape they would need to copy that map 3 times for balance's sake...or not care about balance and do whatever. Fast forward to today...we have 1 desert, and 2 alpines (and ebg/eotm of course). I suspect balancing out map design was given up due to budget/technical/player concerns.

 

Now we have to address the steam "roll" fear that you hinted at. In regards to 1v1 (and 1v1v1) this can be solved by the map design itself. The obvious answer to me is decent comeback mechanics (map resets were a different choice in the poll that could resolve this as well). What I consider the precise issue is spawn camping in this persistent game mode. The current 1v1v1 maps have poor comeback mechanics. Obviously it would be foolish to be heavy handed on such mechanics, and so it appears ANET gave the token siege razer for spawn tower recaptures. We can't have comeback mechanics completely carry a server after all. Even something as simple as PvE Bouncy mushrooms to get past the spawn camp would have helped.

 

**Objective:**

 

_**Regardless of the above. It lags. This game cannot actually handle a clash of 3 forces.**_ That cannot be argued against. You could be on the other side of the world roaming, and feel the world tremble beneath the lag generated by 3 team's fighting it out at Garrison or Stonemist Castle (assuming participating servers actually have population...).

 

In the real world as far as history is concerned, 3 ways appear to pop up in civil wars and it becomes a battle of opportunity. Eventually 2 stronger forces squash the smaller weaker one and it devolves into a 1v1 like with the collapse of the Carolingian empire when Charlemagne's 3 grandsons were given their piece of rule (Geographically this would be France vs. Germany vs. Italy).

 

P.S. : 1v1s wouldn't necessarily remove the salt, trash talk or hate that fuels excitement.

[ThunderPanda.1872]

> @GDchiaScrub.3241 said:

> > @ThunderPanda.1872 said:

> > > @GDchiaScrub.3241 said:

> > > > @ThunderPanda.1872 said:

> > > > 1. Might as well redo PvP, considering that's going as successful as wvw

> > > Hm? If you play WvW for more than 2 hours a day I can see why those sorts of people would be skeptical to give up on 24/7.

> > > > 2. So eotm?

> > > I regret putting the examples in the answer itself since it seems people concluded that as the only alternative when you remove the current static server system.

> > > > 3. It's boring

> > > Okay, why? I really wish I could have put "Also tell me why!" in bold.

> > > >

> > > > Yea, I prefer having all these problems than playing not-WvW WvW

> > >

> > > That's fine. This was a hypothetical to get a sense of motivations.

> > >

> >

> > 3 way 1v1v1 map politics bring more balance to the game mode than 1v1. A slightly stronger server will be able to just roll over the opponent. Map politics also fuels the hate, the salt, the trash talk and the excitement.

>

> That was the intention I'm sure, but I will break this response into subjective and objective.

>

> **Subjective:**

>

> While indeed trash talk/salt may encourage excitement and even instigate a 2v1 (the politics part) against a supposedly superior server when it comes to the score. For NA, this was the classic 2v1 on BG during a seasonal tournament. What ends up happening most of the time nowadays from my perspective is this...2 larger servers squash the smaller one in regards to fights/ppt/what have you. OR it's 1 big server vs. 1 medium server vs. 1 medium(or small) server. _A 3 way does not prevent any one server from just rolling over the other opponents._ Even on my time on Vabbi (an EU server) this was apparent. Even still, while 1v1v1 may allow opportunistic plays like back-capping (or coverage wars)...I don't find the act of participating in those "strategies" the most engaging in this game mode.

>

> Not only that, it is even harder to balance 3 teams evenly when it comes to coverage/population. I mean 3 is greater than 2 when it comes to teams after all. As far as the actual strategy, the map design affects that the most. Designing for 3 ways is a nightmare because it comes down to only one semi-viable shape: an equilateral triangle (ebg/eotm). In order to add variety, ANET made the Home Borderland style map, and for the sake of balance that was copied 3 times. Problem is, whenever they wish to add an interesting shape they would need to copy that map 3 times for balance's sake...or not care about balance and do whatever. Fast forward to today...we have 1 desert, and 2 alpines (and ebg/eotm of course). I suspect balancing out map design was given up due to budget/technical/player concerns.

>

> Now we have to address the steam "roll" fear that you hinted at. In regards to 1v1 (and 1v1v1) this can be solved by the map design itself. The obvious answer to me is decent comeback mechanics (map resets were a different choice in the poll that could resolve this as well). What I consider the precise issue is spawn camping in this persistent game mode. The current 1v1v1 maps have poor comeback mechanics. Obviously it would be foolish to be heavy handed on such mechanics, and so it appears ANET gave the token siege razer for spawn tower recaptures. We can't have comeback mechanics completely carry a server after all. Even something as simple as PvE Bouncy mushrooms to get past the spawn camp would have helped.

>

> **Objective:**

>

> _**Regardless of the above. It lags. This game cannot actually handle a clash of 3 forces.**_ That cannot be argued against. You could be on the other side of the world roaming, and feel the world tremble beneath the lag generated by 3 team's fighting it out at Garrison or Stonemist Castle (assuming participating servers actually have population...).

>

> In the real world as far as history is concerned, 3 ways appear to pop up in civil wars and it becomes a battle of opportunity. Eventually 2 stronger forces squash the smaller weaker one and it devolves into a 1v1 like with the collapse of the Carolingian empire when Charlemagne's 3 grandsons were given their piece of rule (Geographically this would be France vs. Germany vs. Italy).

>

> P.S. : 1v1s wouldn't necessarily remove the salt, trash talk or hate that fuels excitement.

 

Eh. Okay. I play the game with a subjective mindset. You know? Just expressing my subjective opinion other people may or may not relate to. My fun is subjective, so to me, I don't want to not have fun because my subjectivity of fun is my objectivity, and I don't want to not enjoy a game because of "objective" reasons.

[GDchiaScrub.3241]

> @ThunderPanda.1872 said:

> > @GDchiaScrub.3241 said:

> > > @ThunderPanda.1872 said:

> > > > @GDchiaScrub.3241 said:

> > > > > @ThunderPanda.1872 said:

> > > > > 1. Might as well redo PvP, considering that's going as successful as wvw

> > > > Hm? If you play WvW for more than 2 hours a day I can see why those sorts of people would be skeptical to give up on 24/7.

> > > > > 2. So eotm?

> > > > I regret putting the examples in the answer itself since it seems people concluded that as the only alternative when you remove the current static server system.

> > > > > 3. It's boring

> > > > Okay, why? I really wish I could have put "Also tell me why!" in bold.

> > > > >

> > > > > Yea, I prefer having all these problems than playing not-WvW WvW

> > > >

> > > > That's fine. This was a hypothetical to get a sense of motivations.

> > > >

> > >

> > > 3 way 1v1v1 map politics bring more balance to the game mode than 1v1. A slightly stronger server will be able to just roll over the opponent. Map politics also fuels the hate, the salt, the trash talk and the excitement.

> >

> > That was the intention I'm sure, but I will break this response into subjective and objective.

> >

> > **Subjective:**

> >

> > While indeed trash talk/salt may encourage excitement and even instigate a 2v1 (the politics part) against a supposedly superior server when it comes to the score. For NA, this was the classic 2v1 on BG during a seasonal tournament. What ends up happening most of the time nowadays from my perspective is this...2 larger servers squash the smaller one in regards to fights/ppt/what have you. OR it's 1 big server vs. 1 medium server vs. 1 medium(or small) server. _A 3 way does not prevent any one server from just rolling over the other opponents._ Even on my time on Vabbi (an EU server) this was apparent. Even still, while 1v1v1 may allow opportunistic plays like back-capping (or coverage wars)...I don't find the act of participating in those "strategies" the most engaging in this game mode.

> >

> > Not only that, it is even harder to balance 3 teams evenly when it comes to coverage/population. I mean 3 is greater than 2 when it comes to teams after all. As far as the actual strategy, the map design affects that the most. Designing for 3 ways is a nightmare because it comes down to only one semi-viable shape: an equilateral triangle (ebg/eotm). In order to add variety, ANET made the Home Borderland style map, and for the sake of balance that was copied 3 times. Problem is, whenever they wish to add an interesting shape they would need to copy that map 3 times for balance's sake...or not care about balance and do whatever. Fast forward to today...we have 1 desert, and 2 alpines (and ebg/eotm of course). I suspect balancing out map design was given up due to budget/technical/player concerns.

> >

> > Now we have to address the steam "roll" fear that you hinted at. In regards to 1v1 (and 1v1v1) this can be solved by the map design itself. The obvious answer to me is decent comeback mechanics (map resets were a different choice in the poll that could resolve this as well). What I consider the precise issue is spawn camping in this persistent game mode. The current 1v1v1 maps have poor comeback mechanics. Obviously it would be foolish to be heavy handed on such mechanics, and so it appears ANET gave the token siege razer for spawn tower recaptures. We can't have comeback mechanics completely carry a server after all. Even something as simple as PvE Bouncy mushrooms to get past the spawn camp would have helped.

> >

> > **Objective:**

> >

> > _**Regardless of the above. It lags. This game cannot actually handle a clash of 3 forces.**_ That cannot be argued against. You could be on the other side of the world roaming, and feel the world tremble beneath the lag generated by 3 team's fighting it out at Garrison or Stonemist Castle (assuming participating servers actually have population...).

> >

> > In the real world as far as history is concerned, 3 ways appear to pop up in civil wars and it becomes a battle of opportunity. Eventually 2 stronger forces squash the smaller weaker one and it devolves into a 1v1 like with the collapse of the Carolingian empire when Charlemagne's 3 grandsons were given their piece of rule (Geographically this would be France vs. Germany vs. Italy).

> >

> > P.S. : 1v1s wouldn't necessarily remove the salt, trash talk or hate that fuels excitement.

>

> Eh. Okay. I play the game with a subjective mindset. You know? Just expressing my subjective opinion other people may or may not relate to. My fun is subjective, so to me, I don't want to not have fun because my subjectivity of fun is my objectivity, and I don't want to not enjoy a game because of "objective" reasons.

 

Here's the thing. I am absolutely okay with however your mindset works. The problem is when claims are made (subjective, objective, or anything in the between) without some semi-logical support...it doesn't help as much as people would like. Human's cannot read minds, so the more information you can give in a coherent manner the better.

 

If you taken any form of creative class or had a critique, then you would understand the value of a good critique fueling better work out of a particular project (and a bad one doing nothing or worse).

 

The primary example (not just you) in this particular topic is essentially: "No, none of the above because WvW would be worse if we sacrifice any one of those three things. But I will still complain elsewhere about lag/population/balance anyway." _That claim is then followed up with little value._ I also acknowledge the examples within each answer may have inadvertently bias'd results. In some respects, that bias may have made people conclude "no change" even though the examples given were not suppose to be the only outcomes of each choice. For example, any mention of Eotm was a bad idea since that sacrifices 2 things (the first two), and the map design itself probably tainted the concept further. So attempting to use that in refuting anything is erroneous given the poll asks hypothetically for 1 thing to solve more issues.

 

**To reiterate, I wanted to know the priority of people's motivations, and their limits. A "no change" isn't helpful in this context (it could be in other situations of course).**

[Aeolus.3615]

as a player that plays massive guild figths based mmo type since 2004 i would love the second option

[MithranArkanere.8957]

None of those choices alone would solve any problems.

 

The second option could be a start to solve them, but it would require extra measures, like the ability to act as a 'mercenary' for other sides when your side outnumbers the others across all maps, or considerable bonuses to the less populated side in a map, or measures to make sure all 3 sides stay equal.

And there has to be limits so people do not flip flip between sides all the time.

And there has to be ways to keep some sort of 'world pride', like making controlled locations show not just the guild's name, but also the world.

 

Solving WvW problems is like playing Jenga. You move one piece, and problems arise somewhere else.

[GDchiaScrub.3241]

> @MithranArkanere.8957 said:

> None of those choices alone would solve any problems.

>

> The second option could be a start to solve them, but it would require extra measures, like the ability to act as a 'mercenary' for other sides when your side outnumbers the others across all maps, or considerable bonuses to the less populated side in a map, or measures to make sure all 3 sides stay equal.

> And there has to be limits so people do not flip flip between sides all the time.

> And there has to be ways to keep some sort of 'world pride', like making controlled locations show not just the guild's name, but also the world.

>

> Solving WvW problems is like playing Jenga. You move one piece, and problems arise somewhere else.

 

I do not expect you to read every reply here. So I pulled one out that addressed some of your concerns. Ultimately, it is a hypothetical to gauge people's priorities and some other particular information for my self to conclude later.

 

> @GDchiaScrub.3241 said:

> > @Malediktus.9250 said:

> > How about none of the above?

>

> That answer would assume everything is the same and nothing changes...so we would end up retaining all the various issues we have currently. This poll is for my own (selfish?) uses as a hypothetical, and I wanted a challenging question without an opt-out answer. It is my opinion that everything is not all hunky-dory for WvW. Nor am I under the illusion that any of these responses solve all problems. _They don't._

>

> **I am asking what are you willing to sacrifice in order to gain something else.** That is what I find interesting, and something to learn from. If you choose not to participate, that's all right. But "none of the above" doesn't help me (or anyone maybe?) in the slightest. I am sorry. D:

 

 

 

 

[Djamonja.6453]

I think all 3 of your options are worse than the current system.

[GDchiaScrub.3241]

> @Djamonja.6453 said:

> I think all 3 of your options are worse than the current system.

 

At this point I will become a broken record. I pulled a quote that addressed a similar response. You are allowed to have this opinion, but give some details.

 

> @GDchiaScrub.3241 said:

> > @Malediktus.9250 said:

> > None of the sacrifices seem worth it for me, it would change WvW into an entirely different game mode. I will rather take the current issues then.

>

> Entirely different? Idk. Different in some aspect? Yes. Depends on which you pick, otherwise it'd still be a "massive war" as per ANET's little mission statement for WvW.

>

> https://www.guildwars2.com/en/the-game/competitive-play/

>

> I'm fine with this type of opinion, but I would like more details on the "why" bit of the poll so I can understand this perspective, and not be left with merely an unexplained response that lacks specifics.