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

[Red Haired Savage.5430]

> @GDchiaScrub.3241 said:

> > @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.

 

The cake is a lie.

[Djamonja.6453]

> @GDchiaScrub.3241 said:

> > @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.

 

What's there to say? I think a week is a good length for a matchup. I don't want an EoTM system, I prefer individual servers/links. I like 3 way fights more than 1v1, it makes for more interesting strategic options.

 

[GDchiaScrub.3241]

> @Djamonja.6453 said:

> > @GDchiaScrub.3241 said:

> > > @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.

>

> What's there to say? I think a week is a good length for a matchup.

 

The longer the match then the more it becomes about whoever plays longer. So you are okay that the match ups are determined by coverage more than any strategies deployed in the field?

 

> I don't want an EoTM system, I prefer individual servers/links.

 

Eotm as is would choose two of the options (the first two) and therefore doesn't fall into what this poll set out to do (where you would only pick one). By all means, keep servers/links.

 

>I like 3 way fights more than 1v1, it makes for more interesting strategic options.

 

Like what options? Back capping empty objectives because your server is too meek (in population/skill/ w.e.) or it simply lags too much to face the others head on during reset nights?

 

That's the sort of details I'd like to know.

 

 

 

 

[ThunderPanda.1872]

> @GDchiaScrub.3241 said:

> > @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).**

 

Do you not understand that for some players, none of these sacrafices are acceptable and that is our priority?

[GDchiaScrub.3241]

> @ThunderPanda.1872 said:

> > @GDchiaScrub.3241 said:

> > > @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).**

>

> Do you not understand that for some players, none of these sacrafices are acceptable and that is our priority?

 

I understand that. What seems to pass over is that this is a hypothetical situation where you had to choose one, and think about that option critically. Why would I put in a "none of the above?" You are not forced to participate in this.

 

What is actually tiring is claims made without examples like this:

 

> @Djamonja.6453 said:

> > @GDchiaScrub.3241 said:

> > > @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.

>

> **[snipped]** I like 3 way fights more than 1v1, it makes for more interesting strategic options. **[snipped]**

>

 

It's fine that he/she _feels_ 3 ways is better, but maybe I am expecting too much from the player base to tell me the details of "Why?" they _feel_ that way. Some players simply just want to zone out and play away without needing to tire themselves on thinking too hard about a video game. Escapism is all right sometimes. So don't participate in this. I don't mean that in anger. I just cannot do much with pure _feelings_ without substance.

 

[MithranArkanere.8957]

> @GDchiaScrub.3241 said:

> > @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.

>

> [...]

 

And you didn't seem to read my response at all.

 

As I said, the second or blue option is the closest to the one I would accept, but it has to be developed way more. As it is, it'd be a no. It would be like asking me which limb do I prefer to lose. My answer will be "A leg, but only if I get a cool cybernetic prosthetic leg in its place", it will never be just "a leg".

[GDchiaScrub.3241]

Fuq these buggy forums sometimes.

 

> @MithranArkanere.8957 said:

> > @GDchiaScrub.3241 said:

> > > @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.

> >

> > [...]

>

> And you didn't seem to read my response at all.

>

> As I said, the second or blue option is the closest to the one I would accept, but it has to be developed way more. As it is, it'd be a no. It would be like asking me which limb do I prefer to lose. My answer will be "A leg, but only if I get a cool cybernetic prosthetic leg in its place", it will never be just "a leg".

 

I did. I said it only "addressed some of your concerns." Not all. I am under no illusions that realistically none of the options solve every single problem (another quote I din't want to spam you with) nor do I wish to engage in metaphors because interpretations of them can be wildly different. I also said I don't expect you to read every reply here since, one of the replies above noted that using examples in the poll options themselves may have distorted responses (such as yours). Probably leaving out those examples would have made the option more open ended, and so your ideas could fit. Alas, can't edit things and probably should have somehow deleted it earlier and reset the thing. Now it's simply too late.

 

Practicality isn't in question with the use of "magically." **If you feel option two somewhat works then by all means pick it or don't.** At the very least _you provided your own details on what that option meant to you. That's great_ given that many haven't even done that so far. I do not state that in any ire or hate. Again, I wanted to understand what people are willing to give up, and your input has a little more context that I can actually work with in the future. At some point I will conclude all of this during the weekend...for better or worse.

[Strider Pj.2193]

I think the inherent fear people have in a poll they feel doesn't include their option, and choosing 'the best available' is that someone would use that data to make a decision.

 

No, you can't nor won't make a decision based on these, but it is telling that this poll has been up for a week, and you only have 30 ish responses.

 

I would offer that people aren't picking an option because they aren't comfortable with ANY of the ones presented.

[GDchiaScrub.3241]

> @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> I think the inherent fear people have in a poll they feel doesn't include their option, and choosing 'the best available' is that someone would use that data to make a decision.

>

> No, you can't nor won't make a decision based on these, but it is telling that this poll has been up for a week, and you only have 30 ish responses.

>

> I would offer that people aren't picking an option because they aren't comfortable with ANY of the ones presented.

 

Indeed, the poll puts players in an uncomfortable position as is the intention. So I can understand what you mean. People don't necessarily engage with video games to feel uncomfortable (even with the forums). It's also flawed in terms of presentation since the examples negate the idea that options should be open ended.

 

Ignoring that polls created by players only seems to hover around 40-50 for the ones on the current page. I probably could have gained a similar amount by putting an opt-out option (none of the above). I could have gained even more if this poll focused on one issue while showering the players with a bunch of options. I didn't, and don't really find that comparison meaningful here. Those polls don't put players in the previously mentioned uncomfortable situations that I find more interesting than "World Server Link Schedule" or "Stability Corruptible." Those would be far more practical than this one, so it's reasonable to assume there is more allure to them. Even still, I agree with you in that I hope no real decisions are made by anything less than 1000 (no player polls seems to reach this so far) in this particular game mode, and the only reasonable way to do that is to hassle players with in-game polls or notifications for polls...

[MithranArkanere.8957]

> @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> I think the inherent fear people have in a poll they feel doesn't include their option, and choosing 'the best available' is that someone would use that data to make a decision.

>

> No, you can't nor won't make a decision based on these, but it is telling that this poll has been up for a week, and you only have 30 ish responses.

>

> I would offer that people aren't picking an option because they aren't comfortable with ANY of the ones presented.

 

People is less likely to vote in a poll with no options they can pick exactly if it's public. The option will be stuck on your messages saying you said something you don't want to say.

 

In those cases people is stuck with responding directly to the thread.

[GDchiaScrub.3241]

> @MithranArkanere.8957 said:

> > @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > I think the inherent fear people have in a poll they feel doesn't include their option, and choosing 'the best available' is that someone would use that data to make a decision.

> >

> > No, you can't nor won't make a decision based on these, but it is telling that this poll has been up for a week, and you only have 30 ish responses.

> >

> > I would offer that people aren't picking an option because they aren't comfortable with ANY of the ones presented.

>

> People is less likely to vote in a poll with no options they can pick exactly if it's public. The option will be stuck on your messages saying you said something you don't want to say.

>

> In those cases people is stuck with responding directly to the thread.

 

Yes, just responding directly to the thread was fine.

[GDchiaScrub.3241]

**Conclusion:**

 

I am skeptical if I should speak so candidly about this, but then again. Eh! I'm bored. So I will break this down into Before and After the poll.

 

**Before:**

 

My initial bias is against polls doing anything meaningful except maybe deciding rudimentry things like yes/no, favorite colors, or numerical stuff. Using it for more difficult or abstract subjects requires more expertise than I have. Alas! _I was curious, now that ANET allowed player polls, if I could used polls for something interesting besides those simple ideas. Deciding on what the poll should be about, I figured WvW had some elements that held ANET back._ After looking at other competitive games (Strategy, Shooters, and MOBAs) then I formulated the major differences between those and WvW. RTS was more enlightening to me than just looking at RvR's.

 

So first, the poll, but instead of putting it into a predictable question of "What is your number one priority for WvW?" I thought I might get more interesting discussion from turning that around with "What would you give up if it meant solving every issue in WvW?" Doing this I thought it might influence people to talk about more than just 1 aspect of WvW, and to include the other two. Of course, I knew enough that the practicality in 2017 is out of the question, so I attempted to turn it into a hypothetical exercise. Given ANET's chitty word limits I had to use words like "Magically" in hopes of pushing the idea of hypothetical. Pity. I'm sure there were better words, but this wasn't just about the poll.

 

The second thing that interested me starts from a game designer (Newman) for Rust [explaining](https://www.polygon.com/2015/6/25/8841003/rust-penis-size-garry-newman-interview "explaining") players are useful for stating feelings, and bug reports...but less so for game design changes "Rust explaining players are useful for stating feelings, and bug reports...but less so for game design changes" (paraphrasing possibly out of context). Normally, I'd find that absurd on the surface, but there may be some nuggets of truth. _Can players explain their feelings?_ I can try poking them with a poll (or a pole). Science!

 

**The 3 Sacrifices and reasons behind them:**

 

_Persistance:_ The intent of this one is the hard response to coverage concerns. The shorter the match, the less concern for coverage determining the outcome.

Many of the competitive games don't feature matches longer than an hour, however I did see some with persistance like survival games.

 

_Static Servers:_ Adaptive teams in theory would be the response to population balance. Many of the competitive games did not actually have the idea of static servers, but more closer to temporary hotjoins or hosted games. The obvious concern is the stability of Community that is provided by a static place like most MMO servers which can contribute to the greater longevity of the game itself. I did come from GW1 that didn't have this concept, but this concept is more typical of MMO or social games.

 

_3 way:_ Most competitive games used 2 teams almost always. While the poll is hypothetically solving everything, this is a response to 3 way lag by making it 2 way.

Further observation of RTS showed there were less maps for 3 ways than 2 way. With this I theorized it contributed to ANETs problems with map designs, and their variety (or lack of).

 

I briefly thought about a non-response, but disregarded it as unnecessary. The intent is to put the participate in an iffy situation. They don't need to choose anything in such cases. I also decided between giving examples beside each option or not; at the time I thought I needed to hold the participates' hand, and inform them as much as possible. Lastly, I wanted get people to explain why they chose what they did. The chitty forums didn't allow me to put this in bold to increase viewership of this.

 

**After:**

 

_Firstly, it was apparent that the presentation, and examples may have skewed peoples' perspective. So the actual poll results can be disregarded._ I suspect due to the previous posts of three faction systems may have grown support for option two, but that's pure speculation. I see now how much effort it takes those fancy psychologist and statisticians to create a half way decent poll when they want to tackle larger issues.

 

Furthermore! Only those that wanted to respond with "none of the above" actually contributed anything to the conversations. Which makes sense. They had no options available. Only 1 out of 38 that took the poll actually put a post. Only 1 player discussed some improvements to game design. Overall, I cannot repeat with a refined poll due to the flaws that would taint its perception with this given audience. Even so that would appear to be a waste of time. I hope this isn't a self fulfilled prophecy of my initial bias in that Polls are better used for simple things...fuq me.

 

As for the second thing I was curious about was the responses from players. This poll didn't help in that regard. This makes sense, focusing on one topic with a normal discussion thread would be more beneficial but require more topics. I.e. polls lack depth, but are quick and dirty; so discussion can't really flow naturally.

 

This topic neither confirms nor denies Newman's statement, especially given after this post players may feel this was a ruse. Which is half right, I did intend the poll to be a poll, but the other bit be for my selfish reasons of bad science. It does make me wonder if it was wise for ANET to even have a poll about WvW's game direction way back then...huh.

 

This thread is done, and you can reply or let it die. Thanks to everyone that participated!