What is the goal of server links and matchups?

[X T D.6458]

> @Seasniffer.1763 said:

> > @"X T D.6458" said:

> > > @Seasniffer.1763 said:

> > > Magumma proper just opened while having a link. I think it's confirmed even ArenaNet doesn't know what they're doing.

> > >

> > > A server that was placing #1 a few weeks ago and beating JQ, is now open. While servers in T2->T4 doing much worse with less population are closed.

> >

> > Tell a certain commander to stop ktraining for 12 hours a day with a map full of pugs, and you might open ;)

>

> Cloudfly? He hasn't played in ~2 weeks, he's busy IRL with work.

 

A server has to maintain a certain level of activity under the threshold for a certain amount of time. From what I have seen through personal observation, 2 weeks is usually too short.

[Endelon.1042]

> @SkyShroud.2865 said:

> The intention with the link has always been clear; to boost the populations while secondary** to keep the matchup as competitive as possible.**

>

> Of course, the boosting part is obviously working. The competitive part is base on devs' visions of competitiveness.

 

Right, the developers are working off the premise that weekly matchups should be "competitive" and that the weekly goal should be to "win" yet there is no reason/reward to work towards that goal. It would be nice to know what the current WvW developers consider to be "competitive matchups".

 

In the meantime, the developers are contributing to (and accelerating) the decline of WvW by keeping all these servers locked for months at a time.

 

[GDchiaScrub.3241]

> @Endelon.1042 said:

> > @SkyShroud.2865 said:

> > The intention with the link has always been clear; to boost the populations while secondary** to keep the matchup as competitive as possible.**

> >

> > Of course, the boosting part is obviously working. The competitive part is base on devs' visions of competitiveness.

>

> Right, the developers are working off the premise that weekly matchups should be "competitive" and that the weekly goal should be to "win" yet there is no reason/reward to work towards that goal. It would be nice to know what the current WvW developers consider to be "competitive matchups".

>

> In the meantime, the developers are contributing to (and accelerating) the decline of WvW by keeping all these servers locked for months at a time.

>

 

What do you mean pips aren't the goal anymore? D: There's just so much game play I can get with them! The most original content since reward tracks.

 

P.S. At the very least the player base can now choose what tiers they wish to be in...using the most round about way possible.

[morrolan.9608]

> @Seasniffer.1763 said:

> Magumma proper just opened while having a link. I think it's confirmed even ArenaNet doesn't know what they're doing.

>

> A server that was placing #1 a few weeks ago and beating JQ, is now open. While servers in T2->T4 doing much worse with less population are closed.

 

I've said it before I'll say it again, links make a huge difference. Mag may have been no. 1 a few weeks ago but it was when PoF was about to launch and BG were taking things easy, and most important of all it was with a link, before that without a link Mag slipped to T3 and almost went down to T4, and Mag has been closed all that time so it hasn't gained any new players.

 

> @Seasniffer.1763 said:

> Cloudfly? He hasn't played in ~2 weeks, he's busy IRL with work.

 

All 3 of them? And I think he was on within the last 2 days.

[Reaper Alim.4176]

> @Seasniffer.1763 said:

> Magumma proper just opened while having a link. I think it's confirmed even ArenaNet doesn't know what they're doing.

>

> A server that was placing #1 a few weeks ago and beating JQ, is now open. While servers in T2->T4 doing much worse with less population are closed.

 

With all of the ~~P2W~~ , sorry I mean bandwagoner type players flooding to MAG and it's link for easy effortless wins and stomps. How can anyone honestly say ANet don't know what it's doing. I'll personally say it's the complete opposite. ANet full on knows exactly how to herd sheeple, into opening their wallets for free wins and stomps. This past links was a masterpiece if you ask me.

[DeadlySynz.3471]

Maybe if you posted this in reddit you may be more likely to get a response (as odd as this sounds).

 

But to those of you who think making winning "something", that is probably the absolute worst thing that can be done. Just more bandwagoning. Without a means in place to harsh disincentive in place for people whom transfer, and limit the amount of "meaning to winning" for chronic winners.. aka, higher populations, it will cause more problems than it will solve.

[Burnfall.9573]

> @"I S U P E R S I N I.4761" said:

> All complaints towards wvw have been ignored for many years now, although Needless to say most of there gem sales will come from world v world players who constantly band-waggon.

>

> It is the most ignored part of the game that makes anet the most money, pvers do not have to pay for nothing.

> Mega server for mixed instances FREE of charge. Every complaint as legitimate as they are, is on death ears now, tomorrow, the day after and next year.

>

> Everyone should accept the FACT that the game is dying after POF 1 week story including all its content new specialisations etc, it is back to where it was with a bigger pirate ship uncalled for, uncared for balance in wvw.

>

>** Bring back Gaile Grey and other DEVS from Guildwars 1 who actually took time to listen to the players needs, socialised rewarded the gamer's in the correct manor.**

> POF now £15.99 that says it all cheap as chips cos no one is buying it no new players are coming servers will not be unlocked, linking will not stop, because it is of no benefit to ANET.

>

> EMBRACE purchasing gems and keeping anets servers running, whilst you chase your dreams for the servers with the most fun at the cost of friendship consistency activeness, ppt & Karma.

>

> Take this complain and send it on to Blizzard you might get a better response.

> If this post gets deleted it just proves my point.

 

Gaile Gray was gw1 Dev Manager and is gw2 Forum Communications Team Leader. (side note-in early gw2 release there was a thread by a former gw1 player with former gw1 players -in her defence, stating that Anet was intentionally restricting her of communicating with us in the forums. She than responded that it was untrue: although many of us thought otherwise) She and other gw1 devs and gw1 designers did make a powerful positive impact in gw1. Only wish, she had the control and power to continue gw1 legacy. To make things right like gw1: recruiting all former gw1 teams

 

Any how,

 

i do agree with you.

[starlinvf.1358]

There also the larger overarching problem of the WvW Objectives... which I find has a MUCH bigger impact into how population behavior shifts. WvW is a combination of PPT, Open field combat, Siege and Guerilla combat. These are vastly different play styles, and huge underlying problem is that there isn't a coherent structure thats helping them mesh together correctly.

I was a Planetside 1 player back in the early 2000s, which encompasses about a crap ton of "Theater wide" operational demands, and one of the few games to successfully blend Infantry and Vehicle combat. I see a lot of conceptual similarities with WvW in how its organized and executed (especially with the 3 verses format), but where GW2 is failing is combat flow between its different objectives. Most prominent of which is how zerg mobility trumps everything else, because the man power requirements to siege any major asset (towers and up) is simply too high... and gets even higher when they tier up. Its also extremely complicated to soften a major asset, because open field siege is incredibly easy to counter. And believe the fault of that is the minimalist design of the game's Logistics (ie the Supply system).

Going back to PS1 again, there were 6 different types of vehicles dedicated to Logistics support- A resource collector, a mobile Spawn and Supply point, 1 Large ground Infantry transport, a C130 style mobile infantry drop ship, an even Larger Air Transport made to ferry and air drop tanks to the front, and a Medium ranged infantry teleportation platform (essentially Mesmer portals). All of these were important, because the maps were huge (easily 2-3 minutes from the nearest spawn point to the front), and reinforcement lines had to be established to hold or push a front. The game played more like a Territory war like WWII, as opposed to the Vietnam style attrition war, where territory is conquered then abandoned several times throughout the day. Holding certain locations had real, long term strategic value, and losing it was a big deal. For us, the only assets like that are the Keeps, Garrisons and Stonemist, because they're the only spawn points past the staging grounds.

Whats missing from this game is better defined battle fronts for the siege play to fit in, a player driven logistics system to reinforce it, which in turn would give Havoc groups far more opportunities for varied targets, as well as give escorts and logistics minded players more tools to work with, and want to defend. But none of that could ever work given the sheer speed and decisive offensive power of a 20+ man blob, which further discouraged splitting up groups beyond small havoc and scouting teams. And given the very low population caps in these fights, its easy to see why most low tier servers favor blobs, while higher tier servers abuse defense siege.

 

The population stacking of servers isn't the real problem... its just a symptom of the fact that the divide between havoc and zerg is a cliff, when it should be a slope.

[Roxanne.6140]

-delete--------

[Endelon.1042]

> @DeadlySynz.3471 said:

> Maybe if you posted this in reddit you may be more likely to get a response (as odd as this sounds).

 

Yeah it does seem like reddit posts get more attention by the game developers. I posted on here though because there have been threads lately that are getting comments from WvW developers so I was hoping one of them would comment on this discussion.

 

 

[Reaper Alim.4176]

> @starlinvf.1358 said:

> There also the larger overarching problem of the WvW Objectives... which I find has a MUCH bigger impact into how population behavior shifts. WvW is a combination of PPT, Open field combat, Siege and Guerilla combat. These are vastly different play styles, and huge underlying problem is that there isn't a coherent structure thats helping them mesh together correctly.

> I was a Planetside 1 player back in the early 2000s, which encompasses about a crap ton of "Theater wide" operational demands, and one of the few games to successfully blend Infantry and Vehicle combat. I see a lot of conceptual similarities with WvW in how its organized and executed (especially with the 3 verses format), but where GW2 is failing is combat flow between its different objectives. Most prominent of which is how zerg mobility trumps everything else, because the man power requirements to siege any major asset (towers and up) is simply too high... and gets even higher when they tier up. Its also extremely complicated to soften a major asset, because open field siege is incredibly easy to counter. And believe the fault of that is the minimalist design of the game's Logistics (ie the Supply system).

> Going back to PS1 again, there were 6 different types of vehicles dedicated to Logistics support- A resource collector, a mobile Spawn and Supply point, 1 Large ground Infantry transport, a C130 style mobile infantry drop ship, an even Larger Air Transport made to ferry and air drop tanks to the front, and a Medium ranged infantry teleportation platform (essentially Mesmer portals). All of these were important, because the maps were huge (easily 2-3 minutes from the nearest spawn point to the front), and reinforcement lines had to be established to hold or push a front. The game played more like a Territory war like WWII, as opposed to the Vietnam style attrition war, where territory is conquered then abandoned several times throughout the day. Holding certain locations had real, long term strategic value, and losing it was a big deal. For us, the only assets like that are the Keeps, Garrisons and Stonemist, because they're the only spawn points past the staging grounds.

> Whats missing from this game is better defined battle fronts for the siege play to fit in, a player driven logistics system to reinforce it, which in turn would give Havoc groups far more opportunities for varied targets, as well as give escorts and logistics minded players more tools to work with, and want to defend. But none of that could ever work given the sheer speed and decisive offensive power of a 20+ man blob, which further discouraged splitting up groups beyond small havoc and scouting teams. And given the very low population caps in these fights, its easy to see why most low tier servers favor blobs, while higher tier servers abuse defense siege.

>

> The population stacking of servers isn't the real problem... its just a symptom of the fact that the divide between havoc and zerg is a cliff, when it should be a slope.

 

As someone who also used to play PS, and now playing ESO. I think you've hit the hammer on the nail here. In those two games players have the tools and resources to be small successful spec op units against medium to major objectives behind enemy lines without the need of more than 3 or 4 players. Hell in ESO one solo person can drop two trebs by him/herself to disrupt the enemy's transit routes to the frontlines.

 

However in GW2 you can only carry enough supplies to make half of a siege engine. Therefore mechanically speaking, GW2's gameplay rewards players more for having the biggest zerg, or number of players on map. I don't exactly know how to incorporate such complex gameplay. Into such a super casual mindless game like GW2 tho. You'd have to completely scrap WvW in it's current form. Then remake WvW with the new mechanics in mind. So I guess you can say it's issues are simple deep in the roots of the gamemode.

 

As in GW2 the tactics to win is simple. Bring more numbers so you can move supply and build siege more effectively. Other MMOs as the two mentioned, are not designed with the casual can't be bother gamer in mind. So of course winning in those games are going to come down to multiple tactics, employed at the right place at the right time.

[Strider Pj.2193]

So... the 3-4 that I run with that caps tier 3 towers in T-1 on NA prime don't exist? We havoc, will attack t-3 keeps as well to pull the enemy Zerg.

Two guild catas with not even full supply might be a little slow, but it works.

 

And against a tower, it's quite easy.

 

Is it easy? No. But it shouldn't be.

 

The tools are there.

[Strider Pj.2193]

The difference is people aren't willing to try the small group tactics because they worry about getting 4 people wiped.

[Reaper Alim.4176]

> @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> The difference is people aren't willing to try the small group tactics because they worry about getting 4 people wiped.

 

Ok I hear you. However then why do you think players in GW2, worry too much about getting 4 people wiped? Rather than being a more effective collective.

[Reaper Alim.4176]

By that I mean considering the time and effort vs. the impact and reward. I honestly think the tools are not really there. It suffers the same issue with roamers. You can do it but you won't be rewarded or supported for doing so. Other games will fully reward if not reward players more for successfully utilizing such tactics. GW2 you actually lose out on the rewards and impact. That is the problem in my eyes at least.

[Strider Pj.2193]

> @"Reaper Alim.4176" said:

> > @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > The difference is people aren't willing to try the small group tactics because they worry about getting 4 people wiped.

>

> Ok I hear you. However then why do you think players in GW2, worry too much about getting 4 people wiped? Rather than being a more effective collective.

 

Dunno. I wonder often myself when I see people run from a 4v5...

 

Getting Zerged down is kind of a badge of honor to me. The only penalty is respawning.

[Strider Pj.2193]

> @"Reaper Alim.4176" said:

> By that I mean considering the time and effort vs. the impact and reward. I honestly think the tools are not really there. It suffers the same issue with roamers. You can do it but you won't be rewarded or supported for doing so. Other games will fully reward if not reward players more for successfully utilizing such tactics. GW2 you actually lose out on the rewards and impact. That is the problem in my eyes at least.

 

Oh, I understand your point, and agree with you. Our reward is esoteric. But something concrete would be good too.

:)