How is it possible to please everyone ?

[ThomasC.1056]

Hello folks,

 

Amongst all the threads to complain about how WvW is a disappointement, I'm opening that one in an attempt to dig to a seemingly fundamental issue with the game mode.

 

WvW is a competitive game mode, with 3 servers. Which means there'll be some players who _win_ and some others who _lose_. Usually, the "fun" factor is associated with the _winning_ part. Now, here's the core issue : **Eventhough it's unavoidable that some players will lose, how is it possible that everyone enjoys the game mode ?**. More explanations :

 

Some of the more frustrating things can be : let's say I only play like 10h WvW each week. During my play time, I feel like I do some things relevants : I win my fights, I cap objectives... I may not have the feeling that I'm _losing_ in any way. Yet, the server loses anyway for some other reason unrelated to my personal way of playing. So I'm feeling like all my work/playtime was useless and pointless, and I'm also scrapped off rewards which I felt like I deserved. _Disclaimer : it's not personal experience. It's only examples._ In a sPvP match, the previous factor doesn't matter as much, because the match is shorter, and everyone is there (AFK or not), so you can just say "It wasn't a good one", blame your team-mates, or whatever. In WvW, it's less possible.

 

So here's, to me, one of the core issues with the game mode : I may play and do thing as relevant as possible for the game mode, it doesn't feel fulfilling, because the server will lose anyway. So the big questions **how is it possible to better tie individual involvement with the server's outcome ?**

 

And another big question : I suppose that most RvR games share that fundamental issue. How do they deal with it ? Do they also have that feeling, and if not, what specific thing makes it lighter ?

[Strider Pj.2193]

Give everyone a participation trophy?

 

 

Oh wait..., We do.

[Lionwait.4815]

For most people it isn't about winning or losing at the end of the week. The issue is balance. Take care of one shot or three shoot builds. Take care of ghost town servers. It gets old fast to play out numbered fights.

 

If it was up to me. I would take away the weekly winning system and make it a 2 daily tournament. I would add a twist where every account has the option to choose to play on another server. For an example: I log on and I don't like how dead my server is. I go and join for a one day limited time per week choose. Then the next day comes and it is still dead on my server so I get to choose to join another server for a day other then the server I joined yesterday. So..... what if the ques are high? Live and learn and in the next day choose another server to play on. Then make a tracking system for each individual showing their progress. Not many people care about how many kills their server has or deaths. What matters is the individual or guild tracking system on how many kills and deaths and points earned for the individual or guild group. Such a idea would make guilds want to communicate and where they will go and who they will face. This brings back the guild in Guildwars 2.

[FogLeg.9354]

WvW has 2 main problems, I do not believe it can be fixed without big changes to both of these:

 

1 - Best way to win a match is to capture objectives when enemy is not online

2 - Best way to win a fight is to bring more people

[Titan.3472]

... wonders the oldest profession in the world

[Burnfall.9573]

> @Lionwait.4815 said:

> For most people it isn't about winning or losing at the end of the week. The issue is balance. Take care of one shot or three shoot builds. Take care of ghost town servers. It gets old fast to play out numbered fights.

>

> If it was up to me. I would take away the weekly winning system and make it a 2 daily tournament. I would add a twist where every account has the option to choose to play on another server. For an example: I log on and I don't like how dead my server is. I go and join for a one day limited time per week choose. Then the next day comes and it is still dead on my server so I get to choose to join another server for a day other then the server I joined yesterday. So..... what if the ques are high? Live and learn and in the next day choose another server to play on. Then make a tracking system for each individual showing their progress. Not many people care about how many kills their server has or deaths. What matters is the individual or guild tracking system on how many kills and deaths and points earned for the individual or guild group. Such a idea would make guilds want to communicate and where they will go and who they will face. This brings back the guild in Guildwars 2.

 

this :+1:

[starlinvf.1358]

I'll try to articulate this as best I can.... if we exclude people who are reward driven (who avoid WvW because of sub-par rewards), most people just want to have a good fight. There are 3 major sub-groups: Zergs, Roamers and Commanders. Commanders (as a group) are mostly players concerned with PPT and Strategy. Zergs and Roamers are concerned with fights of their preferred scale. Roamers also have an additional sub-element of Guerilla players, who enjoy their impact on a larger fight more then they do the fighting itself.

 

The rewards aren't the underlying issue.... we'll just cheese the system to max it out, and go back to what were gonna do anyway. The real underlying issue is the lack of an easy to understand flowchart of objective interactions- which leads everyone to do whatever they want, unless they feel like cooperating. It can be argued that man power investment is the root of this; but I'd postulate a decently coordinated group can perform at the same level as a PUG, using only half the people. Teamwork is OP.

 

With that as framing, I propose the following hypothesis: Excluding reward driven players, the majority of WvW players want close competition. This is DIFFERENT from "balance", as players also like the idea that they have a leg up in a fight, even if that leg up isn't purely statistical. While most commanders will bitch about not being able to win fights "they should had won", but the majority of players are satisfied with a good back and forth where there is enough uncertainty to avoid a steamroll, but enough confidence that they'll probably win, unless the other team does something that can be countered, but wasn't in time.

The key to enjoyment with competitive games like this, at the PUG level, is close competition with the right opportunity for upsests. If you look to Overwatch as an example, Ultimates are massively unbalancing elements to the game, and most Comp players want them marginalized to avoid uncertainty. But from a PUG perspective, Ultimates are both the best and worst parts of a fight, with that line being drawn on how decisive it was, verses how much opportunity was given to counter it. A good fight should always be a struggle in both directions, while the Ultimates should be reserved to push back to equilibrium, and then a Crescendo when that struggle is at its absolute peak. Unexpected, but seen coming long enough to realize that you just got beat.

 

That kind of phenomenon does happen frequently in evenly matched zerg fights. But the conditions on the field are difficult to generate given how much freedom players are given on an individual level. Citing Planetside 1 as an example, that game's biggest high light was the protracted open field battles between bases, followed by initial phases of a base siege. But early in the game's life cycle, bases were freely cappable, and only required a lack of defending players to succeed. This was a problem with a 10km x 10km map, where everyone had enough room to maneuver around each other. So what was happening for a while was half the map population going from base to base to Ghost cap, while the other half clustered around a single base to have a meat grinder style fight. This huge split in the objectives lead to countless arguments within each empire about who was ruining the game; when it really boiled down to both activities have zero synergy with each other. They then introduced a Lattice system (which players still bitch about to this day), that blocked bases from being capped unless an adjacent base was owned by the attackers. This then created clear travel lines for the zerg to move from objective to objective, and the Ghost cappers moved toward general sabotage of back line bases, disrupting logistics in the process. This polarized the direction of open field fights, but in doing so, established clear battle fronts for the logistics minded players to synergize with. Mobile Spawn points, Supply lines, dedicated transport for reinforcements, vehicle repair camps, Infantry/Vehicle coordination, mixed with Guerilla tactics, artillery, air strikes, entrenchment, and high level strategy from a 2 tier command network. The introduction of the lattice made 2 sweeping changes in player behavior.... First, the bulk of the forces now facing the same direction, and the opposing force is has its majority facing them directly, instead of being scattered in the area. Second, it gave everything else a much easier time to orient their activities, and immediately falling into line behind the front.

 

Now compare that to how a typical zerg is organized.... Front line, mid line and back, plus orienting a resupply path when assaulting a structure. But when zergs get into a fight, that structure effectively goes out the window, as each sides front line tries to dive past the other front line, and then bomb the mid and back lines. If unsuccessful, it then morphs into Pirate ship, where each side just circles around to avoid bombs on their cluster, while doing the same to the other cluster. Open field siege is the only thing that breaks this behavior, as it draws a clear line on the front that the other side has to bait out, or drive straight through to break. The one fact that triggers this change is how the back line is stronger, but also static. If a roaming group gets up behind this siege, it can then break it and leave that zerg exposed, and with an obstacle at its back. See how this one change creates an orientation where everyone immediately understands how they can fit into it.

 

This also has a knock on effect where 2 fighting groups don't immediately collapse when the front and back line forces are separated, as its now the Backline's job to anchor a position, rather then the mobile front line anchoring the point of impact. Fights are now longer, allow for more swings, stand offs now possible, and several classes which previously didn't have a job, now have a lot they can be doing to contribute. Which leaves the crippling issue, the role of open field siege/assets, much easier to address.

[MarkoNS.3261]

The main problem i have with wvw is the rewards and unbalanced servers, for example seafarers on which i am is almost constantly the worst server now and ending last what motivation do i have to play if its constantly losing, its better just to switch servers at this point. other is rewards they take to long they give very little except decorations, lets say you spend 5 hours playign pvp you will probably get around 50 g from pvp in that time ( ranked) but spend the same amount of time in wvw and you will not be rewarded, its like the game is saying this game mode is not as important as this one, and that is not ok. oh and also i have a problem with roamers when i just try to do dailies i would like an option to invincible to roamers so i can do dailies and go away you can take the score bonus you would get from killing me from my char when i toggle that.

[Sovereign.1093]

wvw is fun. just the bugs need fixing and in game moderation on chat

[zinkz.7045]

> @ThomasC.1056 said:

> WvW is a competitive game mode.

 

It really isn't.

 

 

[sacredninja.5236]

> @zinkz.7045 said:

> > @ThomasC.1056 said:

> > WvW is a competitive game mode.

>

> It really isn't.

>

>

 

It once was

[GDchiaScrub.3241]

> @sacredninja.5236 said:

> > @zinkz.7045 said:

> > > @ThomasC.1056 said:

> > > WvW is a competitive game mode.

> >

> > It really isn't.

> >

> >

>

> It once was

 

Why are competitive sports not 3 way? (I guess you can include esports now)

[ThomasC.1056]

> @zinkz.7045 said:

> > @ThomasC.1056 said:

> > WvW is a competitive game mode.

>

> It really isn't.

 

Well, it's competitive in the sense that players are able to fight each other. I won't go any farther in that specific discussion ;)

 

 

[HazyDaisy.4107]

1) Give everyone back their server

 

2) Add pips to eotm (make it the que lobby / pre-raid gathering spot / recruiting hub / part of wvw)

 

3) Seperate the OS JP from the OS Arena.

3a) Add BL Jps to this seperate instance as well, so JPers aren't ganked (because everyone in this instance will be friendly pve green).

3b) Guilds will have a place to fight or watch fights if they want to, it could even be set up to allow any guilds from any tier (ie BG guild vs an SF guild)

 

4) Add new achievements for both EOTM and WvW.

 

5) Open and Lock servers every Friday before reset as necessary.

 

6) Ignore everyones complaints about any ramifications that result in the above changes for 6 months and then re-evaluate server linkings for the lowest populated servers.

[Titan.3472]

> @HazyDaisy.4107 said:

> 1) Give everyone back their server

>

> 2) Add pips to eotm (make it the que lobby / pre-raid gathering spot / recruiting hub / part of wvw)

>

> 3) Seperate the OS JP from the OS Arena.

> 3a) Add BL Jps to this seperate instance as well, so JPers aren't ganked (because everyone in this instance will be friendly pve green).

> 3b) Guilds will have a place to fight or watch fights if they want to, it could even be set up to allow any guilds from any tier (ie BG guild vs an SF guild)

>

> 4) Add new achievements for both EOTM and WvW.

>

> 5) Open and Lock servers every Friday before reset as necessary.

>

> 6) Ignore everyones complaints about any ramifications that result in the above changes for 6 months and then re-evaluate server linkings for the lowest populated servers.

 

1) No

2) Absolutely NO

3) Why not

4) Why not

4) No

5) Please elaborate why ?

6) W T F about -ignore-

[SkyShroud.2865]

I will highlight the word "competitive" that you mentioned. How do you define competitive?

[HazyDaisy.4107]

Something that would please some people would make others throw their hands up in disgust, thus you can't please everyone at the same time with single changes. But, if alot of drastic changes are made all at once and people aren't happy about one of those changes, they might be held over by another change they are happy with and just play rather than immediately throw their hands up in disgust. And by playing and ignoring ANY feedback from those that may not even participate in one particular activity (like eotm) Anet would be able to get honest feedback after a set cursory period from people that actually do those activities.

 

Take linkings for example, the majority was for it at first, and now it seems to be the thorn in in the perverbial wvw head, mst people are utterly disappointed, guest amd hosts alike.

 

Some hosts hate that their servers are locked, some guests hate that they are guests, some people are bored with the hum drum of wvw as it is now.

 

Locking and unlocking servers every week, essentially adding another map in the form of eotm, adding an actual place to recruit people, adding new achievments, adding a fight arena and a safe place to do a JP...I think something on that list would make most people happy enough to continue and break the hum drum, and it wouldn't cost those that want to continue doing what they do a thing, except maybe those that are perfectly happy with 50v5ing night after night, but they've had more than a year to do that, so that should've been long enough.

 

 

[MasterYoda.8563]

It's so much easier to piss everyone off with little effort than the effort it takes to please everyone in a more balanced way if they would make an effort to truly listen to WvW players that actually play the game far more than the Dev's do. It's clear that some of the changes made from the polls isn't working and causing more issues mainly the server linking every 2 months and the changes to algorithm determining server population lock/open status thus keeping some server perma locked and can't get fresh players in to replace the ones that leave.

[DeadlySynz.3471]

It's too dynamic to please everyone, and I think most people could care less what place they come in. I think what people more look for is whatever time slot they play in is actually facilitating "what" they indeed want to do. For example, for someone that, say, likes big group fights, isn't likely to find enjoyment when they log on to find a small group to run with while constantly get run down by a bigger group. It likely won't matter to them as an individual at the end of the week if their server wins the match by a landslide, because the time they actually play isn't enjoyable to them. They are likely to find solace moving to a server where at their time slot, has bigger group play and is even.

 

The same can be said for small group fights, if that's your cup of tea, you'll probably be miserable if you join a map and there is a 50 man omniblob running around on your side.

 

I think it's widely agreed that people do not like to play outnumbered in the sense that, there is literally is no point in participating in the match when you're constantly run over, even when you try to ninja objectives. That one guy trying to take a camp that draws 40 people (which happens all the time). The biggest change they can make that they make which could draw the biggest positive reaction would be one that imposes balance on the servers.

[RodOfDeath.5247]

> @Lionwait.4815 said:

> For most people it isn't about winning or losing at the end of the week. The issue is balance. Take care of one shot or three shoot builds. Take care of ghost town servers. It gets old fast to play out numbered fights.

>

> If it was up to me. I would take away the weekly winning system and make it a 2 daily tournament. I would add a twist where every account has the option to choose to play on another server. For an example: I log on and I don't like how dead my server is. I go and join for a one day limited time per week choose. Then the next day comes and it is still dead on my server so I get to choose to join another server for a day other then the server I joined yesterday. So..... what if the ques are high? Live and learn and in the next day choose another server to play on. Then make a tracking system for each individual showing their progress. Not many people care about how many kills their server has or deaths. What matters is the individual or guild tracking system on how many kills and deaths and points earned for the individual or guild group. Such a idea would make guilds want to communicate and where they will go and who they will face. This brings back the guild in Guildwars 2.

 

The ques would be high because everyone would bandwagon and thus wvw would be even more demoralizing for that "ghost" server" you left. Then everyone would complain there's not enough fights!!!

 

It would essentially turn into gvg at south camp/OBS, thus accomplishing nothing but leaving mindless pugs running around and lose interest in the game mode. I think the opposite effect would happen IMO. Another population issue driven by the players would take place and we'd be back to square one.

[Slade.2341]

The probelem is we give people everthing and they earn nothing,in db its hell to try to get the pugs in ts3 or discord so we can fight.So if there not tag then no pips I say and the we comanders force them to use ts3 or discord so we can fight or they get nothing! Condi needs to be fixed,tougtness can be made so 50% of condi dps in stoped which well fix the overwelming players that have no skill at all but press1 and kill 50 people in a spot my fire!Anet please fix this your only buffing condi dps and soon people well stop playing or do you even care that skilled players quiet?

[Lionwait.4815]

> @RodOfDeath.5247 said:

> > @Lionwait.4815 said:

> > For most people it isn't about winning or losing at the end of the week. The issue is balance. Take care of one shot or three shoot builds. Take care of ghost town servers. It gets old fast to play out numbered fights.

> >

> > If it was up to me. I would take away the weekly winning system and make it a 2 daily tournament. I would add a twist where every account has the option to choose to play on another server. For an example: I log on and I don't like how dead my server is. I go and join for a one day limited time per week choose. Then the next day comes and it is still dead on my server so I get to choose to join another server for a day other then the server I joined yesterday. So..... what if the ques are high? Live and learn and in the next day choose another server to play on. Then make a tracking system for each individual showing their progress. Not many people care about how many kills their server has or deaths. What matters is the individual or guild tracking system on how many kills and deaths and points earned for the individual or guild group. Such a idea would make guilds want to communicate and where they will go and who they will face. This brings back the guild in Guildwars 2.

>

> The ques would be high because everyone would bandwagon and thus wvw would be even more demoralizing for that "ghost" server" you left. Then everyone would complain there's not enough fights!!!

>

> It would essentially turn into gvg at south camp/OBS, thus accomplishing nothing but leaving mindless pugs running around and lose interest in the game mode. I think the opposite effect would happen IMO. Another population issue driven by the players would take place and we'd be back to square one.

 

You missed my point I made "live and learn" As for giving control in to each persons hands sounds a lot better then waiting on Anet to do something in a game mode that they don't understand.

[ThomasC.1056]

> @SkyShroud.2865 said:

> I will highlight the word "competitive" that you mentioned. How do you define competitive?

 

As I answered a bit above : competitive is here in the sense "players can fight each other". PvE is not competitive but cooperative, in that sense.

 

By the way, thanks everyone for the answers, both shorts and detailed.

[Reaper Alim.4176]

> @FogLeg.9354 said:

> WvW has 2 main problems, I do not believe it can be fixed without big changes to both of these:

>

> 1 - Best way to win a match is to capture objectives when enemy is not online

> 2 - Best way to win a fight is to bring more people

 

These are the two most fundamental problems with WvW. The only thing is, the 2 issue @"FogLeg.9354" brought up, makes ANet money from WvW players. So that issue will never go away. And because of issue 2, issue 1 will be a problem.