Population Imbalance Is Irrelevant

[Pillo.3490]

1. **"Winning" is not important. ** Other than getting an extra chest, manipulating the match as to the servers you want to face (which sometimes means that winning is actually losing if you move up in tiers to tiers you stand no chance on competing), and feeling good about yourself, winning in the game gets you absolutely nothing. The third place server is going to get as much rewards, if not more through the pip system.

2. **We need engaging content.** Aside from a few people, the average player plays the game around 2-4 hours a day (I don't have the raw data but that seems to be a reasonable estimate). So the next logical question is, if winning is not important then what is? I feel engaging player content should be the solution. Meaning that the game should encourage players to engage each other in a meaningful way. That means that the fact a server has no complete coverage, should not derail the level of engagement it has in the game. If a player is so outnumbered in a particular time zone, then the next ideal choice is moving to match up which that player increase his engagement level.

3. **Drawbacks**. The game and the old player mentality negates change. First, Anet makes it harder for people to engage each other. Meaning that the game promotes hiding in towers and defending through game added mechanics. With every expansion, new things come into the game that make it harder and harder for servers to engage each other. For example, the server that wants to take a fully upgraded keep, has to go through 1,100 supply, fortified gates and walls (I have no idea who though about this), guild buffs, ac's, cannons, mortars, disables, trebs, catapults, etc). When it is defended, it might even take 2-3 hours to flip one keep (sometimes with just one fight in between when you are able to reach inner). That means that you just spent your gaming time sitting on siege, waiting for an opportunity to flip an structure.

4. **Ideas:**

a. Set a threshold of player engagement to obtain rewards. Meaning that a player will need to kill (X) amount of people in order to obtain his rewards. (X) can be determined based on a reasonable number (i.e. average player time multiplied by (Y). This system was implemented through seasons in a much lower scale, meaning that is possible to do.

b. Remove some of the barriers that prevent players engaging each other. Double or Triple the amount of time that it takes to upgrade a structure. Return to reinforced walls and gates or add more powerful siege (i.e. rams and catapults). Remove the guild buff tactivators or lower their influence (i.e. siege and gates should not take 50% dmg reduction).

 

There are more ideas and more issues but the truth of the matter is that the player mentality in this game is what currently prevents this game from being more fun. Maybe the one possible solution is to create "ppt servers" and "fighting servers" similarly to how other games have pve servers or pvp servers. Meaning that all the players that care about "winning" can go ahead and play with each other and compete in their own way, and the players that want more players engagement can duke it out on their own as well. No perfect solution but here are my thoughts.

 

I don't care about bandwagon, I actually prefer to be in a server that is outnumbered if the "full server" will actually engage all the time. Let them bandwagon, those players will just bore themselves to death.

 

[Grim West.3194]

1 Winning is not important.

 

That is why WvW failed.

[Swamurabi.7890]

> @"Grim West.3194" said:

> 1 Winning is not important.

>

> That is why WvW failed.

 

WvW failed when losing was no longer fun.

[Loosmaster.8263]

Sounds like someone's KDR in in the sh*tter.

[DeadlySynz.3471]

I'd just be happy if they either drastically reduced or removed PPT all together and just replaced the ticks with gold/item rewards instead. Then completely weight the scoring system on capturing structures and kills. There are caveats to the kills though; any player touched with any siege anywhere (even if it's a bloated cow), does not count towards points. The only way a player kill gets points if they are untouched by siege. That means even with defending structures, the defenders are likely to get 0 points if they are hell bent on defending the structure, they'll use siege. That also means the attackers are likely to score more points even if they fail to capture.

 

The other caveat, player kills don't count if the outnumbered buff is present. But player who has the outnumbered buff whom kills another player gets say 10x the points.

[morrolan.9608]

> @"Pillo.3490" said:

> 1. **"Winning" is not important. ** Other than getting an extra chest, manipulating the match as to the servers you want to face (which sometimes means that winning is actually losing if you move up in tiers to tiers you stand no chance on competing), and feeling good about yourself, winning in the game gets you absolutely nothing. The third place server is going to get as much rewards, if not more through the pip system.

[...]

> 3. **Drawbacks**. The game and the old player mentality negates change. First, Anet makes it harder for people to engage each other. Meaning that the game promotes hiding in towers and defending through game added mechanics. With every expansion, new things come into the game that make it harder and harder for servers to engage each other. For example, the server that wants to take a fully upgraded keep, has to go through 1,100 supply, fortified gates and walls (I have no idea who though about this), guild buffs, ac's, cannons, mortars, disables, trebs, catapults, etc). When it is defended, it might even take 2-3 hours to flip one keep (sometimes with just one fight in between when you are able to reach inner). That means that you just spent your gaming time sitting on siege, waiting for an opportunity to flip an structure.

>

 

I do think population disparity is a big issue but the above 2 are issues as well especially 3. The sad thing is I don't think its even thought of that as an issue because there's a lack of understanding about the mode, that given its about sieging objectives that the combat should be based around siege, it just ends up being boring for those who want more.

 

[Aeolus.3615]

GW2 was made to make dev's avoid spending time adding mechanics to the game... dont texpect to much, reason they wanted a game for new players playing mmo's rather than anything else.

 

Just by making walls a good place to defend the keep would help alot, ANet never wanted to make the structure defended, and walls are a trap for team on offense farm the defernders.

 

Population is revelant cause it is the easiest way to farm and ktrain, due how broken the class design is, stack makes the game easyers the more aoe stacking stuff u had the easier it gets.

[Sovereign.1093]

gw2 needs incentives - competitive incentives.

[Aeolus.3615]

> @"Sovereign.1093" said:

> gw2 needs incentives - competitive incentives.

 

More ppt ktrain race?' xD

I dont imagine Anet adding more competitivity rather than that.... it is a bit of a slackers game.

 

 

[Sovereign.1093]

> @"Aeolus.3615" said:

> > @"Sovereign.1093" said:

> > gw2 needs incentives - competitive incentives.

>

> More ppt ktrain race?' xD

> I dont imagine Anet adding more competitivity rather than that.... it is a bit of a slackers game.

>

>

 

meh, i want there written in stone, guild so and so lead the war and won. here's your beaded pouch. =)

[xDudisx.5914]

Population is not irrelevant. If you outnumbered 3 to 1, lots of players will just change map or go pve

[Dawdler.8521]

> @"xDudisx.5914" said:

> Population is not irrelevant. If you outnumbered 3 to 1, lots of players will just change map or go pve

Only 3 to 1? Sounds like good odds to me :/

 

[Aeolus.3615]

> @"Dawdler.8521" said:

> > @"xDudisx.5914" said:

> > Population is not irrelevant. If you outnumbered 3 to 1, lots of players will just change map or go pve

> Only 3 to 1? Sounds like good odds to me :/

>

 

very very good... last time i decided to flip the camp back there was 5-8 guardian the camp and if 3 player smanaged to dificulty their effort to prevent capping back the cap the blob would arrive..

All this while playign outmaned...

 

 

[Cerby.1069]

anet just wants to stay in victim mode, and quite honestly most of the playerbase wants to as well. So we all do this stupid dance about how all these barriers need to be erected in what is supposed to be an open sandbox style mode....and by erecting these barriers we create more issues than we do fixes for our problems, and the problems can't be addressed BECAUSE of the barriers.

 

Its like having a patient 0 for a zombie apocalypse occur in ur city. And the outside world placing a giant dome over top of it ala simpsons movie. Yet all the resources you need to fix the problem and prevent the city from going all zombie are outside the dome......and ur sitting there for days saying "nothing has happened for days why the heck can't we get these supplies in here and solve the issues?!?!??". And the reply is "OH WE CAN'T GO IN THERE, U GOTT.A...U GOTTA STAY THERE, its tooooo dangeorus to try to fix things.....we gotta gotta let you just stay in there with the zombie to keep people safe!"

And most of the wvsw base is nodding their heads buying that argument. ANSWERS TO COMMON WVSW QUESTIONS.....god that thread proves how lost the mode is lol, its been done for a long time now haha.